# It's Time for Horse Training to Evolve



## CRK (Sep 26, 2012)

This may be a little controversial, but I'm going to post it anyway. I have long been bothered by many of the training methods that are commonly used today. In my opinion, too many horses are trained solely with harsh negative reinforcement - big bits, big spurs, chains, and all kinds of other gadgets designed to influence and control a horse through pain and confinement. To me, the saddest part is that it’s not mean, abusive people doing this. It’s simply people who are doing what they were taught to do or what they saw being done without ever stopping to ask "why" and "is there a better way"? 

I see many horses that appear well - behaved, but its only because they are shut down, tuned out, and numb. They have learned to hold their anxiety inside and to disconnect from their handlers. This is a natural response, people do it too when they reach a certain level of pain, fear, or heartbreak. The anxiety will still come out, though. Think about a stereotypical "big show barn" and how it kind of resembles a prison or asylum, with horses cribbing, weaving, pacing, or pinning their ears at the stall door. 

The science of behavior is an interesting field to study. I know that even after reading several books, I have only scratched the surface. In any type of training I will argue that there are two main schools of thought - training with positive reinforcement, and training with negative reinforcement. Let’s start with a simple example that anyone with a dog will probably recognize. You can teach a dog to sit with positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, or a combination. In negative reinforcement training, you pull up and back on the dog’s collar while using your hand to push his butt towards the ground. The dog eventually recognizes that in order to avoid discomfort he should sit when cued. In positive reinforcement, you wait until the dog starts sitting, then immediately reward the dog with a treat or a word (a word that the dog associates with good things, like treats, toys, or play). You then "shape" the behavior, waiting for more of a sit before you reward the next try, until the dog figures out that in order to get the "good thing" he needs to sit down. If you use a combination of positive and negative reinforcement to teach your dog to sit you might push his butt to the ground then give him a treat. Which method do you suppose produces the happiest dog, who most enjoys his training? It's the positive reinforcement. In the other methods, the dog tends to look unhappy and respond more slowly.

Now let me give you another example, this one relates to how we "train" ourselves, or motivate ourselves to do things we think we ought to be doing. Say you want to lose weight. If you use positive reinforcement on yourself, you will envision a new you - skinny and energetic. You will give yourself a mental pat on the back when you choose an apple over a brownie, or a salad over a steak. Now, if you are using negative reinforcement on yourself, you would handle your weight loss differently. You would look in the mirror and criticize how fat you look, then jab yourself mentally for not running this morning or skipping the last 15 min of spin class. Which method is going to make you happiest during your weight loss? What do you think? Are you starting to understand the difference between positive and negative reinforcement training? 

Now let me further define what negative reinforcement is in regards to horse training. Negative reinforcement is pressure, from our legs, the halter, even an aggressive way of walking or moving. Negative pressure does not necessarily mean pain, but it certainly includes it. Any bit, spur, or whip used improperly will cause real physical pain to our horses. 

Let’s pause for a moment and think about how many horses are ridden. Heels or spurs squeeze in to go forward, horse is collected, by pressure on the bit and maybe more leg contact. Rider takes horse through patterns, over jumps, whatever. Control is mostly with the legs and reins, pressure is applied somewhere to ask for a different movement. There is not a lot of positive, and when it is given it is often not in a way that the horse connects with the behavior. 

Now I am not saying that we should be only using positive reinforcement and never give a corrective yank on the lead rope or a bump with our legs. All I'm saying is that we need to think about our current training methods and look for ways to incorporate positive reinforcement into our riding and training. I have seen the difference this makes with my own horses - they are happier, more responsive, and feel like they are "looking" for the right answers to training questions. 

There are several ways to give positive reinforcement to a horse. It doesn't necessarily mean treats. Positive reinforcement can be rest, praise, or food. You can use safety and comfort as positive reinforcement, which can be very effective with horses. 

I don't have all the answers, but all I want to do with this article is get you asking "why" and "is there a better way"? Tune into your horse, think about what you are doing, and is your horse behaving because he wants to, because he knows that picking up a left lead canter somehow means good things, or does he pick up the left lead because he knows that if he doesn't your spur is going to be gouging his side?

Tough questions, I know. When I think back, I have made a ton of mistakes in the way I rode and trained, but I am always searching for a better way, and you can too! Always remember these timeless gems of equus wisdom - be slow and soft in your movements, always be tuned in to the horse, and keep your mind calm and clear, strive for a mind that is "like still water."


----------



## MaximasMommy (Sep 21, 2013)

*Look to the past*

I'm reading "The Complete Training of Horse and Rider In the Principles of Classical Horsemanship" by Alois Podhajsky, a former Director of the Spanish Riding School in Vienna. I think you would enjoy Classical Horsemanship, it is designed to keep the horse interested and motivated in its work. The way their horses are trained is so fine, that to give an aid is a slight movement. Nothing harsh. Anyway, I am really enjoying the book, as my first horse is a Lipizzan  I think you would too.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Everything old is new again. Nothing you're saying hasn't been said and practiced before, numerous times. 

Xenophon, considered the Father of Classical Equitation, stated as such back in 400 BC.

_Anything forced and misunderstood can never be beautiful. And to quote the words of Simon: __If a dancer was forced to dance by whip and spikes, he would be no more beautiful than a horse trained under similar conditions.
_-Xenophon -

_The one best precept-the golden rule in dealing with a horse-is never to approach him angrily. Anger is so devoid of forethought that it will often drive a man to do things which in a calmer mood he will regret. _
_ -_ Xenophon -

_If one induces the horse to assume that carriage which it would adopt of its own accord when displaying its beauty, then one directs the horse to appear joyous and magnificent, proud and remarkable for having been ridden._
_- _Xenophon -


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

CRK Yes, yes, I for one agree and I think I can say that so will the majority of Forum members who regularly contribute to the debate by posting to HF. But what you are saying is no more than what any believer in Natural Horsemanship might say.

The movement to treat horses kindly began after WW2, when slowly but surely leisure riders started to question the methods traditionally used by the military and the tradesmen who had used horses as beasts of burden. Even as late as 1950, there were in Britain probably more horses being used to pull carts than to ride as a leisure activity. The internal combustion engine killed off the horse and cart. Previously those professionals horse masters had needed for their horses to obey instantly especially in the inner cities. 

I am 74 and I can remember roads in London being covered with the dung excreted by horses pulling drays and carts. Milk was but one essential staple of life which was delivered on a daily basis by horse and cart. We also bought green grocery once a week which was delivered to the door by dray. So were sacks of coal delivered for the fireplace by men covered in coal dust. In the coal mining towns they used to drop free loose coal in a heap outside the front door. 

Later in life I learned to ride in the mid 1970s and I was taught by the old methods that horses must be dominated at all times. It took decades for me to realize that to achieve willing cooperation, the rider needed to understand what the horse was saying to the human when it was resisting. The old professionals used the fear, that all horses acquire at birth, to dominate. We trainer/riders should be taking the fear in a horse out of the equation when schooling the horse to willingly do what we ask of it.

Nowadays when schooling a horse we aren't asking the horse to do anything it cannot already do, but we are schooling the animal to do what we ask of it by applying an aid - hopefully in a kindly manner, say a mere squeeze of the calf or heel. 

Stacey Westfall demonstrates how a horse can be ridden without reins, bridle, bit, stirrups, crop or saddle. She is an object lesson to us all. In truth in many ways she is preaching to the converted - it is just that most of us, as yet, haven't acquired her skills. And let us be honest, we do not own the horse on which she demonstrated her skill.

CRK, go ahead and preach in your own style, the 'gospel' of enlightened horsemanship - but don't assume that your message is a new one. It is just that the influence of competition from some equine sports and the race track have not yet been subdued. 

Barry G


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Maybe it is because I don't ride at a 'barn' or stable, but I disagree with your fundamental argument: "_In my opinion, too many horses are trained solely with harsh negative reinforcement - big bits, big spurs, chains, and all kinds of other gadgets designed to influence and control a horse through pain and confinement._"

In the sense that one is too many, it is correct. However, none of the people I've met thru riding use that approach. I haven't seen any books arguing for it. You won't find anyone on HF arguing to beat your horse into submission, although you WILL find lots of us who will use negative reinforcement in our training. 

"_he knows that picking up a left lead canter somehow means good things, or does he pick up the left lead because he knows that if he doesn't your spur is going to be gouging his side_"

Well, I'm not going to hand my horse a carrot on the fly to reward 'good behavior'! Frankly, for INITIAL training, it is negative reinforcement. Once learned, they will find out moving that way is fun or at least more comfortable and balanced than not doing it.

If I have any concerns about modern training methods, it is that too many REJECT some form of appropriate punishment and end up with out-of-control horses. My mare doesn't control her little herd of 3 by handing out rewards. If they disobey, she uses teeth and hooves to enforce her will. And the two subordinate geldings respond how? By wanting to be with her and by looking to her for guidance when they are afraid.

So if I want my mare to look forward to being with me and to respond to a scary thing by asking me what I want to do, how can I do that? Hmmm......:?


----------



## CRK (Sep 26, 2012)

@Maximas Mommy, I read this book as well and loved it!

Perhaps I chose the wrong title for this post... I'm not trying to say I have any new ideas here at all. I just feel there are many people, myself included, who get stuck in old ways of doing things, and we should all be open to new ways (new ways to us, even if the methodology itself is old) of doing things.


----------



## BlueSpark (Feb 22, 2012)

_training is evolving, constantly._



> a stereotypical "big show barn" and how it kind of resembles a prison or asylum, with horses cribbing, weaving, pacing, or pinning their ears at the stall door.


these are vices born of abject boredom, and unnatural confinement, not training, abuse, or anything else. This is a natural thing when an intelligent animal that is designed to be moving 80% of the time is forced to stay in a box the equivalent size of a human bathroom. Lock a 2 year old child in an empty room with a glass of water and some cereal 3x a day. let them out to play for an hour, 5 days a week, then lock them back up. See how long it takes for abnormal behaviors to develop. Horses are made to move, play, socialize and eat. Constant stalling causes all sorts of high stress related issues. But this has nothing to do with training.

I think you are focusing on the negatives of horsemanship, those who over use spurs and big bits.

The key(to this and life) is balance. Your weight loss illustration for example. This is something I'm familiar with. Your positive motivation may be thinking about the 'new you', but you get negative feedback when you put on that target pair of pants that still don't fit. That helps spur you on to your goal, just as much as that mental picture of you on a beach in your bathing suit does.

At work, your boss doesn't say "you made a bad choice and cost the company money, but lets not talk about that, you showed up today on time, congratulations!" No, you make a mistake, their is a negative consequence, then, in the case of a great boss, they move on and try to be positive about you as an employee.

Same with dogs. I have been working with dogs with behavioural issues for years. I don't come home to a shredded couch and go "you chose to eat my couch over your chew toys. Lets focus on the positive and give you a treat for sitting!" No, they have a consequence, then we move on. And the sitting illustration. I would ask for a sit with a treat, and when I made my self abundantly clear and the dog still refused to comply, I would physically encourage them to sit. Then they would get the reward. Positive, negative if necessary, then back to the positive.

If I asked for a walk on my horse subtly, and she refused, I would ask more obviously. If she absolutely ignores me, she with get a smack with the crop, then we will move back to positive. My horses come running up to me in the pasture, begging to be worked, so some how I don't feel that they are resentful about 'negative reinforcement'. My dogs adore me, and listen to me without fear of being beaten.


----------



## CRK (Sep 26, 2012)

Bluespark, I agree completely, I use a combination of negative and positive with my own horses - you can't do everything with positive reinforcement, not with a dog, a horse, or a child. I do believe that many methods of horse training could use more positive reinforcement, not necessarily use it entirely. 

It is actually good to hear that many other people on the forum here are familiar with what I brought up, I grew up working in show barns, and I still have a lot of contact with that world, so I interact with many people who don't study either classic horsemanship or the new ideas that many clinicians are presenting (or re-presenting from others in the past.)


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

So -- do you think that a well-trained horse that carries a big bit is being abused?

Do you think a rider that wears spurs is automatically an abusive rider?

Define 'negative reinforcement'. 

Define 'positive reinforcement'. 

These definitions vary wildly in the horse community. I would be interested in YOUR definition.


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

Riding bareback and bridles isn't new, we often did it as kids, No one felt like hauling tack across a very large pasture so we'd just jump on and ride back. The horses turned well with a little knee pressure and stopped when we leaned back.


----------



## tlkng1 (Dec 14, 2011)

bsms and BlueSpark bring up excellent points. Other than freeing every horse in the land and never using any of them for anything again, any type of training, natural or otherwise, could be considered abuse. Think about it, when we "train" any thing what are we doing? We are forcing, no matter how kindly or patiently, a change in an animal's behavior from how it would naturally behave. Even natural horsemanship trainers ride a horse which by someone's definition of kindness to an animal could be considered abuse..I mean really, we add weight to the horse's back and expect them to haul us around?

As bsms pointed out, the dominant horses in a herd don't wait patiently for another horse to figure out that maybe snagging that hay is a bad thing and then reward them for moving off, no, they pin ears, squeal and kick..and a heck of a lot faster and a lot harsher in severity than our paltry methods.

I could reward my horse constantly for not running me over, biting me etc but it is not going to do anything when the horse decides to bite me because he is not going to equate all the pats and kind words for NOT doing it with the correction FOR doing it. I had an appy once, big boy grew to 17.1..no idea why but that's another story. He was a mouthy thing and I tried the easy going method..just pushing his nose away, ignoring it, distracting him. One day he tried to take a chunk out of me while I was in my tack box right next to him, got the sleeve of my sweater..I happened to have a crop in my hand, which I had but had never carried at all with him, and laid that thing across his nose..I was only 12 at the time so not too much force but he snorted, danced a bit and guess what, that horse never even tried to even lip at me again. He still got his treats, even hand fed ones and he was extremely delicate in how he took them after that. In a manner of speaking I did just what the lead horse would have done; made it sharp and clear. All my nagging previously to "be a good boy and don't do that" failed tremendously.

I certainly don't and have never abused my horses...I've been more accused of being too soft on them (except for ground manners..I correct those double time quick). I carry a dressage whip occasionally for nothing more than a reminder..I don't lash, just tap or touch as a cue; I prefer not to wear spurs but eventually I will have to if I get up to the level for which I am aiming..still, doesn't mean I actually have to USE them, just wear them. Spurs don't equate to cruelty either..most people only use the occasional touch..they don't dig in or go crazy and leave bloody scratches.


----------



## CRK (Sep 26, 2012)

Negative reinforcement is something that the horse moves away from, positive reinforcement is something the horse moves toward. Neither is inherently bad or good, its how each is used. Spurs and big bits are not "abusive" but they can be used to train the horse with pain. Used correctly, they can be a tool for giving high level cues, but they are often not used as they should be and by riders who know how to use them. 

In writing this post, I did not intend to ruffle feathers, although I knew it would bring up some differing opinions. I simply intended it as a reminder that we all need to understand how our horse's behavior and how they learn and then be open to better ways of doing things. I'm sure there are parts I could of re-phrased that would bring my point across in a better way.


----------



## CRK (Sep 26, 2012)

One other point I want to bring up - I probably should have included this in the first post so it was more clear! 

I'm talking about training in regards to teaching a horse a new maneuver, or riding a youngster for the first time as he learns to go forward and stop. 

@tlking - your post is well written, and I agree with you, I would consider stopping biting, kicking, or space issues as "setting boundaries." Anyone that works with a horse absolutely has to set boundaries and how you do this depends on the horse. You don't teach a horse not to bite using treats. 

However, you can train a horse to, go in the trailer, for example using treats or another form of positive reinforcement. This article from The Horse covered an interesting test done by the University of Delaware. http://www.thehorse.com/articles/32383/positive-negative-reinforcement-in-horse-training-compared


----------



## CRK (Sep 26, 2012)

Here is another article about a study done at a University in France about how positive reinforcement training boosts memory: Training: Positive Reinforcement Improves Horse Memory | TheHorse.com

And I loved this book by Karen Pryor called Don't Shoot the Dog, its a good read if you are interested in behavior science. Don't Shoot the Dog!: The New Art of Teaching and Training: Karen Pryor: 9781860542381: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I do think you have to be careful not to generalize too much - maybe it was intended but it does come over a bit that way
Not all horses in competition yards are bored, sullen, unhappy, and loaded with stable vices. On a well run yard the horses get far more attention that a horse kept 24/7 in the field and if correctly worked with turn out periods they live happy lives - these horses have often never experienced life in a herd, they are born in stables and handled from the 'get go' so what is normal to them is very different to what's normal for a mustang that's lived without humans and fences
Not all people revert to harsh methods and artificial aids to break and train horses and they never have. You can soon tell a horse that's been treated like that
Barry G - I have to disagree about the WW2 comment. My grt grandfather was born in 1876 and died when I was 14. He was the kindest man around horses I have ever known and never needed to raise a whip or his voice around them. Same with the uncle (a cousin of my grandfathers) who most influenced me in the ways of breaking horses - he would be about 113 now and had been breaking horses since he was a boy taught by his father who was taught by his father and so on.... He would spend as much time as it took and never resorted to violence
People mostly revert to cruelty and force when they don't know what they're doing and/or can't be bothered to spend the time and patience to allow the horse learn each step at a time and work willingly with them
Though I will agree that horses do bully each other in the field and can hurt each other far more than the occasional slap we might need to give them alongside otherwise fair kind treatment but 
We are *not* horses - we are humans with superior intelligence.


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

More attention should be paid to the theories behind horse riding before the novice is allowed to jump up onto the back of a horse and ride circles in an arena. The rider should learn how to counter Newton's laws of physics - hard ground hurts. There is also good practice to absorb about how to control half a tonne of wilful horse flesh. And how to sit correctly on the back of a horse in a balanced position is a matter of theory and practice.

Elsewhere, learning to fly a private light plane involves learning the theory of flight, a demonstration by an instructor, actual practice of control by the novice and a de briefing _after every flight. _ It is uncommon for a trainee pilot to go solo in less that 25 hours of dual tuition. And later, the private pilots licence calls for a comprehensive written examination to have been passed by the trainee. Yet flying is a lot less dangerous to the novice pilot and to onlookers than horse riding - as the insurance companies will quickly point out.

Much more time should be spent by the novice rider in the class room. And more attention should be given to the principles behind horse control and how to sit correctly on the back of a horse. As for novice riders buying unschooled horses off the race track with the idea of training the horse to ride, well, in this modern world - that is a matter of the blind leading the blind.

A horse weighs at least half a tonne; it has the mouth the size of an alligator's; it can run at 25 miles per hour and has four steel shod feet each of which can break a leg or crush a foot of any unsuspecting onlooker. It is an intelligent creature, with a mind of its own, it is motivated by fear and should be approached with care and respect.

The teaching of any subject as complex as horse riding is an art in itself. Not every good rider can teach the novice. It is time we looked more closely at whom is licensed to teach horse riding and perhaps more importantly we considered what syllabus and theories should be taught to newcomers to the sport.

BG


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

I'm honestly not sure that I share the same opinions as OP. Though I am not very familiar with "classical horsemanship", I did spend a good deal of time in show barns, so I am at least familiar with that.

I rode at a Hunter/Jumper barn for many years. Sure, there were some horses that had vices, but I definitely wouldn't consider the establishment anything like a prison. The horses, for the most part, were all alert and happy.

Anything can be used to hurt a horse. I can smack a horse with a boot if I so felt inclined. Spurs, whips, bits are all training aids. If used properly, they do not create the aforementioned issues.


----------



## JaphyJaphy (Nov 15, 2012)

Big bits, whips, and spurs are not automatically indicative of harsh and abusive training.

It's not the equipment of the method you use, it's _how_ you use those tools. I think we sometimes fail to see the forest for the trees when it comes to training horses, becoming too fixated on a particular training method or piece of tack being distinctly "good" or "bad".


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

I completely disagree with how you define positive and negative reinforcement. 

If a negative reinforcement is defined as anything a horse moves away from, then you are left with coaxing and mental telepathy to use for cues and aids. You apply a light leg cue or aid and you expect a horse to move away from that pressure. It is an aid and not a negative or abusive use of pressure. 

Pressure or aids that are used to the extreme so that they cause pain and agony have become abusive. If they only cause a little discomfort (like a fly landing on a horse's side would cause), how is that abusive? But tell us, if you cannot ask a horse to move away from pressure, just how do you train it?

I have personally found the the release of pressure is the only 'reward' a horse needs. It tells the horse immediately that it has done the right thing. 

As for bits, I have observed that the simple snaffle is the most abusive bit used. It is hands and techniques that I find abusive -- not the actual bits or spurs. I have seen people hang and jerk on the reins with a simple snaffle until the made open bleeding sores on the corners of a horse's mouth. I frequently see horses that throw their heads straight up in the air with snaffles, not because the bit is severe, but because the rider has little skill and is 'hanging on' by the reins.

Let me use a little illustration: Say I am teaching proper lead departures on the requested lead. I lightly squeeze with my inside leg to maintain 'shape' and direction. I move my outside leg back an inch or two and lightly squeeze to ask the horse to move his hip slightly to the inside. Then, I 'smooch' and squeeze a little more with my outside leg and expect the horse to move immediately into a lope/ canter on the designated lead.

Now, let's say the horse started to take the wrong lead -- I immediately bring him back to a walk and ask again. My ability to interrupt his departure in the wrong lead is negative reinforcement. I stop or interrupt the wrong response, effectively 'closing' that door to him. I am not abusing him but I am letting him know that he gave me the wrong answer or response.

I immediately re-ask for correct lead. I may have to do this many times when I am first teaching proper lead departures. I do not need to jerk or spur or 'hurt' the horse in any way. I only need to close the door to the wrong response. When he takes the correct lead, I do not pet or praise the horse. [That would only completely confuse him.] I simply 'get out of his way', leave the door open and let him proceed for a good ways on the correct lead. His only reward is me staying out of his face and out of his ribs. 

When trained this way, horses stay calm and happy and learn about anything they are capable of doing that the riders is qualified to also do. Proper use of pressure and the release of that pressure will get about anything done without abuse.


----------



## NeryLibra (Oct 9, 2013)

In their native language, horses learn from the sharp and concise actions of lead horses or higher ups in the herd. If a colt marches up to an adult and promptly lays into it using his teeth, you can bet the other horse isn't going to gently push him away; as was mentioned earlier. My question to you is, why do you think we should do the opposite of what any other horse would? We hear all the time that we're "partners" or that we're "our horses leader" but if he's biting us or otherwise disrespecting us - are we really? Pushing the horse's face away is a slap on the wrist, it doesn't have a consequence other than the pathetic "Pony don't do that!" and it leaves room for more error, making the horse potentially dangerous. Watch a horse perform the swift kick and everyone laughs, watch a human do the human's equivalent of the swift kick and it's automatically abuse. There's a point where a line Must be drawn for us to have strong consequences for strong actions. .. I digress.

A horse's natural language is body language and pressure. It is used all of the time for every situation. Whether the situation is pinning its ears and snaking a mare away from another stallion in the wild, or pinning its ears and snaking everyone else away from the food in a pen. This is something they know, understand and respect. It's something we can very easily translate into human in order to speak with our horses, please see: lunging. It's an easy game really. You apply pressure until the horse moves off, you release pressure and let the horse continue moving and you add pressure back when he misbehaves. We're not patiently nagging a horse to do what we want, are we? You don't stand idly by the horse's hip and tell him to walk on several times over, calling it quits and walking away when he doesn't move, do you? Unless you're standing in the center pointing to the left and using a baby-voice to tell your horse to move, your answer's no. You get snappy, you want something and you want it _now. _You have just turned into the lead horse. Are you abusing your horse though?

In lunging not moving has a consequence of being chased or having rope thrown at the hip. When biting, people who get "nasty" (like 12 yr old tlking did) give a consequence as big as the bite. In leading, people who get "nasty" will back a horse off using increasing pressure until a foot goes back and nowhere else. Most trainers I know are happy with just a step back, but they're not patiently and gently tugging the rope backward. They're getting big and they're doing it fast. All of this pressure is something a horse understands. It's the native.

The foreign language is stuff a horse -wouldn't- naturally understand and that is where the patient, slow approach is necessary. Things like pulling a cart or being tacked up and ridden around a ring. A horse's natural instinct when galloping isn't to gallop around a 2-acre circle. They learn quick but it's still a strange topic to them. This is where I found (when I was learning to train and watching my instructor train too) the most patience was necessary. My instructor didn't have to get harsh when the first saddle when on and the mare threw a bucking tantrum; she also didn't have to get harsh when the mare's first instinct on the first canter out in the big arena was to go through the grooming area. My instructor corrected her by lunging her or by turning and pointing her back into the arena, where pressure consequences still applied. She learned quickly. Did my instructor abuse the horse? Likewise, when I was learning to train an unruly school horse who was known for charging, biting, and running into and ahead of people walking him I had sharp consequences. I whacked him on the nose hard for biting me and leaving a bruise (when the original response was to push him away), he never bit again. I got up in his face when he tried running me over after a tarp spooked him, he lead quietly after that. He used to charge people in the paddock when they went to catch him, so I charged at him back like a wild person, flailing a lead rope and making all sorts of "squeals" to get him away from me, he didn't charge after that. He's still used as a lesson horse, he's not head shy, spooky, and his ears are almost always forward. Did I abuse him?

Just remember that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. For charging, biting, and leading poorly, the horse was almost always rewarded at the grooming station or ignored - what he wanted. It was opposite of what he did, but it wasn't equal. When the tables were turned on him, he gave me what I wanted and my old lesson barn needed. His consequences were huge but he learned, just as he would have in the herd.

Yeah, used incorrectly, bits can be bad. Spurs, crops and whips can be bad too. But it's my experience that most horse people I've met are a lot more enlightened then people are giving them credit for. It's a matter of learning how to ride properly, being given enough time on the ground with a horse to learn how things work from both perspectives, and being given the room to learn how to ensure a horse is a safe partner.

Regardless, I agree with some of your original points. There needs to be positive reinforcement, and the release of pressure is almost -always- that positive stuff they look for. I'm not throwing an apple at the horse's head while we're lunging to reward him with the hopes that he eats, enjoys and understands why an apple was thrown his way. We do always end on a positive note. The positive "tone" of my voice is used as a vocal reward when something is done perfectly on his part. It's just a matter of balance and being able to show restraint in keeping consequences from turning into abuse.


----------



## Endiku (Dec 6, 2010)

My filly cribs and paces. I have never done a single thing to harm her, and she lives in an optimal herd situation with 5 acres to run around on with multiple other horses and as much hay and water as she feels like taking in. She cribs because she gets bored or uneasy (she's a nervous creature and anything even slightly out of the ordinary induces circling and cribbing) and it makes her feel better. IMO it has nothing to do with how she feels about me or about where she lives. She cribbed in a stall, cribbed in a panel pen, cribbed in a dry lot, cribbed in a pasture, cribbed alone, and cribbed with as many as 8 other horses. Does she do it less when pastured with other horses and lots of food? absolutely. Will she ever stop? I don't think so.

She comes from a truly neglectful/abusive situation. I know many people call their horses 'rescues' because they weren't in the PERFECT situation when the person bought them, but Kenzie (my filly) legitimately was abused. She was at half the body weight she should have been, had thrush, rain rot, worms and a severe illness that nearly killed her. She lived alone with no shelter, no food, and a muddy piece of land as her home. Later her ear was severed purposely by an angry person who was trying to get revenge on her then-owner. 

Most people's reaction to a horse like her, once bringing her home, would be to coddle her. Give her hugs and kisses, forgive normally corrected behavior because 'she couldn't help it', let her walk all over them. I did not. When I first started rehabbing her, even when she still had pressure sores from lying on her death bed for 5 days, when she was barely strong enough to walk, and when every bone in her body was sticking out, I demanded that she respect my space and I would respect hers. She was expected to walk quietly with me wherever I asked her to, and to hold still when I doctored her. When she started feeling good and tried to paw at her food in excitement, I quickly and sharply reprimanded her. Would some people say I was harsh? I don't know. Maybe. But was I fair? Absolutely. I gave her a new lease on life, and all I expected from her was to behave civilly, stand still while I took care of her, and to not get in my space. If she did, it was one sharp smack, yank, or yell...whichever got the point across, then it was back to normal. It only took her once or twice to learn exactly what I wanted and it made her a better horse. She's polite and obedient, and looks to me when she's afraid without trying to trample me. And she obviously doesn't hate me too much considering that she comes running up to me when she sees me approaching her paddock, no matter what she's doing. 

Yes, positive reinforcement can be good, but only to a certain extent and only in some situations. And the fact is that a horse who has been taught only by positive reinforcement is never going to learn as quickly or with as much refinement as one who has been fairly taught by pressure and release. It will take a horse, dog, or child a lot longer to realize that he gets a cookie or a pat every time he does x but not when he does y and sometimes if he does z, than to realize that x causes slight discomfort and y means he can continue going forward every single time.


----------



## Elana (Jan 28, 2011)

Actually, when it comes to reinforcement you have not read enough. 

Positive Reinforcement is: Adding a pleasant stimulus to increase the frequency of a behavior (giving a treat to a dog for sitting). 

Negative Reinforcement: Adding a negative stimulus to increase the frequency of a behavior (using an electrical stimulus on a dog collar while the dog walks away from you and stopping the stimulus when the dog turns toward you)

Positive Punishment: Adding a negative stimulus at the time of a behavior to decrease its occurrence (correcting a dog by yanking its collar or smacking a horse with a whip for kicking)

Negative Punishment: Removing a pleasant stimulus to decrease a behavior (withholding a treat from a dog who doesn't sit on cue). 

In a horse, typically training is a combination of all these things. 

It is far easier to think of training as reading the animal (first thing you need to learn) and then applying pressure and/or releasing pressure to elicit a response. Application of pressure and release consistently until the response is consistent is training. 

It isn't complicated.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

Elana said:


> Negative Reinforcement: Adding a negative stimulus to increase the frequency of a behavior


negative reinforcement is the removal of an aversive stimulus. the "negative" and "positive" in this case are only mathematical terms.


----------



## CRK (Sep 26, 2012)

CRK said:


> Now I am not saying that we should be only using positive reinforcement and never give a corrective yank on the lead rope or a bump with our legs. All I'm saying is that we need to think about our current training methods and look for ways to incorporate positive reinforcement into our riding and training. I have seen the difference this makes with my own horses - they are happier, more responsive, and feel like they are "looking" for the right answers to training questions.
> 
> There are several ways to give positive reinforcement to a horse. It doesn't necessarily mean treats.


I just wanted to quote my original post as I feel this part of the message was not always read.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

You went on to say:

"_There are several ways to give positive reinforcement to a horse. It doesn't necessarily mean treats. *Positive reinforcement can be rest, praise, or food. You can use safety and comfort as positive reinforcement, which can be very effective with horses.*_"

Rest, praise or food. Eliminate treats (food), and that leaves rest, praise, safety and comfort. Praise is a very weak positive to my horses. Rest is a bit better, but it is kind of hard to reward a balanced canter with rest. OTOH, it is easy to reward a balanced canter with removing the negative (squeezing with the legs). Safety is a nebulous concept to apply to horse training. Assuming you do not put them into danger, how to you then give them safety? 

We mostly use pressure followed by release of pressure because the release is a strong positive to the horse and it is frequently available.

Comfort IS a positive, but we use the precision of the release to bring them to a state where, over time, they learn comfort. For example, my mare used to be very fearful. With a curb bit, she had to choose between feeling the curb strap engage, which she hates, or standing still in the face of something scary. When she did the latter, she soon began to figure out that I knew what was genuinely worth being afraid of, and things that only seem scary to her. As a result, the negative of the curb strap made it possible for her to learn that listening to me brings comfort & safety & the removal of fear.

The more she listens to the curb strap long enough to face a fear, the more she learns that obeying me when scared results in the scary thing going away. It takes the negative, however, to show her what the positive is. It isn't an either/or proposition. One uses one to achieve the other, with the end result being a horse who WANTS to obey because good things happen when she does. IMHO.


----------



## MaximasMommy (Sep 21, 2013)

Just observing how my horse is being trained, and reading the book I mentioned, here is what I'm seeing the positive reinforcement as. He is guided to do the desired action, and when he doesn't get it, the trainer calmly stops him and starts over with guiding him to do the action. Pretty much as soon as he does it, everything is stopped with lots of happy fussing and lesson time is over. It works, because the next lesson, he's either got the idea completely or just needs a few minutes of guiding to get it down! Short lessons that end when he shows the desired action. Even if he doesn't get it in one lesson, the process is the same. We all know he is trying because he is curious about what is happening and he really wants to learn!


----------



## nikelodeon79 (Mar 3, 2008)

Positive reinforcement: presenting a rewarding stimulus after the desired behavior has been exhibited. (i.e. a pat on the neck for a job well done)

Negative reinforcement: a negative stimulus is removed after the desired result is exhibited. (i.e. leg pressure removed after the horse turns the correct direction)

Positive punishment: presenting a negative stimulus after an undesired behavior. (i.e. the horse tries to buck, rider applies leg pressure and makes him "work" by turning in a small circle)

Negative punishment: desired stimulus is removed after an undesired behavior. (couldn't think of a riding example, but if you're on the ground and offering a treat, if the horse is too pushy while trying to grab it you take the treat away) 

Carry on...


----------



## Incitatus32 (Jan 5, 2013)

Personally I don't see big bits, spurs, whips and other training tools (like side reins, etc) as being abusive or negative punishment. Abuse/severe negative punishment in my mind is 100% the riders doing. I've given my horses more than their fair share of smacks both under saddle and non, and had less then pleasant conversations with them and used some of those 'horrible' training tools, spurred some horses who needed it, and heck I even ride in what I recently found out was a 'god-awful' bit for a horse. With that said I've never had my horses cringe from me and they're always willing to do what I ask in tandem with me, not out of fear. The negative punishment depends on the horse, some respond better to it, and some respond better to more positive methods - neither method in my opinion and experience cause a horse to become beaten down and terrified unless taken to an extreme. It's all in the individual; my mare is good with an occasional 'good girl' or other affectionate sound and treat after she's done riding. Or if she's really on my crap list a smack has never hurt her none. My gelding under saddle loves the harshest contact you can give him (he's a freak I know....). When he does something right or is worried his reward is for me to tighten the reins. 

Otherwise I agree with Bsms and cherie, just had to throw my two cents in about the equipment.


----------



## nikelodeon79 (Mar 3, 2008)

Elana said:


> Actually, when it comes to reinforcement you have not read enough.
> 
> Positive Reinforcement is: Adding a pleasant stimulus to increase the frequency of a behavior (giving a treat to a dog for sitting).
> 
> ...


LOL. I feel dumb. I didn't read the third page of the thread before I posted (and said basically the same thing).


----------



## Ian McDonald (Aug 24, 2011)

Barry Godden said:


> The teaching of any subject as complex as horse riding is an art in itself. Not every good rider can teach the novice. It is time we looked more closely at whom is licensed to teach horse riding and perhaps more importantly we considered what syllabus and theories should be taught to newcomers to the sport.
> 
> BG


I agree with what you're saying here in principle. The market for riding instructors and horse trainers especially in the US is very much one of "caveat emptor". However the problem with licensing as I see it is that there is so much natural variation in styles of riding and approaches to horses in general, it begs the question of who is qualified to create that kind of 'universal' standard? Also, credentials alone are not the most reliable judge of a horseman's quality. Speaking solely from my own experience, at every level of the horse world from some dirt lot with $10 horses up to some pretty expensive places I've seen examples of brilliant horsemanship as well as gross incompetency. 

Perhaps what we do need is for more good teachers to become more business-savvy and create better programs to help the beginners along!


----------



## Ian McDonald (Aug 24, 2011)

CRK said:


> Here is another article about a study done at a University in France about how positive reinforcement training boosts memory: Training: Positive Reinforcement Improves Horse Memory | TheHorse.com
> 
> And I loved this book by Karen Pryor called Don't Shoot the Dog, its a good read if you are interested in behavior science. Don't Shoot the Dog!: The New Art of Teaching and Training: Karen Pryor: 9781860542381: Amazon.com: Books


LOL even before I saw this I was thinking "someone's been reading "Don't Shoot the Dog"". :wink:


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

I have learned that when teaching a horse something new, in increments and with each small accomplishment I turn my back to the horse and walk away. That is a huge reward as the pressure is removed. When it is time to ask for it all, the horse will do it willingly and with try, and again I turn and walk away. A human fussing over a horse is not horse lingo. Just for fun, try not talking to your horse because when we do most of what is hears is just noise.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I think there's probably too much pressure on how fast riders (and horses) learn and not enough on how well they've learnt it
There's the 'I've had two lessons and I still can't rise to the trot'
and
My horse has been broke a week a now and still can't get his lead changes right
There is nothing wrong with *fair* negative reinforcement. The crime is when a horse gets punished for not being able to do something the rider or trainer never took the time to clearly educate it about or when a rider/handler allows something one day but forbids it the next
I find it unusual that any horse that's 'bonded' to a person wouldn't respond to verbal praise as positive reinforcement


----------



## MaximasMommy (Sep 21, 2013)

Saddlebag said:


> I have learned that when teaching a horse something new, in increments and with each small accomplishment I turn my back to the horse and walk away. That is a huge reward as the pressure is removed. When it is time to ask for it all, the horse will do it willingly and with try, and again I turn and walk away. A human fussing over a horse is not horse lingo. Just for fun, try not talking to your horse because when we do most of what is hears is just noise.


Haahahaha really? Isn't that supposed to be something people do for "joining up"? So it's a reward? LOL!?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"_I find it unusual that any horse that's 'bonded' to a person wouldn't respond to verbal praise as positive reinforcement_"

Well, I think Mia likes me well enough, but saying, "You're a good girl" to her is not a very strong positive reinforcement. She responds well to soft tones when she is nervous, but saying "Good girl" when she stops well probably has about 1% of the effect that 60 seconds of rest has. Maybe if I learned how to say it in Arabic...:wink:


----------



## onuilmar (Feb 8, 2013)

CRK said:


> Negative reinforcement is something that the horse moves away from, positive reinforcement is something the horse moves toward. Neither is inherently bad or good, its how each is used.





Cherie said:


> I completely disagree with how you define positive and negative reinforcement.


The above definition of positive and negative reinforcement is a technical, scientific definition. This is how "reinforcement" is defined by B.F. Skinner of behavioral or learning theory psychology.

Disagreeing with it is like disagreeing with Galileo's definition of gravity. Well, may be not quite, but...


----------



## BlueSpark (Feb 22, 2012)

> The above definition of positive and negative reinforcement is a technical, scientific definition. This is how "reinforcement" is defined by B.F. Skinner of behavioral or learning theory psychology.
> 
> Disagreeing with it is like disagreeing with Galileo's definition of gravity. Well, may be not quite, but...


well then, I'm moving into the negative camp for good. To me it should be a wrong decision/serious mistake has negative consequences, a right decision has a reward. In the case of a horse, refusing to go forward out of laziness or disrespect may get them a swap with my crop(negative), while going forward when asked will result in an immediate release of pressure(reward, possitive)

Its only when the possitive and negative(by my definition, not the non applicable one above) get unballanced that you have problems.


----------



## flytobecat (Mar 28, 2010)

I don't have really have anything to add other than at least in my area, it seems more common to see a spoiled disrespectful horse versus an abused one. Very few of the problem horses I've been around are truly acting out of fear, most are just being horses and trying to establish themselves above you in the pecking order.


----------



## CRK (Sep 26, 2012)

I just wanted to thank everyone for their feedback on this, whether you agreed or disagreed! Before I put this on on my blog, I went through and rewrote the article in an attempt to make it more objective and better convey my intent. You helped me realize which parts were truly my personal opinions (us horse people can have such strong opinions) and only made people defensive, and also to cite my writing better so it doesn't look like I am trying to claim the credit for all of these ideas as my own! Thanks again!


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

onuilmar said:


> The above definition of positive and negative reinforcement is a technical, scientific definition. This is how "reinforcement" is defined by B.F. Skinner of behavioral or learning theory psychology.
> Disagreeing with it is like disagreeing with Galileo's definition of gravity. Well, may be not quite, but...


negative reinforcement is not "something that the horse moves away from" and positive reinforcement is not "something the horse moves toward".


----------



## Northern (Mar 26, 2010)

The right way to relate to horses is the way they relate to each other: I like to remember to ask myself, "What would the alpha horse do in this situation?" 

Of course, we humans present unnatural situations to the horse by asking them to be ridden, driven, etc., so it's an art to maintain the horse's wellbeing amid those demands.

The horse's wellbeing MUST be maintained, first & foremost. As soon as that is forgotten, in the equation of wanting to achieve some human goal with the horse, we've got trouble at the OK Corral.

The horse will tell you if your approach is wrong, more surely than any theory of training.


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

> The above definition of positive and negative reinforcement is a technical, scientific definition. This is how "reinforcement" is defined by B.F. Skinner of behavioral or learning theory psychology.
> 
> Disagreeing with it is like disagreeing with Galileo's definition of gravity. Well, may be not quite, but...


Well, I hate to tell you this, but the horses I have trained have not read this book.

If you watch a herd of horses interact with each other, what do you think positive and negative reinforcement are? 
What 'reward' is a horse looking for?
What do YOU consider to be a reward for doing the right thing?

My observations tell me that any horse WANTS to be accepted and NOT be chastised and beaten away from the herd. A baby is usually NOT treated badly by the herd because they 'clack'. This is action when a baby or young horse repeatedly opens their mouth with their necks outstretched and their nose turned up. This chewing motion, called 'clacking' tells any older horse: "I am a baby. Don't hurt me. I am no threat to your position in the herd. I am not challenging you." All babies do this and many yearlings and even 2 year olds will do this when an older horses gives them an evil 'drop dead' threatening look.

Other than mutual grooming (mostly scratching each other's withers and shoulders), horses seldom tough each other. They want to be close, but I have observed that they seldom touch each other or want physical contact. Even when they are standing nose to tail to swat flies, they usually are not touching one another.

When I started out training horses in large number over 50 years ago, (I used to start over 50 horses a year back then) I started out using a lot of what I considered 'positive reinforcement' with a lot of petting and talking and praise. I also watched a lot of horses being ridden by very good trainers that were asking a LOT out of their horses. Some petted and praised their horses and others were just very business-like and did nothing that I could call a reward of any kind other than removing pressure.

I had already figured out that most learning came from the horse yielding to pressure and that when I released the pressure at the right time, the horse would repeatedly perform the task. So, as I trained more and more horses I started experimenting on how petting and praising a horse after it did something well worked compared to just leaving the horse alone and not touching it. 

After training a LOT of horses with or without praise and patting, I came to the conclusion that the less I touched and messed with a horse, the more quickly it learned the lessons. I figured out that accepting nothing less than absolute obedience and respect did more to help a horse learn something than anything else I could do.

I have trained many horses that I never spoke to at all while I was riding them and never petted or interacted with them in any way other than to teach them, step by step, what I wanted to teach them. 

As the years went by, I found myself talking less and less to horses and interacting with them using my hand, leg and seat aids to teach them what they were ready to learn. 

The more I watched others train horses, the more I was convinced that a lot of petting and praise and interacting with the horse just confused the horse. I absolutely believe that the only reward a horse needs and truly understands is the 'release of all pressure'. In other words, it is 'acceptance' and nothing negative happening that they crave -- just like the herd member that wants nothing more than to be accepted by the herd, especially the herd leader.

I challenge people here on this board that have trained many (or at least several) horses, to pick one or two and be determined to not offer any praise, treats for rewards or anything else when the horse does the right thing. Train a horse for at least 30 days seriously and come back and tell us if the horse learned just as fast or faster than when they offered their 'usual' rewards and usual positive reinforcement.

I absolutely believe that if you remove all pressure, drop your head and back up a step or turn your back to reward the right thing on the ground, the horse learns more readily than for anything else you can do. I believe that releasing pressure and contact with your reins and legs is the only reward he understand under saddle. 

I think horses can be conditioned to accept petting and hugging and messing with them, but I also think they would be happier if you just left them alone.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Horses adapt to humans like we adapt to them. So I talk to my horses because I like to do so, and they have become accustomed to it. I don't believe they learn faster or better from it. It might even slow things down. But after 5 years together, Mia would probably assume the absence of talking meant I had fallen asleep...or died. :lol: 

Kind of like what I think when my wife stops talking...:hide:


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

petting horses is what WE like. it's for our benefit and keeps us happy. They pretty much put up with it.
talking to them is pretty much for our benefit, too.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

I agree with Cherie. 
I too hVe trained more horses than I can count.
Nothing to add to Cherie's posts except to say that I am coming across more ill mannered, pushy horses because owners only believe in positive reinforcement.


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

Cherie, I'm in your boat.

I don't have anything to add to this thread that you haven't brought up already.


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> petting horses is what WE like. it's for our benefit and keeps us happy. .


If petting includes scratching under her chin, my haffy would like to disagree.


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

Cherie said:


> Other than mutual grooming (mostly scratching each other's withers and shoulders), horses seldom tough each other. They want to be close, but I have observed that they seldom touch each other or want physical contact. Even when they are standing nose to tail to swat flies, they usually are not touching one another.
> 
> 
> 
> .


I have to disagree with this completely, my herd of four do touch each other a great deal, my TB will rub her head into the others which I think is almost a dominanace thing, they all put up with it, and my haflingers and constantly touching each other - nose to rumps, heads to necks and I'm not talking about mutual grooming, my small pony is the only one who tries to keep himself to himself, but he puts up with the other mares.

Without looking too hard through my photos, here are my too haffies not grooming , but touching and they do the same in the winter (when there are no flies)


----------



## MaximasMommy (Sep 21, 2013)

I think that dropping the petting and baby talking act works with most animals. 

As a dog walker, I let the dogs know that they were supposed to walk at a heel unless I told them to go potty. I transformed a lot of pulling, yapping monsters into well mannered walkers. I watched their owners take the well mannered walker that knew what it was supposed to do, and turn it back into a crazy yapping pulling mess because the "dog needs to run around and smell things and enjoy being outside". 

I think the dogs liked the walks where they knew what to do better  No petting or baby talking, just us going out and having work time. MUCH SAFER


----------



## MaximasMommy (Sep 21, 2013)

I wanted to add that there is a play/love on time and a work time with just about any animal. I'm sure in the wild, when horses are doing something job like, like defending the herd or travelling, or whatever natural work horses do, they aren't all rubbing on each other and lovey dovey. But of course any animal does have love and play time, that is just different than work time.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I've only got 3 horses, but they don't spend even 1% of their time actually touching each other. Standing within 12 inches of each other? They'll do that for hours, and often within 6 inches. They couldn't stand that close to each other for as many hours as they do without actually touching each other unless the physical contact was in some way inappropriate to their sensibilities.

The only physical contacts my mare seems to really accept are 1) head rubs at the end of the ride, which I think is a learned behavior telling her work is done and feeding is about to start, and 2) having her mane fussed with. She will stand as long as I want if I'm untangling her mane. If I rub her shoulder, withers or hip, she accepts it for about 5 seconds and then moves away. The only exception is for an occasional itch that she cannot reach.


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

I find that young horses on a hack will reach out and touch others with their noses for reassurance and others will move into others almost for a physical check on those that are around them, of course we steer them so they do not walk into each other, but horses as a herd are very aware of touching and it's uses.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

^^ Your horses may. I can only speak for mine. Mine do NOT touch another horse on the trail, or offer to, regardless of their level of discomfort. I have no idea if it is a breed thing, or if I just happened to acquire some anti-social horses.


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

bsms said:


> ^^ Your horses may. I can only speak for mine. Mine do NOT touch another horse on the trail, or offer to, regardless of their level of discomfort. I have no idea if it is a breed thing, or if I just happened to acquire some anti-social horses.


Maybe it is because we ride very close next to each other with young horses on our busy roads?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

No...we ride pretty close to each others at times here in Arizona, either because we are on a narrow path thru the cactus, or because we're next to a road. Our roads have less traffic than the average road in the UK, but we do regularly squeeze together to avoid traffic. If Mia is nervous about something, one of the other horses will take the lead, but she NEVER tries to touch them while they are passing inches away. Nor do they offer contact.

My horses are pretty scrupulous about not touching each other, apart from a bit of grooming once in a great while.


----------



## Captain Evil (Apr 18, 2012)

MaximasMommy said:


> Anyway, I am really enjoying the book, as my first horse is a Lipizzan  I think you would too.


How do you like your Lipizzan? A Lipizzan lover and owner I met said that riding hers was like riding a cross between a pogo stick and a giant spring. She said their upward motion was unbelievable.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Cherie said:


> I think horses can be conditioned to accept petting and hugging and messing with them, but I also think they would be happier if you just left them alone.


Mr Gibbs










Approves.

He is a no nonsense sort of guy, doesn't get being fussed with at all!


----------



## Boo Walker (Jul 25, 2012)

My mustang Hercules agrees with Mr. Gibbs- so not into the baby talk, cuddly stuff.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Well, with names like Mr. Gibbs & Hercules, what did you expect? :lol:


----------



## Castles in the Air (Jul 9, 2013)

*Try to keep an open mind - that's all*

CRK I really like your post and I completely get what you’re talking about. Let’s keep an open mind to new and more tactful ways of doing things. I was very sceptical about positive reinforcement training (like many of the posters here). But I have to admit that having recently started working with my 9yr old TB gelding using positive reinforcement training (clicker training) I’m truly amazed at how different his motivation is when compared to the more traditional method of negative reinforcement. He responds very well to negative reinforcement training, but with positive reinforcement his responses and willingness quite literally has to be seen to be believed. I can’t tell you how fun that is. It’s like having 2 different horses. 

As an example of the difference in the horse’s motivation, this horse is easy to catch. He makes himself available to be caught (which I expect of all my horses). He doesn’t run away, but always allows me to approach. Thanks to negative reinforcement training he understands very clearly that this is the easiest option for him. However with positive reinforcement training, he now comes to me no matter how far away he is and then takes himself to the roundpen gate to wait for me to arrive. If I’m working with another horse in the roundpen, he waits patiently nearby in the hope he will get a turn too.
It opened my eyes big time and I thought this type of training was below me and indulgent. I’ve since decided to use both negative and positive reinforcement training. Is he pushy around the treats? If I don’t immediately correct it, of course he might give that a go. One correction and no sign of being offered a treat soon fixes that. He’s not stupid: he gets back with the program quick smart. But there are horse’s who try pushing humans around who’s handlers don’t carry treats and never have, yet they still do it.

Personally I’m a little frustrated by those who dismiss positive reinforcement training as unworthy of being a useful (and safe) tool in training such a large animal. It is safe and tactful for both horse and human. And it does get results. Equine positive reinforcement training is used at the highest level of competition. You don’t see riders offering treats in the Olympic arena to their positive reinforcement trained horses. It is a tool that clearly defines the exact desired response while the horse is learning. Once the horse has a solid grasp of what’s expected the tool is phased out and not to be used as a crutch forever more. 

One commenter gives an example of how positive reinforcement would be a poor fit in our workplace. But we’re not talking about where we work; we’re talking about training horses. We must remember that context and reality are everything.

A pushy horse trained using positive reinforcement isn’t like that because of the training method, that problem lies solely at the feet of the trainer. And that’s just as common in negative reinforcement training too – possibly more so because it’s the path most trainers go down. 

As much as there are those who feel they must disagree with the definition of the standard terms ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ as applied to positive reinforcement training, the terms are nothing more than mathematical (meaning to add or remove) not ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Disagreeing with those terms as they are used in this context would have to be up there with disagreeing that the grass is green.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Castles in the Air said:


> Disagreeing with those terms as they are used in this context would have to be up there with disagreeing that the grass is green.


But I have no idea how you see grass, or what sort of grass you are talking about, there is green and there's GREEN, shades and types could be debated all day.

Gibbs does not understand hand offered treats, he shows no joy in me patting, scratching or fussing with him, he does however appear to enjoy standing quietly next to me. I guess that when we actually start working on something he will take standing quietly as a positive reinforcement.

If the little shot tries to run past me in a gateway again he will be so enjoying some very very negative reinforcement!


----------



## Castles in the Air (Jul 9, 2013)

*Golden Horse says;* _"But I have no idea how you see grass, or what sort of grass you are talking about, there is *green* and there's *GREEN,* shades and types could be debated all day."_

This sounds suspiciously like you know the color green when you see it even if the shade varies. In other words, just like me you wouldn't describe a shade that is obviously green as being obviously orange. 

So Gibbs doesn't understand food treats? _Are you sure?_ Is it that he doesn't udnerstand what food is when he sees it (doubtful), or (more likely), he doesn't understand the reason it's being offered? I reckon it's the latter. And that comes down to timing.

Granted he may not be as motivated by food as some horses, but the fact that he eats food on a daily basis means he is food motivated to some degree. 

My TB gelding isn't motiavted by patting or scratching either. Rest is a great reward for him too, which is known as *negative reinforcement* because the pressure to hustle his feet as been removed (aka *'subtracted'* as in the mathamatical term, not as is in good or bad). This negative reinformement leads him to do the right thing if wants to avoid having to hustle his feet until he gives me the correct response. It works fine. I still use it. But I also use *positive reinforcement* in the form of a click+treat (which is how the mathamatical term referred to as 'positve' aka _*addition* _plays out) when he is learning a new exercise/response. 

Negative reinforcement motivates the horse to give the right answer as quickly as possible to avoid having to work harder. Positive reinforcement motivates the horse to give a speedy right answer and then want to do it again even better. It's a genuine pleasure to see a horse this confident and so willing to please. It's just a shame that more handlers don't see the point to it.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Castles in the Air said:


> *Golden Horse says;* _"But I have no idea how you see grass, or what sort of grass you are talking about, there is *green* and there's *GREEN,* shades and types could be debated all day."_
> 
> This sounds suspiciously like you know the color green when you see it even if the shade varies. In other words, just like me you wouldn't describe a shade that is obviously green as being obviously orange.


But I don't know if the green you see is the green I see, having a color blind son who views the world very differently, and the arguments that husband and I have over green and blue, I don't know.



Castles in the Air said:


> So Gibbs doesn't understand food treats? _Are you sure?_ Is it that he doesn't udnerstand what food is when he sees it (doubtful), or (more likely), he doesn't understand the reason it's being offered? I reckon it's the latter. And that comes down to timing.
> 
> Granted he may not be as motivated by food as some horses, but the fact that he eats food on a daily basis means he is food motivated to some degree.


He eats grass and hay all day, hard food in a bucket is looked at suspiciously, then eaten. Anything offered by hand gets this response










If I close my eyes you will go away, this isn't timing, it's his choice, apples, carrots, toast, horse feed, grass, all these are rejected if offered by hand. Now I maybe wrong, but I see no reason to try and force it on him, and I am not going to start carrying a bucket around just in case, feed buckets ONLY get used at feed time, or if needed to catch one.

Likewise he doesn't show any pleasure in being 'fussed with' but that one I am persevering with, a scratch in the right place can be a a good thing. Again, he appears to take pleasure in being allowed to stand quiet, and right next to me, if that suits him, it suits me..

BUT

Emmy here










ABSOLUTELY 100% food motivated, food will overcome fear, food will reward her, I always have treats in my pocket when working with her.

Angel....well she is a touchy feely, just loves to be scratched, and loved on, so that's what she gets.

It is no use deciding that THIS IS THE RIGHT AND ONLY WAY, listen and watch your horse and find out what is appropriate for them.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Maybe if I did a lot of stuff on the ground, I'd see the point of using treats. But I do not see it while riding. The clicker would at least allow me to mark "THIS is the good thing", but I'm not sure how it would work past that. I will say that Mia is NOT food motivated, although Cowboy is. Trooper would be in-between.

Positives do include rest. If my mare makes a good faith effort to stop quickly and stay stopped, then the rest is the positive. The negative would be if she refused to stop. But again, in riding, offering rest has limited application.

Part of my puzzlement may stem from my training goals. Mia was spooky and nervous, so most of my focus has been on teaching her to relax, or at least to check in with me before spinning or bolting. In that case, the negatives are pressure on her sides to keep her facing the scary thing, or using the bit to keep her from leaping forward. When she does that, tho, the scary thing either goes away, or turns boring. The scary cardboard blows away, or the motorcycle goes elsewhere, or the plant that bloomed just sits there...and so the long term reward is that listening to me means the fear goes away.

Most of my other training with her is to help her be more balanced. So pressure (legs, etc) motivate her to go around the turn, but she will figure out with experience that doing it balanced feels better than doing it unbalanced. Transitions strengthen her and help her control her emotion - cantering for 50 yards doesn't give her emotions time to spin out of control, and she eventually learns to stay calmer and more relaxed during a canter - which is a positive value to most horses.

But most training just isn't hard. The common examples one reads on HF are things like: walks off when mounting, nips, shoves into my space, bucks when you ask for a canter, etc.

It seems to me gentleness in training comes from keeping the steps small, being consistent, offering release fast enough for the horse to associate it with the behavior, etc. Do those, and the small negative reinforcements are not going to cause a problem.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

bsms said:


> It seems to me gentleness in training comes from keeping the steps small, being consistent, offering release fast enough for the horse to associate it with the behavior, etc. Do those, and the small negative reinforcements are not going to cause a problem.


YES, small steps and consistency


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

I may be talking out of my a$$, but ranch horses are a perfect example of horses that could care less about coddling, treats and soothing words.(much like Mr. Gibbs)

They get roped in the morning, saddled and out of the barn they go ears perked, eyes bright, reins swinging looking for cattle, country to cover and happy to do it. At the end of the day they get turned out for another week or whenever it's his turn with no complaints. No hugs or cookies needed. 

It is horses trained to do a job without the fluff and it works. Horses are conditioned to deal with the hugs and treats. Not sure why everyone wants to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

^^Exactly. My horses have learned to tolerate, and _some_ even enjoy, my scratches and grooming simply because it makes _me_ feel better. However, they are just as happy...maybe moreso, to just do their job and be turned back out.

That doesn't mean that I don't have a good "relationship" with them. I trust them with my life nearly every time I ride them and they do the same. Anything I ask of them, they'll do with eagerness and there is not a lick of quit in any of them. They'll try their hearts out for me and they don't go looking for treats afterward.

I respect them and they respect me. I love them and they respect me. I am sometimes guilty of coddling over them....and they respect me. That's all a person can really ask.


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

Let's go back to my first illustration:


> Let me use a little illustration: Say I am teaching proper lead departures on the requested lead. I lightly squeeze with my inside leg to maintain 'shape' and direction. I move my outside leg back an inch or two and lightly squeeze to ask the horse to move his hip slightly to the inside. Then, I 'smooch' and squeeze a little more with my outside leg and expect the horse to move immediately into a lope/ canter on the designated lead.
> 
> Now, let's say the horse started to take the wrong lead -- I immediately bring him back to a walk and ask again. My ability to interrupt his departure in the wrong lead is negative reinforcement. I stop or interrupt the wrong response, effectively 'closing' that door to him. I am not abusing him but I am letting him know that he gave me the wrong answer or response.
> 
> I immediately re-ask for correct lead. I may have to do this many times when I am first teaching proper lead departures. I do not need to jerk or spur or 'hurt' the horse in any way. I only need to close the door to the wrong response. When he takes the correct lead, I do not pet or praise the horse. [That would only completely confuse him.] I simply 'get out of his way', leave the door open and let him proceed for a good ways on the correct lead. His only reward is me staying out of his face and out of his ribs.


Now, what kind of positive reinforcement would you use instead of the one I used which is to get out of the horse's way and let him lope on for a ways. Would you stop him to give him a treat? Would you reach down and pet on him? Just tell me how to 'reward' him other than stay out of his ribs and face? Please tell me what else a trainer can do when a horse gives the asked for response under saddle? Anything else I can think of to do would just confuse the horse and erase the 'relief' he got from my leaving him alone and getting out of his face and ribs while I let him lope with no pressure on him.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I was a total newbie 5 years ago. As I watch my horses and think about the horses around me, I don't think 'negative' training is causing harm. It isn't like the 1700s, when a horse would be tied to 2 poles and whipped to make its gaits more elevated, or this 1500s recipe to make a horse go forward:

"_Let a footman stand behind you with a shrewd cat tied to one end of a long pole...let him thrust the cat betwixt [the horse's] thighs, so as she may scratch and bite him..._" Thomas Blundevill, in a book about "howe to breake them and to make theym horses of seruyce", quoted in VS Littauer's "The Development of Modern Riding" :shock: :shock: :evil:

I think modern horses suffer the most ill from being treated like pet dogs instead of horses, and from not enough sweaty blankets. We project our needs into their psyche and wonder why they do not respond according to OUR need. I'm guilty of both, so perhaps I'm reading my failures as common ones...but I haven't met too many of the 'beat them into submission' school of training. Or maybe I've just been lucky.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

bsms said:


> "_Let a footman stand behind you with a shrewd cat tied to one end of a long pole...let him thrust the cat betwixt [the horse's] thighs, so as she may scratch and bite him..._" Thomas Blundevill, in a book about "howe to breake them and to make theym horses of seruyce", quoted in VS Littauer's "The Development of Modern Riding" :shock: :shock: :evil:


I feel a new signature line coming on


----------



## Castles in the Air (Jul 9, 2013)

Look to be honest I'm getting bored by a discussion that's going around in circles so this is my last reply. We all know grass is green don't we? It may be dark or it may be light, but it's natural color is still green. And wether color blind or not, grass remains green. How did it get this complicated? Besides, the real meaning of that comment is that there's not a whole lot of point in arguing about the definition of a _standard_ term used in positive reinforcement training throughout the world. Some may think it means something else, but those that know better; know better.

*Cherie* as for your scenario, I'd do the same as you are doing. I'd signal for the required response and if I didn't get it I'd bring him back and ask again (consistency) until I got even the slightest hint (small step) of the right answer. I'd click and treat after just a few steps. I don't stop the horse to treat, the sound of the click ( I use my tongue not a plastic clicker) tells the horse he is allowed to stop and will be rewarded at that time. He turns his head laterally and I will reach down slightly to give the treat. I allow about 10-15 seconds of 'dwell' time (rest) and then will continue to ask for a little more each time, reducing dwell time as he catches on. If he should take the wrong lead after I give the signal I would again bring him back to try again. No click/treat. Only correction.

I'm finding it hard to grasp how the horse would be confused under these circumstance as you say. If that's the case then there are a great many confused horses out there. Some seen at Olympic and professional performance level. In fact positive reinforcement training has the opposite effect on a horse that you claim. They aren't confused and distracted, they are focused and on target. That's the whole point. Moreover, I'd say that are equine companions are a great deal more intelligent not to have the relief that comes from being left alone compromised in any way, shape or form.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Castles in the Air said:


> Look to be honest I'm getting bored by a discussion that's going around in circles so this is my last reply. We all know grass is green don't we? It may be dark or it may be light, but it's natural color is still green. And wether color blind or not, grass remains green.


Again, we do not all see the same thing, and I am peeing with laughter to be honest at the thought of feeding treats while riding, sounds like a disaster waiting to happen:lol:


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Can't help but join in on this one, even though this sort of subject gets 'done' reasonably regularly! OP you must be new to forums if you didn't expect your post to get.... heated replies!:wink: I agree thoroughly with your basic sentiments OP, but not so much with the way you put it, or perhaps the strength of your opinions, as I understood them. It sounds like you have recently been learning about behavioural theory? I absolutely believe it's a very valuable thing for people to study & understand, and do also believe including positive reinforcement in our training is a good practice. But to me, training is not so black and white as the Skinner...ian(?) model and not so... fanatical(wrong word, right feel...) as the 'purist' clicker trainer model. JMO.



christopher said:


> negative reinforcement is not "something that the horse moves away from" and positive reinforcement is not "something the horse moves toward".


I think it depends on how you understand that & whether it's taken literally or metaphorically, to a large degree. As seems clear here, *behavioural terms* & principles such as these are commonly misunderstood. Applying an undesirable stimulus does cause the horse to 'move away' from it, be that physically or mentally, and if that stimulus is removed *at the time of*(not after as some stated) the 'yielding' behaviour, it is by definition, negative reinforcement. If 'moving toward' is taken to mean attracting, then it seems to me that's an appropriate metaphor too IMO.

Someone gave the eg. of undesirable stimuli(bit, spur, etc) as an eg of negative punishment. That would actually be an eg of _positive_ punishment. Or negative _reinforcement_ if we're talking about the instant that stimulus is _removed_. As someone's already said, negative punishment is something like withholding or removing a treat, not applying a Bad Thing. 

And so many people don't seem to understand the difference between reward/+R & -R. (BTW, I think of 'reward' in behavioural terms, interchangeable with +R) For eg. someone gave the eg of turning their back on a horse or allowing rest, to 'reward' them. These are often effective _negative_ reinforcements, but a _positive_ reinforcement is when something _desirable_ is _given_, such as a treat, good scratch, whatever. It's also vital to consider *what that particular horse desires at that particular time* if you're intending it to be positive reinforcement. Eg. so many people think of patting as a 'reward' when it's usually IME just tolerated & in many instances may actually be punishment - something the horse _dis_likes. And of course everyone _knows_ food is a +R, but it's not always desirable, appropriate, practical.

Anyway (using the behavioural definitions), I agree thoroughly with what I understand is the basic gist of your post OP, that too many people use solely/too much +P & -R, and that the addition of +R is valuable & under used. IME -R is invaluable in horse training, and assuming it's used correctly of course, I don't think it's in the least 'unfair' or cruel, but focussing on reinforcing 'right' behaviour & creating 'Good' associations with rewards is also invaluable too. 

I don't believe avoiding techniques just because they're not 'natural horse behaviour' is at all valid - after all, if you want to use that argument, you shouldn't be riding, using ropes or bridles, etc, etc. Most +P should be 'banned' for those believers too.

Oh & endiku, while your horse's stereotypic behaviour may now be permanent, I'd be looking at digestive problems and chronic stress. Addition of Mg to the diet may be the answer to otherwise unexplained stress.


----------



## Castles in the Air (Jul 9, 2013)

_"I am peeing with laughter to be honest at the thought of feeding treats while riding, sounds like a disaster waiting to happen:lol: "_

And yet 1000's of riders the world over do it successfully without incident. The evidence is stacked against you on that one.

Now that you mention it, I got a similar feeling :lol: at the suggestion that a horse would somehow 'forget' that he'd been able to rest during training. I imagine he forgets to eat too some days. 

Like I say: _those that know better, know better. _


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Castles in the Air said:


> _"I am peeing with laughter to be honest at the thought of feeding treats while riding, sounds like a disaster waiting to happen:lol: "_
> 
> And yet 1000's of riders the world over do it successfully without incident. The evidence is stacked against you on that one.


Really what evidence? I really and truly have never seen people teaching correct canter departs by feeding treats.... but I maybe mixing with the wrong crowd.



Castles in the Air said:


> Now that you mention it, I got a similar feeling :lol: at the suggestion that a horse would somehow 'forget' that he'd been able to rest during training. I imagine he forgets to eat too some days.
> 
> Like I say: _those that know better, know better. _



I don't understand this point, resting during training is a great idea, just chilling is a great reward....


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Castles in the Air said:


> _..._Like I say: _those that know better, know better. _


Which may be part of the reason for the reception you are getting...on a thread you called "*It's Time for Horse Training to Evolve*". If you expect others to give up what has been working well for them, pick up saddlebags of treats, start clucking with their tongue and then stopping their horse mid-ride to treat them....well, it is a tough sale. I'm willing to stop asking my wife to tie a shrewd cat to the end of a long pole, but I just don't see squeezing with my lower leg as an abuse I need to morally evolve beyond. 

If there are studies showing horses can be trained to level X in 3 weeks instead of 3 months, you might gain some converts. But if you break the training steps down into small ones, if you are consistent and fair (as the horse perceives it), then training doesn't involve great cruelty. Horses DO understand pressure & release. They do it all the time. They do not resent it. So why do I need to evolve beyond the world that horses live in?


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

Guys guess what.
When I happened to be running 40mph today at a barrel my horse turned it smokin and hauled tail for home.

*And I forgot to give her a treat immediately for a good turn!*

Jeeze, what's wrong with me? You'd think I'd of mastered the art of throwing carrots at her face while she's running by now...I mean, lord knows horses only have about a three second connection time between action and reward. Waiting til I get out of the arena simply isn't an option!

(I'm way too tired for this thread. lol)


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

i've only roughly skimmed the thread, but i think the debate here comes more from misunderstanding and misinterpreted terminology than any actual disagreement.

either way the subject is operant conditioning, so here's some reading on it:
Operant conditioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and on top of that:
David Premack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Premack's principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

For those of us who have been around horses a long time, know that we need to work with them as individuals. Presently I have two that are opposites which means with one I have to ramp up my energy and with the other reduce it so I am merely suggesting. Generally I search for the positives but sometimes have to resort to a negative. An example of strong negative. When a teen I'd entered a stall to feed and the horse fired a shot at me which grazed my leg. I immediately delivered a strong kick to his belly. He let out a grunt and almost sat down but that was the last time he pulled that stunt. He'd been doing that for two years, unbeknownst to me.


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

> *Cherie* as for your scenario, I'd do the same as you are doing. I'd signal for the required response and if I didn't get it I'd bring him back and ask again (consistency) until I got even the slightest hint (small step) of the right answer. I'd click and treat after just a few steps. I don't stop the horse to treat, the sound of the click ( I use my tongue not a plastic clicker) tells the horse he is allowed to stop and will be rewarded at that time. He turns his head laterally and I will reach down slightly to give the treat. I allow about 10-15 seconds of 'dwell' time (rest) and then will continue to ask for a little more each time, reducing dwell time as he catches on. If he should take the wrong lead after I give the signal I would again bring him back to try again. No click/treat. Only correction.


^^^WHAT???^^^

You have just rewarded the horse for stopping --- not for departing in the correct lead several seconds ago. I would like to ask how many horses you have actually taught very good, prompt correct lead departures to by using this technique?

This technique would only teach a horse to stop at a certain sound. Most of us use the softly spoken word "Whoa" instead of a click. Humming is used frequently by Dressage trainers for a halt and is used by most reining trainers for the 'slow-down' from a fast big circle to a small slow circle without moving the rein-hand. Treating for stops only teaches a horse to stop crookedly and throw their head around to your leg -- really bad form in any discipline. 



> I'm finding it hard to grasp how the horse would be confused under these circumstance as you say. If that's the case then there are a great many confused horses out there. Some seen at Olympic and professional performance level. In fact positive reinforcement training has the opposite effect on a horse that you claim. They aren't confused and distracted, they are focused and on target. That's the whole point. Moreover, I'd say that are equine companions are a great deal more intelligent not to have the relief that comes from being left alone compromised in any way, shape or form.


You may find it hard to see how a horse is confused, but I see nothing but confusion. I can see it useful when teaching tricks and certain reactions on the ground, but I only see confusion over what action was being rewarded when it is used as you suggest. Frankly, I do not want a horse to be focused on a 'target', or looking for a 'click' or a treat. I want him focused on listening to my subtle, traditional 'aids'.

Let me offer another example. This is one I am very familiar with as I have helped numerous riders that had HUGE problems and very spoiled, dangerous horses for having their horses recognize the wrong action for a very common reward.

It is not uncommon for barrel racing horses and a few show horses to get very resistant (or worse) upon entering an arena for an individual performance. The ones I have helped have usually been barrel racers or other speed event people but I have seen it with reiners and jumpers as well.

Usual scenario is to run in the gate, run hard around 3 barrels and then run back out of the gate. Many riders use a whip or spurs to get more speed between barrels and almost all riders use a whip or spur to run back out of the gate, but I have seen the same thing happen with riders that do not over-use force in the arena. When the horse gets out of the gate he is pulled up, the reins are dropped and he is petted and praised. Does he associate the complete release of pressure and complete relief he gets when he has left the arena with the good job he did in the arena or does he recognize it as a reward for leaving the arena? When horses make the wrong association (like yours would for being given a treat for stopping), they want to stay out of the arena or they want to run around one barrel and bolt for the gate. They become much more anxious to run out of the gate than to run fast away from it. This is basically why so many horses are 'gate sour' when ridden in any arena for any reason. They are anxious to get out of the gate where they will be dismounted and all work will stop. Leaving the arena becomes their 'reward'. This is why we work most of our horses somewhere other than an arena and end each riding session in an arena, dismounting in the far corner of it. Then, horses are anxious to go into an arena instead of leave one. 

I have seen many jumping horse do this same thing. When they are repeatedly ridden out of the arena, petted, praised and quickly dismounted, why would the horse not resent going into the arena?

Years ago, I ran into a few very well respected trainers that were leaving the arena after a 'run' and they immediately rode back out to the practice area, rode their horses hard, rested them a good while our there, dismounted out there and led them back to the stable area. 

A little light-bulb went off in my head and I thought -- "This makes much more sense from the horse's perspective than riding back to the stall area and getting off." You know what? It has worked wonderfully for about 40 years. It is what I have taught students for 40 years. During this time, you know how many have had problems with arena sour horses? NONE! The proof is in the performance results.

So, how many people have made performance ready horses in any venue with a clicker and a treat type of reward? I'm listening. I've never seen one, but I guess there is the exception somewhere. All of the so-called 'studies' that I have read about using clickers, treats and rewards as positive reinforcement involved eliciting mostly useless actions on the ground. They would come closer to being useful for tricks and other actions than high level performance of any kind.

I think this is a very useful discussion. It goes to the heart of how to get a horse to do what we, as riders, want them to do. I know some people only want pets and horses to 'play' with, but the vast majority of the people that come here with problems, want a good, obedient and safe horse to ride. So yes, I think this is a very useful discussion.


----------



## flytobecat (Mar 28, 2010)

Cherie said:


> Usual scenario is to run in the gate, run hard around 3 barrels and then run back out of the gate. Many riders use a whip or spurs to get more speed between barrels and almost all riders use a whip or spur to run back out of the gate, but I have seen the same thing happen with riders that do not over-use force in the arena. When the horse gets out of the gate he is pulled up, the reins are dropped and he is petted and praised. Does he associate the complete release of pressure and complete relief he gets when he has left the arena with the good job he did in the arena or does he recognize it as a reward for leaving the arena? When horses make the wrong association (like yours would for being given a treat for stopping), they want to stay out of the arena or they want to run around one barrel and bolt for the gate. They become much more anxious to run out of the gate than to run fast away from it. This is basically why so many horses are 'gate sour' when ridden in any arena for any reason. They are anxious to get out of the gate where they will be dismounted and all work will stop. Leaving the arena becomes their 'reward'. This is why we work most of our horses somewhere other than an arena and end each riding session in an arena, dismounting in the far corner of it. Then, horses are anxious to go into an arena instead of leave one.


I've seen several arena sour horses. I've never thought of this, but it makes total sense.


----------



## Foxtail Ranch (Mar 10, 2012)

Cherie: "You have just rewarded the horse for stopping --- not for departing in the correct lead several seconds ago. ". 

CT uses a sound to mark the correct behavior. That's what is so great about it. 

I train using CT and pressure-release while in the saddle. With CT, I can click a behavior, dismount, walk out of the arena and into the barn and then treat, and the horse still knows it was for the behavior he was doing at the click. 

Both types of training are valuable. Each has its place, and there are times when one works better than the other. I really don't think we need to argue about if one is better than the other.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SEAmom (Jan 8, 2011)

tiffanyodonnell said:


> Cherie: "You have just rewarded the horse for stopping --- not for departing in the correct lead several seconds ago. ".
> 
> CT uses a sound to mark the correct behavior. That's what is so great about it.
> 
> ...


Out of curiosity, how does the horse know that the treat is for the action minutes after it happened? The clicker I get, but not the treats long after. Even then, if you reward the house in the middle of the session, do you then get off and treat or wait until you're done riding? If you wait and the horse earns another reward, do you treat twice? When riding the horse is factored in, it gets trickier.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"CT uses a sound to mark the correct behavior. That's what is so great about it."

And ending the squeeze with my calves tells my horse I'm happy with her new gait. And I can do that 50 times in an hour, and each time the reward comes at the same time the click would be made, but it is the actual reward and not just the promise of one an hour later. 

Or in Cherie's example of lead changes, which is way outside the scope of anything I'm trying, the reward is to relax and enjoy the new motion without the rider fussing. That is a positive. My horses seem to enjoy trotting and cantering, provided I balance and move with them. 

And in the case of Mia, learning to face scary things and look to the rider, giving a treat wouldn't work. No treat can overcome her fear. But using 'pain' to hold her until the scary thing goes away and she realizes I knew it was not worth being scared over - that not only works, but it offers a built in positive (relaxation). And FWIW, I don't think keeping my legs firm around her shoulders causes her actual pain, nor does a pop of the bit that lasts 1/4 second and barely involves any movement of the bit in her mouth.

So what is the point? Why do we need to "evolve"? Why is what we do now something we need to get away from? What we normally do now makes sense to me and to my horses. It seems to me there are two flaws in the OP's argument: 1) We are not being mean to our horses right now, and 2) what we do already involves positives because horses enjoy things like going fast, or feeling balanced and strong.


----------



## Foxtail Ranch (Mar 10, 2012)

bsms said:


> "CT uses a sound to mark the correct behavior. That's what is so great about it."
> 
> And ending the squeeze with my calves tells my horse I'm happy with her new gait. And I can do that 50 times in an hour, and each time the reward comes at the same time the click would be made, but it is the actual reward and not just the promise of one an hour later.
> 
> ...


I'm in the truck, on the way to move 2 cows so I can't do much with my response. Sorry if its messy. 

I agree some things are not done well with positive reinforcement and negative R is all that's needed. Cherie's example is perfect as you point out BSMS. 

Some things do lend well to CT at least for me. It is probably because I am not as good a trainer as many of you, especially Cherie! Like getting my filly to accept clipping. She moves boldly towards the clippers for a click and treat. 

I also agree with you BSMS, about the OP's premise. What needs changing? When done correctly, both methods work well and are humane.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

The clipping example makes sense to me.


----------



## onuilmar (Feb 8, 2013)

christopher said:


> negative reinforcement is not "something that the horse moves away from" and positive reinforcement is not "something the horse moves toward".


It most certainly is. The better wording is that positive reinforcement is anything that increases the likelihood of a behavior and negative reinforcement is anything the reduces the likelihood of a behavior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement


The basic definition is that a *positive reinforcer adds a stimulus to increase or maintain frequency of a behavior while a negative reinforcer removes a stimulus to increase or maintain the frequency of the behavior*. As mentioned above, positive and negative reinforcement are components of operant conditioning, along with positive punishment and negative punishment, all explained below:
*Reinforcement*

*Positive Reinforcement* occurs when a stimulus is presented as a result of operant behavior and that behavior increases.[8]


Example: If a dog "sits" on command and this behavior is followed by the reward of a dog treat, then the dog treat serves to positively reinforce the behavior of "sitting."
Example: A father gives candy to his daughter when she picks up her toys. If the frequency of picking up the toys increases, the candy is a positive reinforcer (to reinforce the behavior of cleaning up).
 *Negative Reinforcement* occurs when an aversive (unpleasant) stimulus is removed as a result of operant behavior and the rate of the behavior increases.[9]


Example: A child cleans his or her room, and this behavior is followed by the parent stopping "nagging" or asking the child repeatedly to do so. Here, the nagging serves to negatively reinforce the behavior of cleaning because the child wants to remove that aversive stimulus of nagging.
Example: A person puts ointment on a bug bite to soothe an itch. If the ointment works, the person will likely increase the usage of the ointment because it resulted in removing the itch, which is the negative reinforcer.


----------



## onuilmar (Feb 8, 2013)

Cherie said:


> Well, I hate to tell you this, but the horses I have trained have not read this book.
> 
> If you watch a herd of horses interact with each other, what do you think positive and negative reinforcement are?
> What 'reward' is a horse looking for?
> ...



Well, the obvious reward or positive reinforcer is being accepted by the herd. The definition is ANYTHING that increases behavior. We have become so habituated to m&m training that we forget there are other rewards out there.

Nothing in the above explanation violates the definition of positive and negative reinforcement.


----------



## onuilmar (Feb 8, 2013)

Castles in the Air said:


> Personally I’m a little frustrated by those who dismiss positive reinforcement training as unworthy of being a useful (and safe) tool in training such a large animal. It is safe and tactful for both horse and human. And it does get results. Equine positive reinforcement training is used at the highest level of competition. You don’t see riders offering treats in the Olympic arena to their positive reinforcement trained horses. It is a tool that clearly defines the exact desired response while the horse is learning. Once the horse has a solid grasp of what’s expected the tool is phased out and not to be used as a crutch forever more.


Umm, there's a misuse of terms here because ALL training uses positive and negative reinforcement. Including the old cowboy training.

What I think you mean is that the mix of positive and negative should be changed from the traditional mix of negatively reinforcing (or extinguishing) bad behavior and positively reinforcing desirable behavior with the old pressure release.

Learning theory is simply a description of how training (ALL training) occurs and what are the principles underpinning it.

Positive reinforcement is never entirely phased out. That too is a misnomer, otherwise I defy you to work for free. What it is that good training no longer needs to be supported so frequently with a reinforcer. But it still needs to be reinforced or it will extinguish. The lack of a reward is also a negative reinforcement.


----------



## onuilmar (Feb 8, 2013)

bsms said:


> It seems to me gentleness in training comes from keeping the steps small, being consistent, offering release fast enough for the horse to associate it with the behavior, etc. Do those, and the small negative reinforcements are not going to cause a problem.


Yep. And release is a positive reinforcer and a primary one to boot, unlike clicker training, which is a secondary reinforcer. 

And although food is a primary reinforcer, it is not the only one. Besides, it doesn't work when the animal is sated and it may not be the best reward for work under saddle.

Skinner used it on pigeons and rats because it worked. But that is the definition of positive reinforcement: ANYTHING that increases the likelihood of behavior. Negative reinforcement extinguishes behavior.


----------



## onuilmar (Feb 8, 2013)

Cherie said:


> Let's go back to my first illustration:Now, what kind of positive reinforcement would you use instead of the one I used which is to get out of the horse's way and let him lope on for a ways. Would you stop him to give him a treat? Would you reach down and pet on him? Just tell me how to 'reward' him other than stay out of his ribs and face? Please tell me what else a trainer can do when a horse gives the asked for response under saddle? Anything else I can think of to do would just confuse the horse and erase the 'relief' he got from my leaving him alone and getting out of his face and ribs while I let him lope with no pressure on him.



There is nothing wrong with the reinforcement you used. The old pressure release as the reward is extremely effective positive reinforcement.

Sometimes it seems like those raving about positive reinforcement did not really understand what they read.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

onuilmar said:


> It most certainly is. The better wording is that positive reinforcement is anything that increases the likelihood of a behavior and negative reinforcement is anything the reduces the likelihood of a behavior.


both positive and negative reinforcement increase the likelihood of a behaviour. the positive and negative only determine whether you added something or removed something to achieve that increased likelihood.



> And release is a positive reinforcer and a primary one to boot


release is a negative reinforcer. you have released (i.e. removed, subtracted, negative) something, which has served to reinforce (increase the likelihood of) a behaviour.



> But that is the definition of positive reinforcement: ANYTHING that increases the likelihood of behavior. Negative reinforcement extinguishes behavior.


unfortunately not. the definition of reinforcement is anything that increases behaviour, yes. but that also applies to negative reinforcement. what extinguishes behaviour is positive or negative punishment.

reinforcement strengthens behaviour
punishment reduces behaviour
positive suggests that you've ADDED something
negative suggests that you've REMOVED something.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

In the non-'professional behaviorist' world, positive reinforcement is is something they like so they will want to do it again, and negative reinforcement is something they dislike, so they won't want to do it again. Since I'm posting on the Internet and not writing a paper on how to adjust the psychological make-up of the horse, I'll feel free to use the terms in their common sense.

Squeezing with my legs is a CUE. I end the cue when the horse obeys. If the horse does not obey, I give a stronger cue. I give increasingly stronger cues until the horse decides to do things my way. Once they do it my way, I leave them alone - which is a positive to horses. Since there is a sequence, the horse decides how light the cue is. If they like leaving the arena too much, I make leaving less fun and staying there more attractive.

Is that positive or negative? I don't care. It works for me and my horses view it as fair. Since horse & rider are content, I probably won't evolve beyond it.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

christopher said:


> both positive and negative reinforcement increase the likelihood of a behaviour.... release is a negative reinforcer. ... etc


Thank you! I agree that I think the major part of this 'debate' is due to misunderstanding. I only read the first page of this thread & then ones after mine. I tried to explain the *behavioural* definition, as I've done a number of times before, but frustratingly people don't seem to get; 
Positive = addition
Negative = subtraction
Reinforcement = strengthening a behaviour
Punishment = weakening a behaviour

....perhaps if we continue to repeat ourselves enough....

I think the other thing that causes mass disagreement on the subject is that people who don't understand the *principles* well enough seem to get hung up on treats and clickers as being necessary to using +R in training, & that negative reinforcement/punishment is 'not allowed' for anyone who uses +R. & that +R trainers necessarily don't do discipline. It doesn't have to be an 'either/or' & IMO the whole 'spectrum' of reinforcement & punishment is valuable & valid in training.


----------



## Endiku (Dec 6, 2010)

This is late, but just in reply to loosie, I've had her scoped for ulcers and while I believe chronic stress STARTED her cribbing, she's been doing it since she lost mama as a 2 month old and never stopped. She's fat, healthy, has a balanced diet (she had a blood panel a few months ago to make sure she wasn't lacking on anything), PLENTY of hay to eat, and horses to live with. Theoretically she has no reason to crib, she just does. It started as a coping mechanism and now its just what she does when she's bored to get the endorphins it releases for her. Believe me, I've tried to get her to stop in every way I know how!

And since that paragraph was of no use to this thread, I'd also like to mention that my mini mare is the in the 'don't touch me' group. She has a HUGE work ethic and is honestly a pain in the butt if she isn't given a job to do, but give her a job and she's literally a different horse. If I go to groom her or pet on her, she tolerates me because she knows I'm the lead mare and I can do what I want to- but she always has a look of pure torture on her face. When I bring her working harness out (she drives, and very well for a 5 year old if I do say so myself) she lights up and if she has opposable thumbs I'm pretty sure she'd harness herself. She already practically bridles herself! 

I actually did try, when I was younger and much more naïve, to teach her with treats. Back then she was a biter and a kicker. She BARELY tolerated me, and had a terrible attitude about everything. If she trotted nicely in hand, or stood tied, I'd give her a treat (by hand >.> stupidstupidstupid) and praise her. All I got was pinned ears and bared teeth, or her going out of her way to nip me while I was handing her the treat. She felt like she was in charge of the 'treat dispenser' and if she threatened me, treats came out. It took me being kicked once (double barreled in the thigh) and bitten three times to snap to my senses and realize what I was doing to my power hungry horse. As soon as I made the changes, stopped feeding her by hand/rewarding with cuddles and treats, and I just offered her stillness as a reward, her attitude did a 180 and we've never looked back. She hasn't even given me an ugly look in half a year (which is saying something with a mare named Sour!) and hasn't offered to bite or kick in over two.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

While you cant cure a bad attitude with treats - the horse would only see the treat as a reward for bad behavior - they don't understand the context of bribery in the sense of 'I will give you this cookie if you don't bite me'
However blaming treats for causing bad behavior isn't right either as that lies with the person who is giving the treats, when its appropriate to give treats as a reward, how they treat unacceptable behavior and what ground rules they apply and enforce
As for giving a horse affection - acceptance of that will differ from one horse to another, exactly in the same way as it does with people. These two horses of mine in this pic are always grooming and scratching each other, they also love being stroked and scratched by humans and will seek that attention out - neither are rude or pushy but both have always been in homes where they were treated as pets and not just work or competition horses. The horse standing off to the side dislikes other horses getting close to her and was very negative and distrustful around humans when she arrived - she now enjoys being around us as much as her companions do.


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

When I first got my gelding 30 yrs ago, he loved the trails, always seeming to want to investigate. Our trails never formed loops to ride back the way you came. Even the main road did this. On our first ride he didn't want to come home, which surprised me. A bit of a scuffle ensued, just general orneriness. Finally he resigned himself to turn back and walked with the brakes on. I loaded a pocket with carrots and the next time he wouldn't turn for home, the moment he was facing the right direction he got a treat, then for the first step, etc. This had to be done for many rides then gradually weaned off the treats.


----------



## Endiku (Dec 6, 2010)

I definitely do not blame the treats for my mare's bad behavior. That was all me and the people who has owned her before me. We never gave her boundaries, or if we did, they weren't firm enough to matter. I also had the 'I don't want to hurt my poor baby or mentally scar her' attitude since she HAD come from a home where she _was_ unfairly treated, and I forgot that she was a horse and that all I was doing was teaching her that if she acted out she wouldn't be punished, if she did something even minutely right she'd get food- and she could be ugly about taking it from me too.


----------



## onuilmar (Feb 8, 2013)

christopher said:


> both positive and negative reinforcement increase the likelihood of a behaviour. the positive and negative only determine whether you added something or removed something to achieve that increased likelihood.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I stand by what I said. Positive increases the likelihod and negative reduces the likelihood. That is why shocks are called negative reinforcement and the removal is positive reinforcement. 

And the withholding of positive reinforcement that is expected is also negative reinforcement.


----------



## onuilmar (Feb 8, 2013)

Negative reinforcers are aversive. They extinguish one behavior while increasing the likelihood of another. 

So while the pressure release rewards the desired behavior, it also reduces the undesired behavior. Negative reinforcers are negative consequences.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

onuilmar said:


> I stand by what I said. Positive increases the likelihod and negative reduces the likelihood. That is why shocks are called negative reinforcement and the removal is positive reinforcement.
> 
> And the withholding of positive reinforcement that is expected is also negative reinforcement.


reinforcement increases likelihood and punishment reduces likelihood. shocks are called positive punishment because you add (positive) something that reduces the likelihood of a behaviour (punishment).

the withholding of a positive reinforcer is negative punishment, you've withheld (negative) something, the act of which has reduced the likelihood of a behaviour (punishment).



> Negative reinforcers are negative consequences


i think this is the source of most confusion. negative in this context does not mean "bad" or "undesirable" or "aversive". negative only describes that you've REMOVED something.


----------



## Marecare (Jan 1, 2009)

*Training can occur without bit or saddles.*

Training can occur without fear.

There are examples to follow out there if that is the direction you want to go.


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

SorrelHorse said:


> ........running 40mph today at a barrel my horse turned it smokin and hauled tail for home.
> 
> *And I forgot to give her a treat immediately for a good turn!*
> 
> ..... lord knows horses only have about a three second connection time between action and reward........



Didn't you get back within three seconds?


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

> This is late, but just in reply to loosie, I've had her scoped for ulcers and while I believe chronic stress STARTED her cribbing, she's been doing it since she lost mama as a 2 month old and never stopped.


Good-oh, figured I was probably stating the obvious to you:wink:, but thought it worth pointing out that it has a physical basis. Many people do still think it's just boredom or such.



onuilmar said:


> I stand by what I said. Positive increases the likelihod and negative reduces the likelihood. That is why shocks are called negative reinforcement and the removal is positive reinforcement.
> 
> And the withholding of positive reinforcement that is expected is also negative reinforcement.


Since we are discussing behaviourist terminology, this is entirely incorrect. Of course, there are many different understandings of all sorts of words & terms, but if we can't stick to behavioural terminology in a thread on the subject, then no wonder it confuses people!

Negative DOES NOT mean something aversive & vice versa.


----------



## Endiku (Dec 6, 2010)

I guarantee you that the horses in that video have been tapped more than one or two times each by the little rod that man is holding in order to learn to do all of that stuff.


----------



## Marecare (Jan 1, 2009)

Endiku said:


> I guarantee you that the horses in that video have been tapped more than one or two times each by the little rod that man is holding in order to learn to do all of that stuff.



Carry your point out a bit further and explain what type of training that would imply.

Is the horse whipped into submission?


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

^I don't get the point of the above questions, but I thought Honza Blaha(an awesome, inspiring horseman IMO) started out with & uses many principles of Parelli.


----------



## Endiku (Dec 6, 2010)

I don't know. I've never personally seen him train. However, to get those sorts of reactions he has to have put pressure on those horses and taught them to move away from it immediately and quickly as soon as he gives them a signal. Obviously it is a fantastic method for those horses and he is a remarkable horseman, but I don't think his training has much to do with the topic of this thread other than that he is another great trainer who uses pressure and release to achieve his goals, not clicker training and cookies.


----------



## Marecare (Jan 1, 2009)

loosie said:


> ^I don't get the point of the above questions, but I thought Honza Blaha(an awesome, inspiring horseman IMO) started out with & uses many principles of Parelli.



Do you personally know that he was inspired by Parelli?

Please explain.


----------



## Marecare (Jan 1, 2009)

Endiku said:


> I don't know. I've never personally seen him train. However, to get those sorts of reactions he has to have put pressure on those horses and taught them to move away from it immediately and quickly as soon as he gives them a signal. Obviously it is a fantastic method for those horses and he is a remarkable horseman, but I don't think his training has much to do with the topic of this thread other than that he is another great trainer who uses pressure and release to achieve his goals, not clicker training and cookies.


It has everything to do with the thread as the thread asks where train might evolve.

Is this an example of one kind of evolution?

Or is it just the point of the thread to just discuss the meaning of words and how they are used in different regions of the country?


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Though he has studied under many trainers Honza Blaha was inspired by Parelli and in 2002 spent 2 years on the PP Success with Horses Tour. He credits his turnaround with his horse Gaston to things he learnt from Parelli
More Blaha




It is possible to carry a whip as an extension of your arm - not all people who carry whips use them for punishment or 'tapping' the horse.
People like Blaha and Hempfling achieve their relationships with horses by being passive dominants - which is how the true alpha mare rules. They are the herd leaders that other horses respect but not fear in the way that they might the herd bully - the leader has to be trusted as the herd needs to follow them not run from them


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Endiku said:


> ...not clicker training and cookies.


Oh I have no idea if he uses those type techniques *as well*, though I'm betting he uses lots of positive reinforcement(actual behavioural definition) of some form or another.:wink: Perhaps those whips he uses are for sticking bits of apple onto!:lol:



> Do you personally know that he was inspired by Parelli?


No, I don't know him personally, or ever met him, or even had the pleasure of seeing him & Gaston in the flesh. I can't recall if he was actually a PNH instructor, but he had a lot more to do with Parelli than just being inspired, so far as I remember.



> Is this an example of one kind of evolution?
> 
> Or is it just the point of the thread to just discuss the meaning of words and how they are used in different regions of the country?


Yes, I feel that HB is indeed, absolutely one *desirable*(Maybe in more ways than one but don't think I've seen him without his hat!:razz eg of the 'evolution of horsemanship'. But as it seems always happens in this sort of thread, people seem to get hung up about an 'either-or' approach & much of this, IMO, comes down to confusion of terms. It seems that if we're discussing behaviourist theory & using behaviourist terminology, colloquial meanings should be left out & people need to understand the formal meanings.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

jaydee said:


> It is possible to carry a whip as an extension of your arm - not all people who carry whips use them for punishment or 'tapping' the horse.


Yup, I use a whip/stick as an extension of my arm, INCLUDING for tapping/pushing on bits that I can't reach with my arm.:wink: Aside from 'purist' type +R trainers who may use sticks only as targets, I can't think of any egs, or reasons for whips/sticks used without ANY punishment(meant behaviourally, as being ANY undesirable stimuli). Whether or not you hit, tap, push, or just gesture in a pushing/tapping kind of way with a stick/arm, it's still something the horse learns to yield to, because it's not a desirable action. And in most cases(dare I assume HB too), the horse learns to do this reliably because if he ignores it, less desirable things happen.


----------



## AnrewPL (Jun 3, 2012)

The original post makes me think of the saying “there is no zeal like that of the newly converted”.


----------



## Marecare (Jan 1, 2009)

loosie said:


> Yup, I use a whip/stick as an extension of my arm, INCLUDING for tapping/pushing on bits that I can't reach with my arm.:wink: Aside from 'purist' type +R trainers who may use sticks only as targets, I can't think of any egs, or reasons for whips/sticks used without ANY punishment(meant behaviourally, as being ANY undesirable stimuli). Whether or not you hit, tap, push, or just gesture in a pushing/tapping kind of way with a stick/arm, it's still something the horse learns to yield to, because it's not a desirable action. And in most cases(dare I assume HB too), the horse learns to do this reliably because if he ignores it, less desirable things happen.



I have no intention to go near terminology at all as the "words" have too many meanings even among the different trainers.

Is it possible (in your mind ) for me to guide you down a walkway or path with a stick ,staff, arm extension,etc without threatening harm or pain?


----------



## Endiku (Dec 6, 2010)

Maybe I'm just slightly messed up, but even if someone swore to me that they would not touch me with a stick, I'd move away from it because I'd be worried that I would be hit, even if only accidentally. It really is just how my brain operates. I would think its about the same with horses.


----------



## Marecare (Jan 1, 2009)

Endiku said:


> Maybe I'm just slightly messed up, but even if someone swore to me that they would not touch me with a stick, I'd move away from it because I'd be worried that I would be hit, even if only accidentally. It really is just how my brain operates. I would think its about the same with horses.


Is that a fear or apprehension?

Does a twirling rope have the same effect on you?

Do you have any way to be guided without verbal cues?


----------



## Endiku (Dec 6, 2010)

I don't know. I fear being hit by it and it hurting. I'm the same way with anything. I think I'd be classified as a 'spooky' horse. LOL. So yes, I'm the same way with rope.

There are plenty of ways to get me to move without a verbal cue, but not without at least a little nervousness that something will hurt... except maybe with firm pressure. If I didn't care about the consequence of it touching/hitting me, I wouldn't move at all.

I'm not completely sure what you're trying to build up to here, though.


----------



## Marecare (Jan 1, 2009)

Endiku said:


> I don't know. I fear being hit by it and it hurting. I'm the same way with anything. I think I'd be classified as a 'spooky' horse. LOL. So yes, I'm the same way with rope.
> 
> There are plenty of ways to get me to move without a verbal cue, but not without at least a little nervousness that something will hurt... except maybe with firm pressure. If I didn't care about the consequence of it touching/hitting me, I wouldn't move at all.
> 
> I'm not completely sure what you're trying to build up to here, though.



You are showing that all people .....and horse have different reactions to the stimulus around them.

I would not be be threatened by you holding an object and directing me with the object.

I sometimes have students go through a lesson where they are asked to direct another person non verbally (and without touching) through a series of maneuvers using body language and it is amazing what happens.


----------



## RhinestoneCowgirl03 (Jul 4, 2012)

Here's my take. Using spurs, shanked bits, crops, etc. as _tools_ to _refine_ the aids is not wrong or abusive in any way. Used properly they do not scare or hurt the horse. If you don't want to use them, or don't need them for your horse. Great. There are VERY many good riders out there that really do train properly and have their horse's best interest in mind. However, I do agree there are some rotten trainers out there. Either due to ignorance or blind pursuit of winnings. 
Take for example my experience the other day:
I love western pleasure. The horse moving naturally, but well collected. They look content and exhibit lovely movement. Then there was the woman I saw at my barn the other day. Her horse was beautiful but she rode him around with his head low and nose tucked as far to his chest as possible. His lope was so slow and fake it looked like he was severely lame and he had his hindquarters twisted to the inside to compensate. If he tried to lift/move his head at all she jerked sharply on his big bit. His ears were back and his tail swished violently the entire ride. It was quite disturbing to watch, actually. But this is not training. This is abuse. Stemmed from ignorance or a "short-cut" attitude, I don't know. But I do agree these people need to be educated.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Marecare said:


> Is it possible (in your mind ) for me to guide you down a walkway or path with a stick ,staff, arm extension,etc without threatening harm or pain?


Of course, but who's saying undesireable stimuli necessarily means threatening harm or pain with the horse either?? Although it sounds like you also feel even tapping or such is too fearful/painful, which I don't. If I didn't understand your language or gestures(and I wasn't 'messed up' like Endiku), how would you go about teaching me to respond to your body/stick language?

Oh & I don't get why you brought it up, but I'm personally more 'messed up' by someone swinging a rope/stockwhip near me than tapping/poking me with a stick(& IME so are horses).... seen too many people take themselves out with those 'tools' to stand too close!:lol:


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Most of the slapping I do (when warranted) to give my horses a sharp reminder that they've crossed the line is with my hand - I doubt it hurts them at all so the bulk of the reprimand actually comes from the tone of my voice
They don't fear my hand though any more than they fear a rope or a whip that's being used in a non threatening manner


----------



## Marecare (Jan 1, 2009)

loosie said:


> Of course, but who's saying undesireable stimuli necessarily means threatening harm or pain with the horse either?? Although it sounds like you also feel even tapping or such is too fearful/painful, which I don't. If I didn't understand your language or gestures(and I wasn't 'messed up' like Endiku), how would you go about teaching me to respond to your body/stick language?
> 
> By taking the TIME to understand and learn the particulars of the person or horse so that I would not upset them like Endiku indicated.
> 
> ...



I brought it up to point out that what some call "stimuli)is not always an appropriate "teaching tool" at all.

I might completely unnerve some people by wearing a firearm on my hip but it would mean very little to a horse.

That is just one example for you to consider.


----------



## MaximasMommy (Sep 21, 2013)

Captain Evil said:


> How do you like your Lipizzan? A Lipizzan lover and owner I met said that riding hers was like riding a cross between a pogo stick and a giant spring. She said their upward motion was unbelievable.


Haha! I haven't ridden him yet. I kind of jumped way ahead of myself and bought him because he was there. We're both in training right now. He is quite the mover, though. Whenever he starts, be it on the longe line or out in the pasture, everyone just kind of stops and stares with that look on their face.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

> By taking the TIME to understand and learn the particulars of the person or horse so that I would not upset them like Endiku indicated.
> 
> Too many times a person approaches a new horse with what worked on the last horse as the indicator of how all horses learn.
> 
> All people do not learn the same way so why should anything else?


Oh, so you're assuming no one else has considered or done this?? I asked how you'd *teach* someone to follow your gestures, not just how you'd try to understand them better. I just don't get what the point of stating the obvious about firearms & the likes has to do with anything really.


----------



## Marecare (Jan 1, 2009)

loosie said:


> Oh, so you're assuming no one else has considered or done this?? I asked how you'd *teach* someone to follow your gestures, not just how you'd try to understand them better. I just don't get what the point of stating the obvious about firearms & the likes has to do with anything really.



Maybe you are not interested.

Carry on.......


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

^Huh?? Interested in what? You answering my question?? I'm a bit lost now. Tho I'm not that 'interested' that you *seem* to be assuming that anyone who uses punishment/-R does not 'take the TIME' or understand the situation/animal. 

Anyway... I think Endiku's eg of any form of stick pointing being a fearful aversive for them a good eg of how different... animals see different stimuli. Depending on how it's done, a nervous horse - & even an Endiku - could also come to see a stick used in a certain way as a pleasant, desirable thing. Another eg would be patting a horse as a reward - I don't doubt some horses actually like it, but many IMO just tolerate it & some find it offensive - effectively a punishment. 

What I'm most 'interested' in is that people understand what +/- reinforcement & punishment actually means, how animals learn from them and to use those 'tools' effectively, with understanding, consistency & judiciously. IOW I don't believe positive punishment is necessarily bad at all, any more than I believe +R without understanding is necessarily the right answer. 

I believe that (generally?) there is far too little understanding & too much punishment used(whether it includes fear & pain or not) & I think more +R would be valuable. And focussing more on *reinforcing* 'Good' behaviour rather than 'correcting' Wrongs. I also think that the 'gulf' doesn't just flow one way, but that there are a lot of misguided people that 'baby' & 'spoil' their horses & refuse to discipline, without understanding of what they're actually teaching. IMPO those that want to do away with -R & +P all together are 'cutting off their noses' unnecessarily just as much as those who refuse to entertain the thought of +R.


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

I doubt if I could tell correctly which of the +R -R +P -P technique(s) were used with any accuracy.

Don't most things fall into 2 categories? One each of a (+) or (-) R; and of a (+) or (-) P :?:


----------



## marhlfld (Jan 14, 2008)

*What Amazes Me*

What amazes me is with all the information available on the net, in books and DVD's that there are still people convinced to use nothing but negative reinforcement. This is pure ignorance and lack of caring for a dumb animal. Whips, spurs, and bits are tools. There are correct ways to use them and incorrect ways. Most of the time I see them using old methods harshly on horses. From the beginner to Olympic riders. From beginners to professionals. English and Western, Saddle Seat, Racing, Endurance. I've gotten numb to their abuses and sadly have to walk away shaking my head because I can see the horse would perform much better if the riders or owners would take some suggestions.

I've taught riding for over 40 years. Yes, my methods have changed because I care about the animals and the people. I have always wanted to do the right thing for the horse. I want the horse to be safe and the people as well.

I've studied riding and horses for eons. I'm still learning. But the ignorance out there still today amazes me.


----------



## Caprilli (Jun 27, 2012)

I find this to be a very interesting thread and like many, the majority of answers here are based on perception and once own understanding.

My general rule to kindness is knowledge. I was born and raised in Germany and trained as a Bereiter FN. I trained with a Diploma Trainer as well as with the previous chef d'équipe of the German Dressage team. I also spend some time in Britain, mainly with Event riders.

My professional journey began in 1987 and it ended in 2001 when I decided that I was no longer willing to ride "other peoples" horses for money. It is not the tools we use that are unkind, it is those that do not understand how to apply them.

Teaching a Baby horse to accept a Saddle and Bridle and teaching it slowly, applying the training scale and therefore never asking the impossible is not only kind but will make for a horse that has a long and healthy life since it has been build up in a species appropriate manner. It learns to respond to the riders aids by being guided through body language and give and take.

Using this knowledge to skip some steps on the scale in order to be able to rush this training would be negative enforcement. This is often applied to horses that are prepared for auction, just to use one example but even with big bits and spurs it really does not need to be negative at all.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

Apologies if this has already been mentioned. While I don't disagree with the point of the article I just finished reading several scientific articles as to how negative reinforcement is the best way (not the only of course, or the best in any situation, just the most effective overall) and tried and true way to train horses. It is more natural. Alpha mare isn't gonna give you some of her grain if you're waiting patiently and respectfully


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

marhlfld said:


> . Whips, spurs, and bits are tools. There are correct ways to use them and incorrect ways. Most of the time I see them using old methods harshly on horses.


Care to elaborate?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Caprilli said:


> ...Teaching a Baby horse to accept a Saddle and Bridle and teaching it slowly, applying the training scale and therefore never asking the impossible is not only kind but will make for a horse that has a long and healthy life since it has been build up in a species appropriate manner...


Breaking things down into small enough steps for a horse to be successful in figuring each step out, and applying pressure & release (or other forms of training) with enough precision and consistency that the horse can easily learn what a given cue or request means are critical to teaching a horse with kindness and respect.

Seeing how my little BLM mustang was mis-trained by well-meaning people who assumed he knew XYZ and then demanded it from him convinced me that the greatest cruelty comes from not making sure the horse understands what you wanted before you demanded it of him. When you punish a horse for not obeying a given cue, but he doesn't understand what that cue means, you teach him that people are irrational creatures who cannot be trusted. Rebuilding that trust then takes a lot of work.

I don't think punishment bothers most horses, provided they know that they did something 'wrong'. It is when they see no connection between their behavior and the punishment that we humans create a bitter or resentful horse. I wish folks would pay less attention to "positive" or "negative" and focus instead on "fair" & "consistent".


----------



## Caprilli (Jun 27, 2012)

Yogiwick said:


> I just finished reading several scientific articles as to how negative reinforcement is the best way (not the only of course, or the best in any situation, just the most effective overall) and tried and true way to train horses. It is more natural. Alpha mare isn't gonna give you some of her grain if you're waiting patiently and respectfully


This is part of what I am was trying to say about perception. If it is natural then it is not negative! To guide the horse in the right direction is not negative, demanding the impossible (usually due to lack of knowledge) would be negative. Tools such as big bits and spurs used at the right time and in the right way are not negative, the abuse of the above to achieve shortcuts is.

To cut a long story short I think the term "Negative" and "Positive" reinforcement is misinterpreted in this thread.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

bsms said:


> . I wish folks would pay less attention to "positive" or "negative" and focus instead on "fair" & "consistent".


Amen to that.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

I think using the terms "positive reinforcement" and "negative reinforcement" which have very specific meanings took the thread in another direction from where you meant maybe. I do hear what you are saying and definitely agree!


----------



## corymbia (Jul 6, 2011)

I've enjoyed reading this thread after giving this forum a miss for several months. 

Using a treat (+R) to train a correct canter lead is easy to do (have used it successfully in the past) provided your timing is correct and you can sit a sudden stop. The reason the horse doesn't get confused is because you make the bridge sound (kiss, whistle, click whatever) at the exact moment the horse gets the lead right. Because the horse has already made an association between that bridge cue and the arrival of the food it knows that the sound means it performed a behaviour that will result in food. All the bridge does is buy you some extra time to give the food, which when you are riding is handy because you can't give the food straight away. Despite the skepticism, the horses get it very quickly. The downside is that many will come to a sudden stop when they hear the sound because they want the food. If you aren't prepared it can be a bit of a shock though could make teaching reining stops quite easy I would think. 

The hostility to positive reinforcement from horse trainers who frequently remind us of the length of their experience or the number of horses they have trained never ceases to amaze me. Trainers of dolphins, dogs, seals, horses, cats, sheep, cattle, chickens, zebra and now even elephants have been using these techniques, in some cases for close to 50 years. The vast majority of animals used in movies are trained with PR these days. Yet us horse people are still out there arguing that it dosen't work (despite 1000's of studies in a wide variety of species incl horses which show that it does) or they shouldn't be used because- pick whatever reason you like. Or they say that food rewards spoil horses on the basis that SOME horses trained with PR ARE pushy so don't use PR ever, for anything. No matter that horses trained with negative reinforcement buck, shy, rear, bolt and sometimes kill or main their riders because the negative reinforcement hasn't worked. Unless you are very bad with your timing and technique the worst that will happen with a badly trained PR horse is that they will get pushy and maybe nippy. That is not due to the method but due to the incorrect application of it. It is very easy to train horses with PR without them getting pushy or nippy. 

Because some horses don't stop when the bit is pulled or buck when they feel leg pressure do we think that we should never use NR. No, we work out what's gone wrong and try to change what we are doing or if we think its the horse's fault we buy a bigger bit or spurs- to apply more pressure in case the horse didn't get it the first time. We rarely seem to stop and think what we might have done (or not done) to cause the horse to buck or bolt, stall or drift. Like good NR training, PR simply requires good timing, consistency and shaping of responses from simple tries to the final polished behaviour. 

That said I am not a believer in the notion that using only PR is good for horses. Some horses can get very frustrated, even with good timing and I don't think a frustrated horse is a happy one. I also believe that there is and always will be a place for negative reinforcement in horse training. In fact, unless we never use any kind of tack we will always be using NR to some degree. I usually use PR when training trailer loading but I always make sure that the horse will load and back off from pressure cues alone. This is a deal breaker for me as far as safety is concerned- a frightened horse won't be tempted by food so its imperative they understand and respond to pressure cues. The same is true for ridden work- the food often makes it happen more quickly with less "mistakes" but in the end the horse must be trained to stop, turn and go from those pressure cues and their release. Whether I achieve this using PR, NR or a combo (usually), the fact remains that the only way the horse will learn how to give me the response I want to the cue I apply is if I train it and make the associations clear and consistent. If the horse doesn't comply its because I have stuffed up- whether going too fast, not taking into account environmental stimuli, its sore etc. 

As others have posted, the simple rules of reinforcement and punishment developed by Watson, Skinner, Hull and others (all Americans by the way) are not the whole story with all animal training. There is now some very interesting research being conducted into areas such as arousal, affective state and learning (basically emotionality), attachment (whether there is evidence that horses get attached to and respond better to some individuals than others and why), the attributes that make some people successful trainers compared to people who aren't and many more. If vets and the medical profession had the same attitude towards opening their minds to ideas that challenge their beliefs as horse trainers we would not have antibiotics, radiographs or cancer drugs. 

There are many trainers who don't use any PR in their training that are ethical and humane in their methods and produce quiet, responsive horses. I look up to and respect many of them and use some of their techniques myself. But to state that PR doesn't work, can't work or shouldn't even be tried is simply silly when there is ample evidence it does work and many horse owners find it hugely improves their training and their relationship with their horse. And in the end its those pressure cues, pressure equipment and their (mis)use that leads to the injuries due to the bucking, shying and bolting- not one too many carrots.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Caprilli said:


> it is natural then it is not negative! ....To cut a long story short I think the term "Negative" and "Positive" reinforcement is misinterpreted in this thread.


Negative is natural too.... but lets not get into people's perception of the term 'natural'... a whole nother can of worms! 

Yes, we've been over that & this has already been explained in the thread. To reiterate, we are using the formal behavioural definitions. 'Negative' does not mean 'Bad' or 'positive' mean 'good'. Think of them as + & - And 'reinforcement' is something that strengthens a behaviour whereas 'punishment' is something that weakens a behaviour.

So for eg... an example of negative reinforcement would be removing leg or rein pressure when the horse yields to it. Positive reinforcement would be giving the horse a treat or a scratch when he does 'right'. Positive punishment could be hitting the horse, could be bit pressure, spurs, etc. 'Patting' a horse, if the horse doesn't like it is +P. Negative punishment - which IMO is not really effective with horses - would be withholding or taking away food, freedom, etc.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

bsms said:


> I don't think punishment bothers most horses, provided they know that they did something 'wrong'. It is when they see no connection between their behavior and the punishment that we humans create a bitter or resentful horse. I wish folks would pay less attention to "positive" or "negative" and focus instead on "fair" & "consistent".


Agree with you, that fair & consistent is absolutely imperative, but I don't think anyone questions that. The reason we're 'paying attention' here to positive & negative is because, as I understood it, that's what the thread's about. - using +R as well as(or instead of) -R & +P.

I see (fair & consistent) punishment more as something to *teach* the horse what 'wrong' is, more so than something they 'deserve' because they 'know' their behaviour is 'wrong' - the latter strikes me as too anthropomorphic for a horse.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

loosie said:


> Agree with you, that fair & consistent is absolutely imperative, but I don't think anyone questions that. The reason we're 'paying attention' here to positive & negative is because, as I understood it, that's what the thread's about. - using +R as well as(or instead of) -R & +P.
> 
> I see (fair & consistent) punishment more as something to *teach* the horse what 'wrong' is, more so than something they 'deserve' because they 'know' their behaviour is 'wrong' - the latter strikes me as too anthropomorphic for a horse.


1 - Most people do not know the clinical meaning of positive or negative as applied to a reinforcement.

2 - Horses most definitely know when they have done something offensive to the leader. That is why they don't mind being kicked by a superior for trying to take the superior's hay - they understand the rules, and are merely checking to see if the superior is going to enforce the rules or not.

This is part of why people reject the advice of so many experts - the advice doesn't match the reality we see. My 3 horses, and Lilly before them, most definitely DID understand the idea of being punished for disobeying the rules. They did not have an instinctive knowledge of what each rule might be - stand still while mounting, for example, is not instinctive - but once a rule is taught, they DO understand punishment for offending the rule.

They also understand consistency and proportional punishment. If I give Mia a bump of my heel when she is being lazy trotting, she accelerates slightly with no sign of resentment. If I walloped her with the end of a whip for the same thing, she would be stunned at first, and then deeply offended - the punishment would be disproportionate to the "crime".



corymbia said:


> ...The hostility to positive reinforcement from horse trainers who frequently remind us of the length of their experience or the number of horses they have trained never ceases to amaze me...
> 
> ...Or they say that food rewards spoil horses on the basis that SOME horses trained with PR ARE pushy so don't use PR ever, for anything. No matter that horses trained with negative reinforcement buck, shy, rear, bolt and sometimes kill or main their riders because the negative reinforcement hasn't worked....
> 
> ...


Again, the resistance comes in large part because it doesn't match the reality we see around us. None of my horses act resentful over negative reinforcement, and none of them show any sign of being upset over pressure/release of pressure. If you can get the desired result without clickers or treats, then why start using them? If I wished to teach a trick, such as would be needed in the movies, then I'd try clicker training. But I don't see much value in it for teaching my horse more confidence, or to swing her rear end in response to pressure, etc. If she spooks on the trail, rewards aren't going to help me. What has helped is being negative enough to hold her in place until she finds out the scary thing isn't scary at all, and that I - me, the human rider - know the difference.

The 'positive' is then the relief she feels when she can walk down a trail carefree and relaxed. Negatives - my legs & the bit - bring her to a state of mind that is a huge positive for her. It even carries over into her behavior standing around in the corral with 2 geldings - she is a much more relaxed horse. Doing something 'negative' to create a 'positive'...

Horses don't buck, shy or rear because 'negative reinforcement' - whatever that means - doesn't work. I don't care if it is 'positive' or 'negative', and my horses don't either. If it is consistent, fair, and they are taught what a cue means in small steps they can digest, they do fine.

Also, horses WILL test their riders, just as they test each other. And when they test each other, they expect punishment. If they don't get it, they assume they are now superior. And as the new superior, they feel free to punish their inferior. And if 1000 lbs of muscle feels free to punish a human, it is going to be bad for the human.

That *IS* *natural horsemanship*. It is working with the horse in the way a horse works with another horse. It is simple, straightforward, and it works with horses because it is in line with how horses think.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

bsms said:


> 1 - Most people do not know the clinical meaning of positive or negative as applied to a reinforcement.


Yes, that's obvious. That's what this thread's about.:wink: I think it's valuable for people wishing to train any animal to understand the concepts, because regardless how much or little you understand, how you choose to use them, they still apply.



> This is part of why people reject the advice of so many experts - the advice doesn't match the reality we see. My 3 horses, and Lilly before them, most definitely DID understand the idea of being punished for disobeying the rules. They did not have an instinctive knowledge of what each rule might be - stand still while mounting, for example, is not instinctive - but once a rule is taught, they DO understand punishment for offending the rule.


I was thinking about how often people are indeed out of whack with reality & *assume* a horse 'knows' a lot more than they do. Timing for eg is another huge factor in correct punishment or reinforcement, that people don't understand the importance of. There's also the question of motivation. For eg. if your mare moves while mounting because something hurts & you punish her for it. Perhaps I didn't explain very well.



> Again, the resistance comes in large part because it doesn't match the reality we see around us. None of my horses act resentful over negative reinforcement, and none of them show any sign of being upset over pressure/release of pressure. If you can get the desired result without clickers or treats, then why start using them?


It seems to me you miss the whole point then. Release of pressure IS negative reinforcement by the way. I don't think anyone was saying your horse should resent it or some such. The whole point as far as I'm concerned was about why SHOULDN'T you make the most of positive reinforcement too - be that with clickers & treats or otherwise. Why limit yourself to half the spectrum?? Why should you be so against rewarding your horse with something Good, rather than _just_ the removal of something Bad??



> If I wished to teach a trick, such as would be needed in the movies, then I'd try clicker training. But I don't see much value in it for teaching my horse more confidence, or to swing her rear end in response to pressure, etc.


That IMO sounds that you don't understand the principles behind it very well. Each to his own as to whether you want to IMO, but it irritates me when people put down what they don't get. 



> The 'positive' is then the relief she feels when she can walk down a trail carefree and relaxed.


No. I don't know how better to get across to you than has already been explained, that the above eg is negative reinforcement. 



> I don't care if it is 'positive' or 'negative', and my horses don't either.


I think horses do indeed think differently about +R & -R. Another point of the discussion. If you don't care, I don't get why you've joined the discussion??


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

Here's a little story on corporal punishment. A young lad would borrow a pony to fetch the mail for a few people. Every day the pony bucked him off and the lad was getting mighty irked. One day the pony dumped him and managed to get away. It didn't run home but chose another path until the rein snagged a bush. The lad found him and in his anger, delivered the hardest smack he could muster to the pony's jaw. Now everyone would say he'd missed the window of learning, but the pony got the message because he never bucked again.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

loosie said:


> ...The whole point as far as I'm concerned was about why SHOULDN'T you make the most of positive reinforcement too - be that with clickers & treats or otherwise. Why limit yourself to half the spectrum?? Why should you be so against rewarding your horse with something Good...
> 
> No. I don't know how better to get across to you than has already been explained, that the above eg is negative reinforcement.
> 
> I think horses do indeed think differently about +R & -R. Another point of the discussion. If you don't care, I don't get why you've joined the discussion??


1 - Good is a value judgment that I don't think horses share. It implies the trainer is 'nice', or 'good' - and I think that is what motivates a lot of folks to start 'positive' training...because it involves being 'good', instead of being 'bad'. But the horse doesn't respond to 'negative' reinforcements as being 'bad'. It is either fair or unfair. Either I'm being a bully, or being just.

They live their entire lives that way! No lead horse gives treats to entice another horse to do what they say. No lead horse whinnies "Good boy" to a gelding who does something right. It simply is not in their nature.

2 - When a horse realizes her rider can help figure out scary from not scary, it is a huge relief to them. It means, for Mia, that she no longer has to take charge and save everyone on a trail ride. 

Think of it like fly spray. My horses don't like the feeling of fly spray, but 2 of the 3 figured out pretty quick that the nasty feeling of fly spray is followed by relief from flies. Now when I spray some fly spray on my hand, they will rub their faces against my hand on their own. It doesn't matter to them that they don't like the feel, because they connect it to the reward beyond.

3 - If no one who thought like I do took part in the discussion, all you would have is a cheerleading thread full of back-slappers. And then a lurker would think, "I ought to be positive, because I want a Happy Horse Who Loves Me".

Much of this positive/negative talk fails to appreciate that horses adapt to our cues. Mild pressure from my calf is not painful to a horse. It isn't really THAT irritating. Trooper is used to being ridden western, with rare lower leg contact. Mia is used to a more English seat, with constant light contact with my lower leg. I think they normally understand the removal of pressure as the same thing as a click with clicker training - it means, NOW you did it right.

I think it is harmful to horses to speak of 'positive training', because A) few people understand positive in its clinical sense, and B) fewer still would know how to use it well. Too many humans enter the horse world with no knowledge at all about horses (like I did 5-6 years ago). They then get suckered into things like "bitless is nice, bits are cruel" or "ride the bond" or "be your horse's friend". And that hogwash can get you killed or hurt. I stopped riding today after 30 minutes because my right, lower back is still sore from an injury in Jan 2009. It doesn't happen as often, but it still flares up (and swells up visibly) at times.

Mia likes and trusts me in a way our other horses do not. But Mia wouldn't like me at all if I was all positive. She wouldn't respect me if she didn't know I was willing to get all over her case - just as she would be willing to jump in the chili of our geldings, if they defied her. We have a religious revival about once a month. Maybe a bit less often, now. She'll say, "You're not the boss of me" and I'll reply, "Like hell I'm not", and the fight is on. It usually lasts around 5 minutes, followed by 5-10 minutes of slightly offended attitude by Mia, and then followed by 4-8 weeks of a willing horse.

Horses understand 'I'll kick your butt'! They do not resent it...if it is fair, consistent and they know the rules. It is not morally negative way of training. This phrase was very revealing: "_Why should you be so against rewarding your horse with something Good_". You are attaching a moral value that 'positive' and 'negative' do not clinically have, so as to make your case - your case being that 'positive reinforcement' is "Good". I reject that moral judgment, and my horses do not understand it at all...:-x


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

huh? that is a strange story. if anything, the pony just learned that the lad was capable of hitting him, and maybe had fear based respect. But, so , we should go after our horses, and long after they buck us off, we should smack them? I don't think I am getting your point.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Like dogs, if a horse knows it did something 'wrong', then it will remember doing that wrong a heck of a lot longer than 3 seconds. The 3 seconds rule - or better, the 1 second rule - applies to teaching something new.

If horses had memories as short as some experts claim, they would never be able to find water in the wild.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

No, I didn't mean the horse has a short memory. He will reemember that THAT lad is one who smacks him. He won't remember that he did something that the lad smacked him for. only that he was off grazing by the roadside, after ditching the rider, and the lad walks up and smacks him one. you bet, he'll remember that!


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

bsms said:


> 1 - Good is a value judgment that I don't think horses share. It implies the trainer is 'nice', or 'good' - and I think that is what motivates a lot of folks to start 'positive' training...because it involves being 'good', instead of being 'bad'.


I agree with what you say above(& most of what you have said BTW) & didn't mean it in a moral way. The difference is in working out what 'good' might be *in any given situation or time for the horse*. FWIW I don't think +R is always appropriate either.



> But the horse doesn't respond to 'negative' reinforcements as being 'bad'. It is either fair or unfair. Either I'm being a bully, or being just.


Again, I mean 'bad' as in unpleasant, undesirable. As in something to yield away from, for eg. which is why -R works.



> They live their entire lives that way! No lead horse gives treats to entice another horse to do what they say. No lead horse whinnies "Good boy" to a gelding who does something right. It simply is not in their nature.


I reckon understanding & considering what is natural behaviour between horses is invaluable. But I don't believe that just because a horse does something - or not - with another horse is a good enough reason to rule it in or out for us. I know some disagree, but I don't believe in biting horses as punishment either, even tho it's 'natural behaviour'.



> 3 - If no one who thought like I do took part in the discussion, all you would have is a cheerleading thread full of back-slappers.


You said you don't care, which is what I responded to on that note. Of course you can care but disagree & debate about it, which is what I think is really the case.... & that's what I think is constructive for all:wink: Just that as you - & others - have pointed out, I think that some of your disagreements at least are based on lack of understanding. 



> And then a lurker would think, "I ought to be positive, because I want a Happy Horse Who Loves Me".


That is my personal feeling about those who disagree with the whole concept of punishment/-R I think they're... cutting off their noses to spite the other side of their face, to those who don't believe in +R:lol: 



> Much of this positive/negative talk fails to appreciate that horses adapt to our cues. Mild pressure from my calf is not painful to a horse.


I don't personally think so at all. I think that most reasonable trainers understand that very well, whether or not they use +R. I think that people who don't understand behavioural theory get hung up on 'negative=wrong'



> I think it is harmful to horses to speak of 'positive training', because A) few people understand positive in its clinical sense, and B) fewer still would know how to use it well.


Codswallop. People get into just as much trouble using more 'normal' techniques badly. It is 'harmful' to use any training principle without understanding what on earth you're doing. That's why I think learning the *theory* is so important.



> Too many humans enter the horse world with no knowledge at all about horses (like I did 5-6 years ago). They then get suckered into things like "bitless is nice, bits are cruel"


Or they get 'suckered' into 'harsh' treatment which also frequently gets people hurt. Again, whatever it is about, I think it's vital to understand what you're doing, not just blindly follow someone's instructions without understanding & thought.



> But Mia wouldn't like me at all if I was all positive.


How do you know - have you tried?? But seriously, I agree that is likely, but I don't think we're discussing that radical view of doing away with the other half the spectrum either.



> This phrase was very revealing: "_Why should you be so against rewarding your horse with something Good_". You are attaching a moral value that 'positive' and 'negative' do not clinically have, so as to make your case - your case being that 'positive reinforcement' is "Good". I reject that moral judgment, and my horses do not understand it at all...:-x


+R is a tool IMO, one possible appropriate tool out of many. What I get out of the above is that you reject +R because for some reason you feel it's morally wrong.


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

The pony figured out the lad was no one to mess with. This happens in the herd when one horse decides it wants to eat where another is and goes after it tooth and hoof. Negative training at it's finest.


----------



## Cali (Feb 4, 2011)

Saddlebag said:


> The pony figured out the lad was no one to mess with. This happens in the herd when one horse decides it wants to eat where another is and goes after it tooth and hoof. Negative training at it's finest.


That is not negative. I havent read through this whole thread but there seems to be confusion on the training quadrents. 

Positive = adding a stimulus (treat, whip, kick, etc)
Negative = subtracting a stimulus 

Punishment = reduces the likelihood of the behavior occuring in the future
Reinforcement= increases the likelihood of the behavior reoccuring.

So to smack a horse, is positive punishment. 

To release pressure when a horse moves the way you are asking, is negative reinforcement.

To give a horse a treat or pat is positive reinforcement.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

You have to be very careful when you try to use the alpha horse principal in your training methods that you are behaving like the bully horse that the other horses avoid and distrust or the true leader that the other horses respect and will follow because it is the one they know they can rely on.
If a horse is afraid of you then it wont work willingly for you.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

The difference between being a bully and being a leader is being 1) fair, 2) consistent, 3) proportionate, and 4) timely. Horses - at least, mine - have a strong sense of fairness. They despise bullies. But they also have no use for weaklings.

Give Mia a whack without just cause, and you will soon have a fight on your hands. Give one WITH just cause, and she'll say, "OK, I know, I know...".


----------



## Haflinger (Jul 16, 2007)

The horse, yes needs it's bounds like every creature to move in.
You got to act as a translator for the cultural differences from human to horse!
Most methods today brag about being fast and get results, that includes most new horse gurus...
Seldom you hear a trainer brag it will take a long time to develop the trust you need to really train your horse. Yes I can teach lectures, exercises very fast and effective. And most of the natural horsemanship people aren't that positive at all. 
However they are effective! 
and this is why they are so popular.... any good horse person knows it takes time... Yes I can swing myself within a few hours on a horse, maybe even sit on his back around the arena without any problems for the first three times, oh impressive... no!!! Not at all, the real hard part is, to have your horses trust after it finds his balance, to have the horse willing to work through the first sore muscles and not just buck you of before it gets hard....

But I see a new trend , a trend where people want things fast and easy, and skip the hard and tedious basic/foundation work, to see results!

And most methods will give results, and they are easy...

but 'Easy' isn't always right!!!


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

I didn't read the entirety of each post on this thread, but I have to agree with Loosie on at least one point that she has made... I think we are investing too much in what we think horses "know".

Positive and negative reinforcement are both used by knowledgable horse people. It's just about knowing how to appropriately use them.


----------



## cowgirlbaby (Feb 24, 2012)

One name comes to mind when I think of horse training - Parelli. Parelli Natural horsemanship is how I train my horses - it's the best thing that I've done for me & my horses. It will blow your mind with the results. It doesn't matter what you use your horse for - leisure, dressage, barrel racing etc..... it works!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

^^ Parelli is a subject for an entire other thread...in fact, many of them. Let's just say that if I saw an ad for a Parelli-trained horse, I'd move on. :?


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

^Oh I dunno. Having started learning about training many... god, is it really decades??... ago with Parelli, I've moved well away from it. But I'm inclined to think that it's the fanatics that 'follow the rules' without understanding or exception in whatever 'discipline' or 'brand' that are the problem.


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

Haflinger writes In German "Der beste Reitlehrer etc..." -" the best riding instructor is under the saddle." 
yes indeed and most new riders don't appreciate the truth of that statement.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

All training seems to now be cast as positive or negative.
Those that think using a whip, spurs or anything to reprimand a horse is wrong and often think is cruelty, have rarely ever really intermingled with many horse.

I am all for easy or hard, if you do this there is a consequence. However, there are times when force _is_ needed.

If a foal turns is backside to me to kick then it will get a hard slap, with my hand or, anything to hand, to make it realise that if it even thinks of kicking out at me it will hurt them. One dose of their own medicine is usually enough for them to never kick at a person again.

A horse that say, is difficult to clip and will not allow the clippers on it can be taught with many hours of so called positive training or, the person doing the clipping can get _very cross_ and go into attack mode and make that horse think it is going to die. Not by beating it up but, by being very dominant. Then when the horse shows submission, start clipping with no problems. 

When teaching in a riding school I always had a lunge whip to hand. The horses never bothered about it. I could crack it around and they wouldn't flinch but, if they were even thinking about doing something untoward, they knew I would use it. What made them accept was that it was fair.

I had a big warm blood mare come to me in an emergency. The man who delivered her warned me that she was 'evil' and just as likely to attack when she wanted. 
I turned her out with two of my brood mares. When I went to feed them that afternoon, I stopped the ATV outside the gate. My mares were stood back knowing that I would drive across the field to their feed buckets, the new mare, as I went to unlatch the gate, charged, ears flat back, punching with her front legs and mouth wide open. There was no doubt in my mind that she wanted to do me serious damage.

I got back on the ATV and returned to the stables. I picked up my rarely used twitch which was half a pitchfork handle, and returned to the gate. 

My two were waiting patiently and when the mare charged again, I was ready and I hit her hard straight down the front of her face. I hurt her, I meant her to feel it. I was not angry, it was not in temper it was to teach her that if you want to hurt me I will hurt you back. I rarely ever hit a horse in the face.

She shot away and stood in the middle of the field. I drove in and across to the feeders. My two started to eat and the new mare stood back. I put her feed in a feeder and walked towards her. She ran away which told me that at least she had learned a lesson. 
Next day she stood back and waited. I still couldn't catch her. I let her follow the other two into the barn and she went into a stable. She was very wary of me catching her in the stable but, it only took a minute. Once caught she was a bit grumpy and showed a few threats of biting and kicking but all it took was a poke with a finger and a growl to correct.
Just handling this mare told me that she was in need of adjustment, she had a build up of static electricity making her very ticklish. Once this was sorted she was happier to be groomed. Her feet were a mess and in need of a trim. When my farrier came a few days later I asked him to do her. He looked at her and started. She did think about messing but a verbal warning was enough and after the first front foot she stood like she should.

I spoke to the husband of the owner and asked if I could ride her, I was told she was very bad to rode and if a rider fell she would turn on them. She hadn't been ridden in 18 months.
I mounted her in the yard and took her into a field. At the gate she started to rear. I am not talking about a foot off the ground but, vertical ones. I just sat on her and did nothing. She was experienced at this and was not going to go over. She tired herself out and then went forward.
Boy oh boy, was that a horse and a half! I was getting all sorts of paces I was not expecting, she had been exceedingly well schooled for advanced dressage. 
20 minutes and she was tired. To cool her I took her out to walk around the triangle, a road ride of just over a mile.
Now, that was interesting! She was so spooky, drains, leaves, road markings were all alien to her.

I rode her out every day, worked her twice a day when I could and she was a different horse. She was first to be caught, well mannered in the stables to the point that small children could go in with her. 
I took her Fox Hunting and she almost died of fright when she saw hounds, but soon caught on to hat fun it was and, after popping a small set of rails on her and realising that she could jump, had no qualms about taking on the biggest hedges.

When the owner returned from hospital she was astounded at the change in the mare. I had her for about three months. 
She had been bought as a 4 year old for a lot of money, trained for dressage and nothing else. I swear she had a mental breakdown and learned that attack stopped her twiddling in circles.
I sold the mare to go show jumping and her new owners have no problems whatsoever with her. 

Now, those who do not believe such corrections are right have never had to deal with a horse like this. She would have been impossible to catch in a field, dangerous in a round pen and, if someone was going to only use 'positive', taken years, of ever, to bring her around.

I only ever hit her the once, it was perfectly timed and she knew exactly what it was for. Had I not done this hard correction then she would have been shot. 

I consider what I odd as 'positive' - you attack me and I will be positive that you will regret it.


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

My early tutor in matters horsey, a man who earned his living by training horses for use by actors in the film industry, told me early on that if one was unlucky enough to meet with a dangerous horse, then chastisement was the only answer. Aggression by any horse towards humans was unacceptable.

Each scenario would be different but it was important that the horse learned very quickly that the rider or trainer or handler was the boss. One carefully considered sharp blow - designed to hurt but not maim might later save the human from injury. Biting, striking and rearing by the horse must be countered. The horse must respect its carer and rider.

However there is a difference between harsh chastisement and cruelty.

Personally I don't like to hurt a horse deliberately and I have found that my voice and an aggressive posture has been enough to put most of the horses which have needed "correction", in place. I have always taken into consideration the fact that sooner or later I have to put a bit in the horses's mouth. I aim to make a loyal servant of the horse and not to create an enemy biding its time for revenge.


----------



## AnrewPL (Jun 3, 2012)

bsms said:


> ^^ Parelli is a subject for an entire other thread...in fact, many of them. Let's just say that if I saw an ad for a Parelli-trained horse, I'd move on. :?


 
Yeah, y'know, I gotta agree with Loosie here, I learned from a dude who learned directly from Parelli years ago, he used to go to his place in the US and spend time with the guy, back in the early to mid 80s. And so much of what he taught me completely contradicts much, if not most, of what the Parelli drones all go on about. I guess he could have changed much of it over the years ( good possibility given the emergence of all of this right/left brain stuff), or, it could have been filtered by my friend, who learned a fair wedge of californio bridle stuff too, or the Parelli drones could just misunderstand a heap of it and only cherry pick the nice fluffy stuff (which is my main guess). After all, how many of them go on about the evils of spurs and other “torture devices”? Hell, I have the Parelli book, there are photos of him riding around with spurs on.
I have the impression that it appeals to a certain group of people and many of them tend to drag it down to a laughable level.


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

I spent better than 30 years re-training spoiled horses. Many were headed for slaughter and I was their last hope for survival. For most of those years, all the spoiled ones were brought by customers. It seems that when you straighten out so many outlaws that had put people in the hospital (some nearly killed by horses and several crippled for life) , the word spreads and you attract every other dink that has been badly spoiled. The last few years that I re-trained them, I quit taking in outside horses and just went to sales picking all of the spoiled horses that were well-bred, good looking, sound and old enough to ride hard. Most were 5 years or older. Some were flippers, many only turned one way and reared or threatened to rear, some were led through and only a story was told or I talked to the owner before the sale. 

I can tell you that almost without exception, they became very useful horses and some became really nice show horses. One shown in our website went on to win 6 AQHA World Championships and over 30 AQHA World Show 'Top Tens'. He was an outlaw when I brought him home. Some went on be big-time hunters, jumpers and dressage horses. 

I very seldom ever hit any of these spoiled horses and cannot remember using a whip on a single one. BUT, you can bet I dominated them and made them all say "Yes Mam!" and back up when I indicated to them that I wanted them to back up. Their ONLY reward was that I took all pressure off and left them alone when they did the right thing. They all became completely relaxed and happy to do what they were asked to do. 

Sometimes the process was not pretty. [I always said it was much like making sausage or bologna. You only wanted the end result and did not want to watch the process of making it.]

When we have had someone working for us, we always stressed that there were two completely different training techniques -- one for green un-trained horses and a completely different one for spoiled horses. Training green horses means that you are trying to teach them to do what you want. There is NEVER any reason for it to be 'rough', much less abusive. Re-training badly spoiled horses, particularly very aggressive horses, can sometimes get pretty rough. You have to have a horse submit to get them to completely 'give up' a bad behavior. Otherwise, they just go back to it when a different person tries to handle or ride them.


----------



## Haflinger (Jul 16, 2007)

I do not doubt and have it done myself, that you have to set and enforce rules to keep you and your horse safe.
But I don't think this should be the center of this discussion.
I thought it was more geared towards the training aspect of it.

Horsemanship is a catchy word isn't it?
I saw Big names , when they were not so big yet. I saw instructors that learned directly from the big names. I saw real problem horses denied for the show...
...because, if you have a real troubled horse, you cannot work your instant magic...

Don't get me wrong they were good on reading the horse, but the way they handle some things...well, not my style...
It really blew my mind when one big name Trainer introduced his" choke Halter" (I call it) several years back. I bet it has a different real name, but I forgot. The idea is to put pressure on nose and pole to make the horse go (forward) and release the pressure in return. works great on softer horses to get them in the trailer- fast.

One thing that stayed very vivid in my mind, that all say, "there is just my way, that is the right one". One has to have this halter and one has to have this whip - special color- , the rope needs to be 12ft long not an inch shorter or longer....

This all serves as moving adds and money makers for them....

Most of the so called problem horses have only one big issue...and this is lost trust! They do not know they can trust a human, and either fight or flight. Sometimes time and a gentle hand and patience will do so much more. I have seen situations escalate, because the human had to have his way- now. if he would have waited just a bit longer so much stress and heartache could have been avoided... 
but I also know that it is hard sometimes to recognize the right time to wait and/or encourage or if you have to you make them...

Regardless, it goes back to the Signature... 
The best Riding Instructor is under the saddle.... 
-start listening!!!!


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

What makes an outstanding trainer is the simple fact that they can 'read' a horse. 

I have seen many good trainers that cannot read a horse. They cannot tell when a horse is saying "I don't understand," or "I'm not going to." 
A good trainer will have a certain method that works 95% of the time but will change methods for the 5% to achieve the same aims.


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

I dealt with many sur horses and what I found was that sometimes I just had to resort to corporal punishment. But, I made sure the horse the horse understood what I was asking and had likely done it many times. Some days it just decides to revert and become a bonehead. A smack with a crop usually changed it's mind. My riding crop has a flat leather "popper". It's actually folded leather about 2.5" wide and the fold is fairly flat. Slapped against the hand it makes a loud pop yet is gentle on the skin. I've never found another in numerous stores nor online, and no idea of manufacturer.


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

Awesome post, Cheri. It never ceases to amaze me all the talent and knowledge we have on this site <3


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

^And (generally) respectfulness to eachother's differences of opinions. That we can have this sort of discussion & it stays a discussion, not a verbal brawl! That's something really amazing for an internet forum, IME!


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

Loosie, that respect for other people's attitudes and opinions is something which we long standing members aim to preserve. There have been occasions in the past where a thread has developed into a verbal brawl - and that is when it is time to withdraw from the topic. 

Personally I am very pleased to think that new members find the Horse Forum a friendly place and long may that state of affairs continue.


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

PS. What always surprises me is that most of the threads and posts which prove to be popular by viewers are those written recently. Seemingly little or no attention is given to those posts which have been written in the past. Yet back in the archives are written numerous threads which when seen together represent an extensive library of advice, explaination and opinion about matters horsey. 

There are very few relevant topics which have not been discussed and debated.

The archives are easily accessed by subject or by author. Try it for yourself.
If you agree with the opinion expressed in a post then the chances are that you will be like minded with the author - so go look at what else that member has written about both recently and in the past.

But I warn you that you might find yourself sitting and reading about horses for hours on end.

Barry G


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

^yeah I bet nothing much gets said that hasn't been before!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

loosie said:


> ^yeah I bet nothing much gets said that hasn't been before!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


But horse training is somewhat the same as sex, every new generation think that they invented it:wink:


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

Oh Lover of Dapple Grey Irish Draught horses, I must disagree. I can't envisage in any way what the training of a powerful four legged equine has in common with a joyful dalliance on a moonlight evening with a member of the opposite sex. Unless, of course, you are referring to the sloppy lick which a kindly horse might give you after being handed a tidbit at the end of a training session.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Barry Godden said:


> ...I can't envisage in any way what the training of a powerful four legged equine has in common with a joyful dalliance on a moonlight evening with a member of the opposite sex...


Ummm...both horses and women are wont to say "Neighhhhh!!!!!!!!"? :shock: :evil:

Maybe I need to offer my significant other "a tidbit at the end of a training session"? I wonder if my wife would like some alfalfa pellets. They work great with Mia.


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

Well, I must admit that I have been prone to refer to my dear beloved of almost 50 years as "Her Indoors" - whereas, sadly, DiDi, the Irish Huzzy of an equine was for a few years only "the Love of my Life". I was always well aware that a bunch of exotic flowers and a candle lit dinner could have an amazing effect on the female, whereas a handful of fresh green spring grass accompanied by a gentle stroke with the fingers was all it was needed to please the mare in my life.


----------



## Sahara (Jul 23, 2010)

Well, this thread has really taken a drift.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

bsms said:


> Ummm...both horses and women are wont to say "Neighhhhh!!!!!!!!"? :shock: :evil:
> 
> Maybe I need to offer my significant other "a tidbit at the end of a training session"? I wonder if my wife would like some alfalfa pellets. They work great with Mia.





Barry Godden said:


> Well, I must admit that I have been prone to refer to my dear beloved of almost 50 years as "Her Indoors" - whereas, sadly, DiDi, the Irish Huzzy of an equine was for a few years only "the Love of my Life". I was always well aware that a bunch of exotic flowers and a candle lit dinner could have an amazing effect on the female, whereas a handful of fresh green spring grass accompanied by a gentle stroke with the fingers was all it was needed to please the mare in my life.


Oh heavens! 
So you two think!
It always makes me snigger when the male of the species think they have 'won'!
They never seem to learn that the females never forget and will bring up a transgression at any time!

The horse of my life took wits and cunning to get him into my best horse ever.
Even then he would throw in a challenge every now and then and I would let him have his fun but, he knew whee the line as and who was the boss and it wasn't him.
Just the same as a happy marriage! 
Females are usually the everyday leaders.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

I haven't read all the replies, but there is a lot of "equipment" that, when in the "right hands", is in no way abusive. However, in the wrong hands it can and often does mean some poor horse suffers physical discomfort and confusion. 

I like to believe most riders/trainers keep an open mind and keep learning their whole riding/training career. I have always been at the opposite end of "abusive". But, I figured out pretty early on that not communicating something _clearly_ to anyone, be it a horse or dog or human, is inconsiderate and not doing anyone any favors and can lead to confusion and frustration. It is not "gentle", it is just irritating to the horse. It is only fair to communicate clearly. It is abusive if communication goes way beyond "clear direction". I see no problem with spurs, for example, _if_ the horse is trained to them and their use is limited to communicating. I don't put all communication in the "negative" or "positive" reinforcement category. Of course many things can be broken down to "negative/positive reinforcement", but I think a lot of it can also be described as awareness of what one is communicating while remaining considerate of the horse. 

The one thing that I think is often missed in the "horse world" is the horse itself. They are highly intelligent - IMPO, much more so than dogs.


----------

