# Dominance Theory



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

A female version of Mark Rashid?


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

While I agree in many aspects of this I also think that sometimes these sort of things can fall too much into the 'cookie cutter' approach and not take into account that each horse, like each person' has its own unique character that's been created by 'how its born' and how its been 'made' - the latter being a direct result of its life experiences.
I don't believe that general aggression is the answer to anything but I do believe that at times firm retaliation in the form of a sharp slap or even good whack to a dangerous or potentially wrong behavior is needed to really make the horse know that its not acceptable.
I've seen first hand, in too many horses, how small things quickly escalate to being a major problem when a handler ignores them or thinks they can talk the horse into good behavior like you can a child.


You also have to be careful when dealing with dominant horses - you give them an inch and they'll take a mile and before you know it they're in the driving seat. You don't have to use violence you do have to assert yourself in such a way that they always know who's the leader.


I also believe that horse need some form of order to feel secure because that's how a herd works. 
It doesn't mean you have to be aggressive with your horses but you do need to be the one leading the show because if you aren't they will take over that role
The true leader is the one that the followers trust and respect but sometimes you have to use some force to let the challengers know where they stand


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

I've thought a lot about leadership's role in animal training. To me, a leader --- leads. Discipline is a function of keeping everyone safe, calm, and moving on the right track. It isn't about "dominance" but about order. Social animals -- almost all of our domestic animals -- crave order, just like we do. 

Leaders aren't generally focused on who they are leading, they are looking ahead, toward what they are going to encounter together. The led respond because they are connected to the energy and surety of the leader. I learned this with sheepherding. My teacher made me practice moving sheep without a dog. A herd of 50 sheep. You can't overpower them or outrun them or intimidate them, you can only push and pull them with your energy field and intention. It was a powerful experience. 

Jaydee's not wrong either.


----------



## walkinthewalk (Jul 23, 2008)

Avna said:


> I've thought a lot about leadership's role in animal training. To me, a leader --- leads. Discipline is a function of keeping everyone safe, calm, and moving on the right track. It isn't about "dominance" but about order. Social animals -- almost all of our domestic animals -- crave order, just like we do.
> 
> Leaders aren't generally focused on who they are leading, they are looking ahead, toward what they are going to encounter together. The led respond because they are connected to the energy and surety of the leader. I learned this with sheepherding. My teacher made me practice moving sheep without a dog. A herd of 50 sheep. You can't overpower them or outrun them or intimidate them, you can only push and pull them with your energy field and intention. It was a powerful experience.
> 
> Jaydee's not wrong either.


Avna has a great way of saying things

There's about a thousand pounds of truth in her comment "it isn't about 'dominance' but about order." Yet another statement that should be on a T-shirt with this ----->:cowboy:


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

I think she is using words, without any application of those terms, far as what is considered standard good and fair horse training
No one that I respect as a trainer, trains either out of fear and aggression, thought, of course, there are still some horse 'mechanics that do use those features
The days of having a horse work out of fear, are back in the days when un handled horses were rounded up off the range, snubbed up to a post, not ever having been trained how to respond to pressure, were hobbled, blind folded, while some bronc buster got on, blind fold and hobbles taken off, and that horse bucked out, spurring him in the process.
Not one good trainer works on that premise, and they also desire to create a horse that enjoys his work, works willingly, as a partner, versus a slave
Most good horseman realize ahorse will work much better for you, be trustworthy in a tight situation, if they work willingly for you, eager to please, then out of fear. I would be the last person that would wish to ride a horse that worked only out of fear and intimidation, as sooner or later, those horses blow
Being'assertive', is just another way of saying creating fair, clear black and white boundaries, where you only need to be assertive enough, to have the horse both respect you, and accept that it is you who leads him, can make his feet move, and not the other way around
We have also gone round and round, on the application of the word dominance, as it applies to horse training, and not some dictionary definition, or part of and S and M relationship!
It simply means that the horse, has a herd species, has a herd order, and every horse in that herd accepts it, although of course, in a herd setting, that order is questioned at times, as horse s age, ect
That order, or dominance, if you wish, at times might be enforced hard, to get the message across, and after that, a mere look, a slight body language is sufficient
Horses understand that fact very well, don't hold grudges. You can see a 'dominant horse perhaps, get after a lower down horse, who he thinks has crossed the line, and a few minutes later, they are grazing side by side
Dominance, is just a simpler way of saying herd order. It does not mean you 'dominant a horse out of fear and aggression. You simple use enough assertiveness to make your position clear.
While herd order might be a changing dynamic, you are not part of that herd. That herd order only relates between you and the horse you are working with, and you must remain the dominant part of that relationship. In other words, if you don't lead, a horse will-it is their very nature
As as old song goes, 'it;s only words, and it is the correct application of those words that count,
Some' trainer 'can go on and on in some wordly theory,throwing terms around, and it means not much to me. Show me how that trainer trains, the horses he turns out. If those horses stay sound in body and mind, work willingly, are respectful and secure in their relationship with me, then labels and dictionary definitions mean squat

" the proof is in the pudding'!


----------



## mmshiro (May 3, 2017)

The "feel" of the message seems right, but she never clearly defines "assertiveness" and "aggression", so telling people do be one without the other leaves a lot unsaid. She might be addressing those people who lack nuance in interpreting horse behavior, who see any sign of hesitation or confusion as an act of insubordination or rebellion, thus inducing them to show the horse that it has no room for decision making - show them "who the boss" is.

I think if you interact with your horse eliminating negative emotions such as anger and frustration, you've gone a great length from being aggressive to being assertive. Horses pick up on emotion, and when I wrestle my mare's head with a towel after a right, she picks up on the fact that she's vulnerable but not in danger. If I stomped at her in anger, yelled, and tried to hold her head with the towel with all my strength, she'd fling me down the barn aisle, I'm sure.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

She does not go into a detailed dissertation on aggression vs assertiveness but at the beginning and at various places through the video she does clearly link aggression to using intimidation, fear, and the requirement of submission where those are not to be present in assertiveness. I didn't see a clear mention of the absence of anger in assertiveness but my thoughts are that it is absent.

And of course she does also mention the need at times to get loud with the assertiveness but presumably with the absence of the factors that define aggression.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Psalms 23: 

"_The Lord is my shepherd; there is nothing I lack.
He lets me lie down in green pastures;
He leads me beside quiet waters._"​ 
That may describe 50 sheep. But when you have a few thousand, a man on foot is a potential threat, as is any man with a dog. You don't lead them. You drive them:











In riding my own horse, who I ride regularly, relation is important. Dealing with the abscess in his hoof bulb this morning, we handled him based on his having known us for 2+ years. Trust was critical.

But if a horse has 50 riders, his behavior may be quite different than my own 'pet' horse. Use a crop on Bandit? No thanks. Use one on a lesson horse who ignores a cue to accelerate? Very possibly. The only time I've used a crop was on my only ride on a bitter lesson horse who would only respond if the rider first made it clear that disobedience would not be tolerated. To make the point, the instructor let me wear out my legs for 15 minutes while the horse refused to do anything but a walk. The she handed me a crop, I gave one hard whack - and the horse responded to light cues the rest of the ride.

If I bought that horse, I would not want to continue that sort of relationship. But for one ride...

When I was in the military, we watched the movie "Twelve O'Clock High" at Squadron Officer School. Great movie. We then discussed it from the viewpoint of leadership styles, and how a person needed to pick an approach that matched the situation. I think that is true with horses, too. There can be a big difference between riding your personal horse and riding a strange one. I wouldn't want to hold the hoof of a strange horse in my hand and probe inside his heel for a splinter. Pick your approach based on the horse and the situation.


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

I think there are a lot of good trainers out there who aren't necessarily putting what they do into words! 

Words don't train a horse, either. 

My sheepdog trainer spent a lot of time trying to get me to feel the difference between aggression and authority, between trying to force or persuade an animal to do something as opposed to feeling the energy between us and moving from my core intention. It's an enormous difference. Until you feel it in your body and see it in the responses of animals, it's hard to wrap your mind around. 

We even did some tai chi and aikido, which frankly felt odd coming from a portly Portuguese ex-cop who kept Fox News blaring all day long in the dog kennel.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I don't know a lot about sheep but cattle are driven by humans rather than led - you don't see horses used much in the UK as they aren't moved for such distances so its mostly a dog that's doing the same work as a sheep dog and the human(s) on foot or maybe on a quad bike.
In dairy herds that are established because they live longer and stay together longer than beef cattle who basically have just a short life you do see leadership amongst the herd and when they're being driven from pasture to milking facility you frequently see the same cow taking the position at the head of the others.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> She does not go into a detailed dissertation on aggression vs assertiveness but at the beginning and at various places through the video she does clearly link aggression to using intimidation, fear, and the requirement of submission where those are not to be present in assertiveness. I didn't see a clear mention of the absence of anger in assertiveness but my thoughts are that it is absent.
> 
> And of course she does also mention the need at times to get loud with the assertiveness but presumably with the absence of the factors that define aggression.


 So, nothing new in accepted good horse training.
Who knows where she first started out!
Far as I see, she is just trying to re -invent the wheel,make it seem like a personal epiphany, when good horseman have used it all along.
Gotta 'walk the talk" !


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Never even bothered to watch those sheep herd things. I'm not much into analogies, abstracts, but just basic good horse sense, and that goes beyond 'word's!


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

Majority of sheep might well have to be driven but if you have a couple of pet sheep or, they are being fed, they will follow you anywhere. 

With dairy cattle you only have to open the gate at milking time and they will come in. When I was milking 210 cows I never went out into the field, they knew it was time to be made comfortable and get some feed. If there were a few stragglers they would be in the yard by the time you were down to the last few.


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

Actually the principle of moving sheep is exactly the same whether you are moving three or a thousand. A flock is both driven (motivated and kept together) AND led (guided in a direction). How the sheep react to a dog or a person on foot or in a truck or on a horse is a function of tens of factors, but the main one is simply how familiar they are with being moved and handled. Range sheep are going to be much wilder than farm flocks.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I don't tend to think in terms of dominance OR assertiveness around my own horses. They don't spend a lot of time asserting dominance among themselves, either. Those issues have been settled...unless and until something changes.

For example, Bandit is now in a corral by himself. When his leg was injured, he couldn't defend himself - and the other horses started taking advantage of it. He is by himself for his own protection. When he is better and I mix them again, I expect to see him act with some aggression - or is it assertiveness? - to establish that he CAN now defend himself and that he won't back down. It is a pity that his injury opens him up to abuse by other horses...but it does.

Over the last 9 years, I've been all over on the issue of dominance. I want it to be black/white, but it really seems to have a lot of shades of grey. I still dislike the idea of casting horse/human relationships into winners and losers. If my horse is afraid of something ahead, and I dismount and help him get past it, I didn't "lose". We both won. When possible, I think "win/win" is the goal we should strive for.

OTOH, if I want to go out on a trail ride, and my horse isn't in the mood...we're PROBABLY going out. Not always. I find it hard to be happy on an unhappy horse. But if he's not in the mood and I tell him to head out anyways...he isn't turning back to the corral without a fight. Is that dominance? Is it assertiveness? I actually give my horses a lot of freedom. I expect them to make choices and often go along with those choices. But sometimes...I'm not asking.

I believe in things like "mutually acceptable compromises" and "setting boundaries, and giving the horse freedom within those boundaries". But a horse doesn't NEED to compromise with a wimp. And if I borrow a horse on a ranch, the horse and I don't have a relationship. Strange horse / strange rider / work to do - just go do it. I'll be very directive at the start, but might be very relaxed 30 minutes later. It just depends.

I'm sure we all agree bullying a horse is wrong. I also refuse to be bullied by the horse. We operate between those extremes. Where one draws the line seems to totally depend on the situation.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

I think we have flogged this 'old pony', many times before, far as when you allow a horse input, versus him taking that role unasked, herd dynamics which change, due to age, weakness like an injury, illness, ect, and how once order is established, it takes very little assertiveness, dominance, take your pick, as many more labels are most likely out there, to keep that order
All that means, you establish your position, handle the horse with consistency, which includes fairness, and also firmness when needed, so that in your 'herd of two, if you wish to use that herd analogy, that order never changes, and the hrose does not constantly need to ask you, 'are you still the leader'
This does not mean you treat the horse like a non thinking entity, don't allow him to use his 'horse sense', in cases where they are better then your own senses, ect. It just means you turn over that leadership, short term-telling the horse,'okay, buddy, I need you to find the safest way down this hill, or whatever
This is different then a horse seizing that leadership, insisting on picking up a trail he knows heads back home, even when you intend to ride further

We have whipped that old pony enough in other topics, and one can go round and round on that one,chewing the same cud , similar as when talking about 'natural horsemanship' and what it means.
They are just labels in either case, and you as a thinking horse person must apply the correct expression of either, versus again, looking for an ABC answer, to a dictionary definition of a word that is just used as a concept in training, and like many other words, that definition varies often in different applications


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

jaydee said:


> cattle are driven by humans rather than led


While this is basically true, quite often one rider will ride some distance in front of the cattle with the other riders and perhaps dogs behind. The cattle will tend to follow the lead rider.

At other times if the lead cow is heading the correct direction, a lead rider is not used.

This is not something I've read somewhere, it's something I've done and seen done.

Aggression vs assertiveness can be somewhat of an intricate topic. There are seminars and classes held on the topic to aid in the understanding of the nuances of differences.

Personally, I lean toward the idea that much of the determination lies in what is often feelings that are unconscious to us. Humans I think tend to mask many of their inner feelings to the extent they hide them from even themselves and often don't even recognize their own inner feelings of aggression.

As in, "Whaddaya mean I'm being aggressive?!!? Say that again and I'll knock your block off!!!".

Thing is, our inner feelings are expressed to at least some degree by our body language. Another human might not be able to read the minor nuances but the horse sure can. Just ask Clever Hans.

It's hard, at least for me. I frequently find myself frustrated with anger creeping in. I just have to stop, walk away and have a chat with myself.

Happened today when green Dragon was nervous in the wind jumping around while I was trying to fit a pack saddle on him. It fell to the ground twice. And I'm sure my inner feelings were not calming to him in a couple of spots.

Thinking about this video and others and people like Mark Rashid is at least a little calming to me when I get in those not so rosey real life circumstances.


----------



## mmshiro (May 3, 2017)

Hondo said:


> It's hard, at least for me. I frequently find myself frustrated with anger creeping in.


Maybe it helps if you lowered your expectations in your horse. If you go into a training session, you expect things to go wrong because you are teaching the horse something new. If you work with your "finished" horse, the expectation is that he'll behave like a pro, so it's easier to get frustrated when he doesn't.

I noticed this just a few hours ago - I took out Scout, who's been under saddle for all of three months now - all by myself. The horse was a nervous wreck: highly straight-line challenged, not sure whether to walk or to trot, head flicking even on a loose rein, whinnying. It was not a relaxing ride by any standard, but my focus wasn't on having a relaxing ride but to reassure him, to calm him, and to give him some measure of safety. He was "misbehaving" by any standard, and I "corrected" him (keeping him straight, having him maintain his gait), but never once did I feel like, "Why the ... can't you stay in a straight line for once???" 

What if you reinterpreted "misbehavior" in a more experienced horse as a training opportunity? It might put you into a mind set of wanting to work with the horse, not on it. What you ultimately do with that is a different matter - the goal is simply to put you into an emotionally more neutral frame of mind. If your horse is being an a-hole, you can still come down on him like a ton of bricks, but rationally and deliberately. 

As for Scout, while it was a short ride, he did calm down, walked in a straight line with a lowered head, and cocked his hind foot right when I put him in the cross ties for untacking. I think tonight he'll tell his pasture buddies about his scary adventure and how he kept the blind and deaf monkey on his back safe.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Again driving cattle, opening the gate for milk cows, leading cattle, all have nothing to do with this subject, and just muddies the water.
KNow what, PMU mares, that stood on line with urine collecting harness on, had to have turn out once a month at least, and you would think that the last place they would want to be, is back in that barn in those tie stalls with that urine collecting harness on. Wrong. Those gals would be waiting by the gate to go back in. Creatures of habit
I have all the patience in the world, teaching a horse anew concept. As some of you might know, I bought two yearlings, a colt and a filly.The colt had a bit of foot handling, but the filly,none,far as I could tell,as she did not want her hind legs touched, and offered to kick
I took my time, running stuff up and down her leg, then gradually my hand, then got her to lift the foot, never got up set if she pulled it away, gave her frequent breaks, ect. Took a week, but I got both of them trimmed and never lost my temper, used fear, and they in turn never became upset
Had a horse that knows better, been trimmed, offered to do any of those things, I would have used 'firmness, enforced boundaries, not in anger, but in a manner that was clear
You don't need someone expounding , agonizing over application of any word, wonder if cows like to be led or driven, how sheep herd, ect. Horses are perfectly okay with clear and firm boundaries that they understand, and that are used in a consistent manner
More horses are 'abused', today, be lack of those boundaries, so that through no fault of their own, they wind up into the 'un wanted' classification of horses, with little future, unless they find someone willing to re train them


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> Again driving cattle, opening the gate for milk cows, leading cattle, all have nothing to do with this subject, and just muddies the water.
> KNow what, PMU mares, that stood on line with urine collecting harness on, had to have turn out once a month at least, and you would think that the last place they would want to be, is back in that barn in those tie stalls with that urine collecting harness on. Wrong. Those gals would be waiting by the gate to go back in. Creatures of habit


You'd prefer to talk about PMU mares rather than driving cattle? I'm ok with that.

I'd like to know more about the conditions of turn out. Temperatures inside the barn and outside. Feed quality inside and outside. All animals including us develop and have habits. But none of us are automatons either.

"Time Off Line

Turnout and time off line is an area of controversy. There are guidelines contained in a Recommended Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Horses in PMU Operations, which was first published in 1990 and has been revised since that time, mostly in response to public criticisms toward the industry and from suggestions made by those involved in inspection tours. But for turnout, the Code of Practice, put out by the ministers and commissioners of agriculture in Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and North Dakota, merely says that: "All horses on a PMU farm should be provided with as much exercise as is necessary for their welfare." That ranged on the farms visited from six hours every three days, to being out one week out of every five, to turning them out "as needed if they look uncomfortable or sore."

Foals From PMU Ranches

The foals of PMU mares are a big concern to general horse people. There are about 40,000 foals produced each year by PMU ranches, and they all hit the market near the first of September. Production sales on individual ranches, private sales, and special sales at regional auction firms are the normal ways these foals are disbursed.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Thinking about the comment, "Horses are creatures of habit" in the claim about PMU mares happily returning to the 3.5 foot wide stalls.

I'm impressed that rather than having developed a habit of happily returning to and being in a 3 .5 foot wide stall 24/7 that the horses are a product of learned helplessness. They see no way out and give up. A broken horse. Doomed to a life of existence. Certainly not a happy horse.

And certainly not a life they would choose.

And to top it off, the drug produced by PMU mares was found by the NIH to be dangerous.

"National Institutes of Health (NIH), linked the long-term use of Premarin to an increased risk of stroke and blood clots, and the use of the related drug Prempro to elevated rates of heart disease and breast cancer. The NIH advised physicians to cease prescribing the drugs;sales fell, and some 350 PMU (pregnant mares’ urine) farms lost their contracts over the next two years, while thousands of lawsuits were filed against the manufacturer."


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> You'd prefer to talk about PMU mares rather than driving cattle? I'm ok with that.
> 
> I'd like to know more about the conditions of turn out. Temperatures inside the barn and outside. Feed quality inside and outside. All animals including us develop and have habits. But none of us are automatons either.
> 
> ...



I am very familiar with pMU ranching , living where I do, and where many of them existed, and having bought some PMU foals.
I have never been in favor of PMU ranching, and that was not why I mentioned PMU mares. I have often mentioned as to how PMU foals helped fuel the un wanted horse segment, being produced as a by product to that urine quota
I mentioned them because they are horses, and show how horses can become creatures of habit, which is not the same as instinctive response, but rather a conditioned one

Herd interaction, even for horses, just gives us some tools in relating to horses,but only taking the fact that there always is aherd order, and in your own one on one relationship with ahorse, how that herd order can change, is not applicable, as the order between you and your horse must not change
As a breeder who made my money the hard way off of the hroses I bred,with those mares only producing un wanted manure and urine as broodmares, I am more aware than you, as to how the pMU created an un fair playing field, even without the drug company incentive programs, that granted money for PMU offspring winning in open competition
If you wish to discuss the PMU industry, I would be more then happy to do so, in another topic, and can also go into details as to how PMU ranchers manipulated that NAARIC incentive program for financial gain. I lived that experience!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> Thinking about the comment, "Horses are creatures of habit" in the claim about PMU mares happily returning to the 3.5 foot wide stalls.
> 
> I'm impressed that rather than having developed a habit of happily returning to and being in a 3 .5 foot wide stall 24/7 that the horses are a product of learned helplessness. They see no way out and give up. A broken horse. Doomed to a life of existence. Certainly not a happy horse.
> 
> ...



Again, Hondo, I AM NOT A SUPPORTER of the PMU industry!

I am also very aware as both alab tech and as a woman that took HRT, at a time it was touted by current research at the time, to be protective against heart disease, coming from a family with a high risk for heart disease, while accepting what I thought was a low risk of breast cancer
Un known to me, I had a cousin and an aunt, in Germany, that I had lost touch with, and who had breast cancer
After I had my bout with breast cancer, new research indicated HRT not only had a risk of breast cancer, but was not heart protective, even promoting heart disease.
That fact was the death keel for many PMU ranches in western Canada, esp in Alberta
PMU ranchers got very good pay outs, including being paid full quotas for a year after their mares were off line, and hay paid for that first winter.
Still, they pocketed that money in many cases and the sad 'save the PMU mares', that their owners can no longer feed, went rampant


I only mentioned them, to show how cattle can become habituated, like dairy cows waiting at the gate, to be relieved, how the act when driven, whatever-so has equally no relevance to how we interact with horses when we train them to be willing yet respectful partners

Please be clear that I was never in support of PMU ranching, have been on many of them personally, know how those horses were handled , fed, ect, and was a non PMU breeder taht was directly affected by the un fair market that resulted

Not only that, when there was a severe drought in Alberta, with hay prices going through the roof, and where the Alberta Government gave finaciaL compensation to live stock producers, far as hay purchase, PMU ranchers were the only horse industry given financial support, as they were considered a faction that was truly using horses as 'livestock'

sO, if you are expecting an argument with some PMU supporter, you are barking up the wrong tree!


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

I am beginning to slowly reject the notion of the horse being a creature of habit even though it may appear to be true when viewing from outside the horse. But inside, I'm not so sure. There are humans that have been forced unwillingly into a long term situation that are uncomfortable with the opportunity to leave simply because they seem to have become so accustomed to their surroundings that the external surroundings look intimidating. Retirees often exhibit similar tendencies. These people are not creatures of habit. They are the victims of circumstances.

I have long rejected the notion of the human being a herd member. I believe the horse clearly recognizes humans as a distinct and separate species that must be dealt with independant of the way the horse reacts and acts within the herd dynamics. The human being part of the herd is I suspect what gave rise to the Dominance Theory which I also reject.

How's that for slipping back on topic?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Smilie said:


> ...how that herd order can change, is not applicable, as the order between you and your horse must not change...


My point, Smilie, was that a horse who has many riders may well view things as changing between riders. Thus someone who rides their own horse may emphasize relation and trust, while someone who rides lots of different horses may need to take a more dominant approach until the horse accepts them as such. My approach with my own horse is very low-key because things DON'T change between us. I have established a relationship with my own horse. I don't have one with a strange horse.

Same with the sheep illustration. Someone who has 10 sheep has a different situation than someone who has 3000. The Psalmist who sang, "_The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters_..." didn't own 3000 sheep. When there are 1,000+ sheep for every herder, there is no relationship. There cannot be.

You don't need to beat the tar out of a horse either way, but I'd take a more directive approach with a strange horse than one I know well. If I needed to probe an abscess for a splinter with a strange horse, I'd be more defensive than with a horse who trusts me. One's approach to leadership needs to be flexible.



Hondo said:


> ...The human being part of the herd is I suspect what gave rise to the Dominance Theory which I also reject....


I suspect it goes back at least as far as medieval times, when people lived in a hierarchical society. The corollary to "The Divine Right of Kings" is "The Divine Right of Man" - or "Man is God to Horse". OTOH, I've been reading a book about Comanches in the 1800s. They were pretty dominant with horses as well, although their society was NOT hierarchical. So...maybe it is based on why humans USED horses. Until recently, horses were primarily tools used to accomplish a task. Not friends. Tools. You don't have a relationship with your tools.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

@Smilie neither I, nor I suspect any other forum member would in any way suspect you of supporting PMU ranching.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> @Smilie neither I, nor I suspect any other forum member would in any way suspect you of supporting PMU ranching.


Good to know. Thanks!
Far as those mares waiting a the gate to go back in, I believe the true motivation, was the food they have in front of them, in that barn, at all times, versus just being turned out in a snowy winter lot, for their time off.
Those milk cows waiting at the gate, associate going in for milking with relief
Those mares most likely, saw going back into that barn, with warmth and food,as weather usually not nice here, when they are on line
Cattle, here out on summer grazing leases, start to make their way down back to their home ranch, in fall, waiting at cattle gates, to continue that journey. Habit, or associating feed with that home place, when food gets less plentiful on those leases?
When I say horses are creatures of habit, I don't mean conditioned helplessness , but the fact that horses respond to handling and training that is used in a consistent and fair manner, and it is in fact, what is their basic response to bits, halters, leg aids, are built around, versus any physical force,if done correctly. instill good habits, and those become part of the horses' 'habit'
It is also why it is said we train horses each and every time we handle or ride them, for the good or the bad, intended or not Why horses can become untrained as well as trained
I also have gone into how I apply the word, 'dominant to horse interaction, and not in the connotation of some activity, relationship that involves abuse, subjection, whips and chains or bondage!


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Well, thanks for the explanation of warm barns and good food opposed to uncomfortable outdoors weather. I suspected as much.

I'm no stranger to milk cows coming in to be milked. As a youth, I drove a small herd of milk cows in morning and night 365. Well, not quite 365 for as you suggest, during inclimate weather and shortage of pasture, they would come in on their own. And of course they got feed supplements in their individual stanchions which they all knew which was theirs and went directly to it and started eating.

We as humans get "used to" things. And we have to put forth some energy when we encounter change, even beneficial change. So sometimes we resist or avoid the change but I would not extrapolate that to being a creature of habit for either us or the horse.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

bsms said:


> I suspect it goes back at least as far as medieval times, when people lived in a hierarchical society.


I suspect it goes back to the go along to get along attitude of the horse coupled with the predator default of anger and control by the human predator.


----------



## QtrBel (May 31, 2012)

You (general not specific) say that those that use tools don't have a relationship with their tools. They are just tools but really you better have a relationship with your tools. Live or not if you don't care for them properly then their "use" is lost to you much quicker than if you cared for them properly. My hand tools that I used for small acre farming are still in pristine condition and have all of their original parts. I care for them, some think somewhat obsessively, in a manner that many see as OCD. Wash them, hang them in a dry environment, oil them, sand and repaint, whatever it takes. They are not left out, they are not in extreme environs. Their wear spots are fitted like a glove to my hands and are comfortable to use. I still use them in my garden and personal landscape today. Some of my associates are (still) buying new tools all the time. They leave theirs out in the weather, they don't clean or care for them. Don't oil them or repaint. Tools are frequently unuseable or breaking. They always complain this tool or that causes blisters, sore muscles... I think the difference is that we (again general) see our horses more as pets than tools and have elevated their status as such and put "extra" into their well being. I hope I created a distinction and you see live "tools" as being respected, cared for and well kept but "pets" as being richly rewarded for just being. Then there is the sliding scale between the two where most horse folk fall. Sadly there is a percentage that is cruel, abusive, neglectful.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Yes, one cares for his tools. You don't leave them out to rust, if they are metal. You feed them, if they are alive. But you don't ask them for permission to use them, nor do you worry if they are happy. Tools are used to get a job done. Horses, traditionally, have been tools. You owned them and spent money on them because the work they could do was valuable to you. You might also like them. Or not. Getting the job done was the priority. Not "like".

Dominant does not mean angry. Anger is irrelevant to dominance. The dominant party is the one that makes the decisions. It is the one in control. The commanding officer in the military is dominant. He may listen to the input of others, but he has the right to make the decision. It doesn't mean he is angry, abusive, doesn't care about anyone below him, etc. Just means he gets to make the final decision.

In that sense, I am undoubtedly dominant toward my horses. I often listen to them. I care for them. Unlike some riders, I believe my horses have the right to make protests. I seek to find a win-win combination. But in the end, I have the right to make the final decision. Why? Because I'm better at it.

Over time, I try to teach my horse that I am better at making good decisions, so he will want to obey me. But ultimately, in many situations, I accept obedience as adequate - IF I cannot find a mutually acceptable compromise. Not because I'm a predator who eats meat. Not because I am angry. And not because I feel contempt or simply do not care about my horse. I do so because I really am capable of making better decisions about what to do next.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

When someone says "Occassionally you might have to get assertive with a certain horse" then not explain the difference between assertive and dominant then I think they are not very experienced. 

In nature animals learn many lessons through pain. Majority of times it is nothing more than a slap across the wrist but sometimes it can be life threatening. 

A mare with a foal will not allow the foal to suckle whilst she is eating her hard feed.
First she will stand with her hind leg nearest the foal resting making it awkward. If the foal persists, there is tail,swishing and a punch from the teeth or a hard nip. This will then be followed through with a kick. Not an out and out wallop but pushing the foal off with her leg. 

At this point foals get the hint. 

An obstreperous horse will be driven out from the others and kept out on its own. In doing this it is not just a look or ears back but real biting and kicking with intention to hurt. Only when they have learned their position are they accepted by the others. 

So, if I get a horse that is spoilt and determined to have its own way I do not feel guilty for laying a whip down its side, letting it know that I can and will hurt it if necessary. My correction will be firm, fast and well timed. 

Is this being assertive or dominant?


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

Hondo said:


> Well, thanks for the explanation of warm barns and good food opposed to uncomfortable outdoors weather. I suspected as much.
> 
> I'm no stranger to milk cows coming in to be milked. As a youth, I drove a small herd of milk cows in morning and night 365. Well, not quite 365 for as you suggest, during inclimate weather and shortage of pasture, they would come in on their own. And of course they got feed supplements in their individual stanchions which they all knew which was theirs and went directly to it and started eating.
> 
> We as humans get "used to" things. And we have to put forth some energy when we encounter change, even beneficial change. So sometimes we resist or avoid the change but I would not extrapolate that to being a creature of habit for either us or the horse.


I think if you want to make that kind of argument you are going to have to define what you mean by "creature of habit". Because all I know is, all creatures not only form habits, they are more or less composed of habits. Habits are nothing more than the easiest and best way to do things, based originally on trial and error, or perhaps imitation. I have a habitual way of doing almost everything that I have done a few times. So do you, so does everyone. Every time I do something, another layer of habit is laid over it, perhaps an invisibly thin one, perhaps a major one (don't pick up the handle of that pan without a hotpad, ever again). That's how we navigate the world. 

When our environment changes and requires us to alter our habits, it takes a lot of energy to do so. Everything gets slow and awkward for a while as we have to think carefully about every step. In the wild, energy is a finite resource. You might have to give up something else that takes energy, like finding food, reproduction, escaping predators. There is no payoff in changing habits for no good reason. Novelty for novelty's sake is a luxury only humans have -- and only some humans.

That's why I try to respect the habits of horses. They are not there for no reason, they served a purpose in the past or are serving one now, no matter how inconvenient or dangerous they also might be now. Choosing to change a habit takes some trust, because it is in fact a risk, which we all can feel empathy for because we are animals too.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Foxhunter said:


> Is this being assertive or dominant?


As always, (IMO), it just depends where you are internally in your feelings and emotions.

And @bsms , to me the Dominance Theory as regards horses is not related to the vertical structure in the military.

When I think of the Dominance Theory as regards horses, I think of the insistence of submission of the horse, that the horse must see us as the dominant horse in the herd.

I'm dominant as you describe to both Hondo and Meka my dog. If they were allowed to do exactly as they pleased they would not survive in this human environment. And they don't and can't and never will be able to understand that.

OTH, both Hondo and Meka can and do become dominant to me under certain circumstances. Sometimes they take it upon themselves, sometimes I say, "Here, you take over."

I guess when I think of horse/human dominance I'm thinking of someone who literally dominates their horse. That kind of management doesn't go down well, including the military I'm certain.

I think that kind of dominating is referred to as micro management.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

I really don't understand the agonizing over terms, used in horse training.

When I was going along in my journey with horses, learning along the way, there was no internet, no mass NH gurus, no defining horse training as R+ or R-
There was just good horse training, using empathy, understanding the language of horses, seeing what training methods worked, far as creating horses that were happy, secure, worked willingly and who enjoyed longevity of soundness, both in mind and body

Child rearing was much the same-proof being in the final result. Now, often both children and horses are spoiled .lacking guidance . instead, they are over analyzed, have often imagined causes for their behavior, when in both cases, some degree of expectations and wet saddle blankets are what is often lacking

If you don't like the word, 'dominant, then don't use it. I never even ;learned that term applied to horse training, except in the last few years, when internet and social medias became so pervasive
I never worried about whether some training method was considered R +, R-, NH, traditional, etc ect..
Who cares???
Good horse training is just that, and needs no label. Good horse training has balance, being neither on the one end of the spectrum, far as 'assertiveness', or the other, being too permissive.
Horses are damaged either through abuse, and also through being spoiled

You, as a horse person, has to learn that balance, forget getting hung up in lables, which often mean not much, esp since interpretation can vary

Horses are creatures of habit, not in the sense of being mindless robots, locked into a state of helplessness, but by how they learn.
It can take many repetitions, until a horse really under stands a certain maneuver, but once it does, that response becomes 'habit'
Horses can become creatures of good habits, through correct training, or creatures of bad habits, through bad training, and where that negative behavior was inadvertently rewarded

If ahorse first halter pulls in fear, breaks free, he can learn that by setting back, he will be rewarded by breaking free, and then does not need a true fear response in order to halter pull
That can advance to the point, that such a horse, when ever first tied, will sit back, and if he fails to break free, accepts standing tied. He has become a creature of habit, far as halter pulling, soon as he is tied

Horses that are fed at certain times, start to get upset if feeding is late-creatures of habit

As trainers, we train that horse, so that the 'creature of habit', works in our favor. Thus, a horse that is 100% on giving to pressure, will always yield to it, versus resisting, and why you see those cute pictures of some dog leading ahrose by the lead shank in his mouth.
Hondo, I understand your commitment to be fair to horses, as I have that same commitment. You just get hung up in labels too much, versus actual application of methods
Do you sit and analyze endlessly as to what label you apply to your relationship with a significant other, or do you just know that relationship is healthy by doing, living, experiencing it?


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> when ever first tied, will sit back, and if he fails to break free, accepts standing tied. He has become a creature of habit


Are you certain about this? Are you sure that the label given, "creature of habit", is not actually giving up and giving in as in learned helplessness?

I have personally watched two young fillies that that were bright, curious, and energetic become a deer in the headlights after after "accepting", as you incorrectly called it, being tied.

Are you certain there is not another better way to teach being tied without injuring or damaging the spirit of the horse?

A lot of people rave about how much kids are spoiled today. Guess what? Every single generation has done the same raving for all of recorded history. Socrates did so himself.

Look at some old group pictures from the 1800's or so with kids in them. Do they look happy? Sometimes but there are lots of deer in the headlights also. Even the faces of many adults. Looking into those faces can reveal the changes time has made since then and the changes are good.

From my perspective, kids today are brighter, more creative, freer, and happier than in the past.

There's a story about two birds, a humming bird and a vulture, sitting in a tree looking down into a valley. One saw only flowers while the other saw only dead animals. The idea is that sometimes we only see what we are looking for.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Again-balance
Yes, at times too much discipline was used with kids in the past, but it is also true, that now too many kids are growing up with lack of discipline
There is a happy medium to strive for.
Now you are most likely going to suggest that I was also an un enlightened parent, as I will admit to having applied to odd light smack on a bottom
My two sons are bright, well adjusted, and we have a great family relationship.
My one friend, on the other hand, would try to reason , with a child having a temper tantrum, a child old enough to know better
Once, when it was time for her and her five year old daughter to go home, that child threw herself on the floor in protest, screaming and kicking her heels.
My friend, tried to reason, saying something like this, "now you know we discussed this, concerning about going home'. "
Balance, and whether it be a parent, or a horse person, you need to find that spot, versus being too dictative, not enjoying a friend ship with either your children or your horses, or spoiling them to the point that neither become'good citizens'


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Quote from Socrates: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/63219-the-children-now-love-luxury-they-have-bad-manners-contempt

"“The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.”


― Socrates

I believe the quote is more about old fogginess and less about the younger generation.

Curious, is balance a lable or a regular word?


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

I started the foals learning to tie when they were learning to lead. If they planted I would keep a steady pull on the halter rope, the moment they gave to the pressure I relaxed the hold. Never took them long to fathom that one out and it just transferred to when they were tied. He 

As for pictures from the late 1800s I have yet to see ones where anyone was smiling! I have some old photo albums from that time (taken in Australia) and they were all so serious! 

Personally I think there are many children that are not happy today, these have no rules or boundaries, get material things thrown at them as bribery or to keep them out of parents hair.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Off topic, I know, but I think all the old posed photos were more like pass port pictures, most likely due to the style of the times, and the fact that they had to hold a pose, as cameras were slow
Not that many candid shots from back then, but those that exist, do show variety of expressions, including kids being kids, laughing, ect


----------



## charrorider (Sep 23, 2012)

I have seen many of Callie's videos. I don't take any trainer's word without some consideration and critical thinking. Having said that, Callie King is pretty good at presenting new ways of looking at things. You ought to look for the one she has questioning the notion of "heels down." Coincidentally, Mark Rashid is one of her favorite horse trainers.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

charrorider said:


> I have seen many of Callie's videos. I don't take any trainer's word without some consideration and critical thinking. Having said that, Callie King is pretty good at presenting new ways of looking at things. You ought to look for the one she has questioning the notion of "heels down." Coincidentally, Mark Rashid is one of her favorite horse trainers.


I am subscribed to CRK and have many videos downloaded and saved. Really appreciated the one on heels down which I always suspected.

I recently watched all of Wendy Murdoch's free videos plus the live clinic with Callie. Would sign up for the online clinic but I'm too poor.

One thing I really do like about Callie is that she is not about my way or the highway but leaves lots of doors open including questions or questioning about what she's said.

The one thing sticking in my brain from Wendy is her emphasizing that at all gates the knees go down and forward at the same time as if one leg was a reflection of the other. She even described it while straddling a mirror while sitting in a chair.

My question would be: What are the seat bones doing? I know the saddle support area doesn't have much movement but does the pressure on the seat bones stay the same as each knee goes down and forward or is there some oscillation of pressure left and right?

I had always thought one leg went down while the other came up which Wendy said is still prevalent in belief but wrong wrong.

PS: I did not know Mark was one of Callie's favorite trainers when I posted the thread but I'm not at all surprised.


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

Foxhunter said:


> I started the foals learning to tie when they were learning to lead. If they planted I would keep a steady pull on the halter rope, the moment they gave to the pressure I relaxed the hold. Never took them long to fathom that one out and it just transferred to when they were tied. He
> 
> As for pictures from the late 1800s I have yet to see ones where anyone was smiling! I have some old photo albums from that time (taken in Australia) and they were all so serious!
> 
> Personally I think there are many children that are not happy today, these have no rules or boundaries, get material things thrown at them as bribery or to keep them out of parents hair.


My sense of children in the United States is that they have far too many boundaries but far too few consequences. Life feels ever more dangerous, ever more constricted, ever more artificial, than in the past. Parents have it rough. The economy has forced all adults into jobs away from home, and then hours at those jobs, including commute hours, have increased and increased, so that the quality of "home" has greatly diminished. Children are managed and watched at all times, most often by paid professionals. The future looks much scarier to them than it did to us, and I think they are right. It's a whole dispiriting and complicated subject but random get-off-my-lawn generalizations don't help that much.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Well, I never heard of Callie before the video that was posted.
Rashid is not a favorite trainer of mine, although I did buy one of his books. His focus on martial arts is just superfluous 
Far as Callie, first video I clicked on, shows a horse cribbing behind her. Not a great background,e sp if trying expound on keeping horses happy
Her heels down, well she begins with an incorrect position, legs not under her, pushing down with conscious effort, which was never said to be correct by anyone who I respect
She then goes to show where just naturally having weight in your stirrups out of correct body alignment, is somehow some new discovered truth by her, when it is just accepted principles by anyone who has ridden to any degree
Why do all these latent gurus, be it NH trainers or trainers like Callie, try to promote themselves by re packaging basic horse knowledge as being presented as original by them?
I much rather watch trainers who are busy producing good horses, horses that speak for that trainer more eloquently then all the self promoting people out there, trying to make bucks from words1


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

A good horseman moves with the horse, does not have to think 'heels down and then prop legs in an un natural position,to achieve what they think is required.
I never need to think heels down. Mine just wind up there naturally, with amount of weight in the stirrups, adjusted sub consciously, depending on maneuver
you move with the horse. It has to become natural, versus thinking what seat bones are doing, needing to force heels down, etc, etc The more relaxed you sit, the better you can stay with a horse, in any un expected movement.
There are trainers I would watch, way above Callie. Sorry!


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

I grew up on a small farm where both my parents and grandparents lived. One of grandad's brothers joined us on the North, another on the South. South of that was my dad's brother.

Hard for a kid to get away with much back then. Everybody could recognize your body form a mile away.

Yep, the times they are 'a changin!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I don't think Callie was trying to repackage anything. I think she was demonstrating what happens when beginning riders make a common mistake, particularly when urged "heels down" by someone who doesn't explain how to do so or why it can help (or not). It would have been a better video if she had then demonstrated how a flexible heel can help when the rider's center of gravity is above the stirrups. 

I'm not a big fan of her videos, but I doubt she is making much money off of them.

Wendy Murdoch doesn't understand the biomechanics of riding. That is based on watching a couple of videos, but she needs to test what people have told her against what actually happens in the saddle.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

bsms said:


> Wendy Murdoch doesn't understand the biomechanics of riding. That is based on watching a couple of videos, but she needs to test what people have told her against what actually happens in the saddle.


Doesn't understand biomechanics??? Test what happens in the saddle???

I think you need to know a whole lot more about Wendy Murdoch before making such comments. She is all about biomechanics and uses a human and horse skeleton for demonstrations and she also demonstrates what she says while riding in the saddle.

She is an accomplished international trainer whose knowledge and riding skill far surpasses all both of us could hope for in this lifetime and probably another.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

She is also wrong in the videos I watched.

For example, she says that if you extend your legs forward, you put more weight on your rump. And that this in turn causes problems for stopping a horse because a horse needs to stop "rounded" to stop well.

She illustrates her point with a woman who is standing. And it is true: If you stand in the stirrups, as I often do, and then shove your feet forward of your balance (which I do NOT do), then you will fall on your horse.

None of which is relevant to riding while sitting. Try this: While sitting in a chair, bring your feet close to your hip. How much weight is carried in your thigh? Now extend your feet out ahead of you. Your thighs will now carry MORE weight, and your rump less.

In fact, one of the arguments against putting your feet forward with pressure against the stirrups is that it lifts your rump out of the saddle - which tends to match what happens with me. But if your rump lifts out of the saddle, it is NOT creating more pressure under your rump.

Further, there is a good reason why riders like their heels forward of their seat when stopping. It is safer. Easier to stay on the horse. The stop shoves you deep into the stirrups.

It is a very bad idea to use human or horse skeletons to demonstrate riding, because skeletons don't ride skeletons. Your "seat", for example, is not your pelvis. As your legs go out and around your horse, your THIGHS support weight and provide grip, etc. Most of the folks I've seen discussing the biomechanics of riding think two-dimensionally. The horse and rider have three dimensions, and both horse and riders support their backs via MUSCLE, not via our spines. In deed, much of our balance and movement is intended to prevent carrying weight on our spine. Try curling a dumbbell with one arm. What supports the weight? It is NOT your spine.

In her video on circles, she emphasizes the need for the horse to compress his rib cage on the inside because you don't want a horse to rotate his rib cage. But that doesn't happen. This is what happens:










A horse will not bend his back through the rib cage to generate a turn. He can simulate it using differential thrust and stride lengths with his feet. But while that is comfortable for us, it is not so much so for the horse. We're making the horse work harder while telling ourselves he is working more efficiently.

Now...I haven't watched all her videos. The two I have watched are flawed. And anyone who focuses on skeletons instead of muscles and strides and movement will miss the point on the biomechanics of riding.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Another of these theory focused individuals, I never heard of.Wendi Murdock) How did I ever learn to ride?
But wait, Linda Tellington Jones is one of her mentors-say no more!

Okay, read a few articles form Electric Horseman, a mag that Wendy contributes to, 
I now know better as to where all this stuff is coming from.Not saying it's all wrong, but certainly not an un biased horse mag either!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Another of these theory focused individuals, I never heard of.Wendi Murdock) How did I ever learn to ride?
But wait, Linda Tellington Jones is one of her mentors-say no more!

Okay, read a few articles form Electric Horseman, a mag that Wendy contributes to, 
I now know better as to where all this stuff is coming from.Not saying it's all wrong, but certainly not an un biased horse mag either!
Hmm, surefoot pads. Another great marketing (not sure what to call it)
I guess you can wrap the horse, as per LTJ and stand him on sure foot pads


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

I guess I'm not that all surprised that someone who would just tie their horse up until the horse accepts being tied and even develops a habit of being tied would denigrate those who do otherwise.

And for those who would criticize any of the people discussed in terms of their riding ability, it would be fun to watch them compete one on one in riding ability and finesse.

The proof is in the pudding.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

I guess this is how I see things;

I have a very “dominant” horse in Oliver. So much so, that training methods based on dominance simply manages to set up a battle ground where things escalate until the “pressure” that would be needed to make him back down and accept “leadership”, would necessarily become abusive. How do I know this?

I let other people, “professionals”, who use these methods try to gain his “respect” and they failed and in a couple of cases, were injured for their efforts. “In your face” simply didn’t work for him, it only set up a fight where one was not necessary. 

As a side note, I have one child (out of five), and taught hundreds of others professionally (in a therapeutic capacity), who were very much like this. “Spanking” does not work with these children. You would have to literally beat them to gain compliance (and some of the children I worked with had been beaten). I know, because I was one of them.

My mother spanked me and I would literally look at her and say “That didn’t hurt. Hit me again”. She would, this time instead of a wooden spoon she’d use a bread board and use both hands for the wind up. Don’t get me wrong, it did hurt but, I remained defiant. NEVER let them see you cry. NEVER give up and never give in. She would have had to beat me bloody before I would ever have given in. Still to this day, I do not respect my mother. Not because she didn't "command" respect but, she didn't possess the qualities that gained my respect. My father, who never hit me, I respected to the hilt. One word, one look from him and I snapped to it. Oliver is very much like the childhood "me" in horse form.

Call it pride, call it stubbornness or call it a piece of a never say die spirit that evolution gives a person the strength to overcome obstacles that would have most people giving up long ago from exhaustion, pain or emotional anguish.

In people, we laude that kind of thing; The soldier who has been mortally wounded but, manages still to drag three friends to safety before succumbing etc. It is not something you can actively teach. You are either born with the seeds of it or you are not. 

For those who are not born with it, it is something that is very difficult to understand much less to respect it as an asset. It is seen as stubbornness, defiance, rebellion and is to be done away with rather than productively, re-directed to make use of that spirit in everything you do for the benefit of yourself and all of those around you.

Somehow in a horse, that spirt is quite often seen as something that we need to squelch, control or kill rather than simply creating a situation where the horse is willing to apply that spirit towards a goal both horse and rider have in common.

I think we can all agree, that horses are each a bit different and anytime a blanket method is applied to “all” it will fail at some point with some horse and an alternative needs to be sought. The variety of methods out there are good even though you might not particularly like one or the other, having them available to add to your book of options is always a good thing.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

Very well said. ^^^^^


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hondo said:


> ...And for those who would criticize any of the people discussed in terms of their riding ability, it would be fun to watch them compete one on one in riding ability and finesse...


I have not commented on Wendy Murdoch's riding ability. I haven't seen her ride. I did comment on her biomechanics. That is something a person can study without ever riding. In fact, a non-rider might be more accurate about how a horse moves, and how a rider compensates, since they wouldn't have any personal feelings obscuring what they see happen.

I think Callie King has some good videos for a beginning rider. Plenty of students (including me) have heard "Heels down!" shouted without any explanation of how or why one does it. Trying to obey the shout without understanding the thought can lead to bad habits.

When it comes to dominance theory...so much depends on how one uses the word! My three horses will stand when tied. I didn't teach it to any of them. But I'd bet all three learned by being tied. There may be better ways, and it might not work with every horse. But it is certainly a way a lot of horses have learned, and learned without any harm.

My oldest daughter was the "Hit me again!" type. My youngest daughter is the "Burst into tears at a raised voice" type. I didn't teach those responses to them, but I've had to adjust for those responses in how I've raised them.

I've owned a couple of sensitive, feeling Arabian mares. Bandit acts as if he doesn't know what a feeling is. Part of me would like to own another sensitive Arabian mare...but I'll admit, Bandit is an easier ride. Particularly for an old guy who was NEVER known for his sensitivity! I can yell at him, or he can buck at me, and 60 seconds later we're fine with each other. That didn't work with Mia or Lilly...



Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> ...Somehow in a horse, that spirit is quite often seen as something that we need to squelch, control or kill rather than simply creating a situation where the horse is willing to apply that spirit towards a goal both horse and rider have in common...


Worth repeating. It has taken me a while to realize Bandit's occasional crow hopping is just what it takes for him to get through to me at times. Or that sometimes, the best way to control a horse is to give the horse freedom.



> From Portia I discovered the limitations of this outlook. *I discovered how cramping is the desire to dominate, how many of the horse's own abilities are overlooked if man replaces by his own judgments the inborn intuition of the animal*....
> 
> When I gave up trying to control Portia and tried instead to find out what she was, both she and life took on a different complexion. Here in my very back garden and under my own hand was the novelty and thrill I had missed while traveling over five continents. Here was the adventure, knowledge and inspiration which some people seek in outer space, others in the unexplored centre of the earth's surface. *Here, in front of my eyes as soon as I opened them to it, was excitement enough for a lifetime*...
> 
> Adventures Unbridled - Moyra Williams 1960


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Exactly-application of the word dominance when it comes to hroses, which need not be a dirty word, as it only means that you are the leader. Countless posts in this thread, have gone into how that word is applied correctly, in terms of horse training., not dictionary definition
Genetics also uses the word 'dominant'. in the mode of inheritance There again, that does not mean the same as used in some S & M discussion.
The spanking reference, was only intended to show that at times, as Foxhunter stated, there is a time to correct a horse, physically, as in a hrose that thinks it's okay to bite or kick or charge a human
A marriage relationship should ideally be co dominant
A relationship with a horse, requires a leader, thus that human is dominant to the hrose,not co dominant, which does not translate to using an iron fist, suppression, harsh techniques, fear, intimidation, it only means that your position in that herd of two, needs to be above that of the horse.
The problem with many of these trainers, that throw these words around, like NH, dominant, ect, attempt to insinuate that they somehow have found new enlightenment, that other trainers don't use, just because they throw labels around
What the hell is the difference between dominant and assertive, when you get right down tot he correct application of either?
In other words, 'it's only words', and the real proof is in the horses that are trained, and not by throwing words around, as if new enlightenment has been uncovered
Meanwhile, these people all try to sell the latest gimmick, be it a carrot stick, that swaddling by LTJ, those very expensive pads by Wendy, the series of games and hosenality charts by Parelli, and the 'beat goes on'.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

Before I moved up to High School we all heard about one of the teachers, George Townsend who, it was said, was the devil in disguise. All seemed to fear him.

I never had this teacher until my last term of school amd all I can say was that he was a man of his word, had a great sense of humour and was a great teacher. I had seen both sides to him. I asked him after class one day, why he had such a reputation. Hos reply was, you scare the heck out of the new ones, then you let them see you are a little bit human and by the time it gets to exams, hard work and leaving school, you can make it fun but always maintain that control. 
He also told me that teachers are born and not raised - which I hold true. 

There is little difference in teaching anything. With an obstreperous horse that has been spoiled I have absolutely no hesitation in getting it wary of me. _Before_ it is terrified I will go the other way and let it see I can be 'nice' the choice is theirs. Easy or hard. 

In my working years I have come across some really hard cases. Some needed a softly softly approach, others needed firm handling. It was up to me to know which was right for that particular animal. Some of the things I have turned to have been extreme, others taken way longer that they would normally but at the end of it I had a horse that could be ridden safely, by me ot others. One that was trusting of humans and not one of them was traumatised into behaving as wanted.


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

@Reiningcatsanddogs, all I can say is, Oliver is very lucky to have you. 

I have noticed many times in the animal training world that there are certain human personality types which do best with certain animal personality types. Experienced trainers know what type they do best with and seek it out, because they will excel with that type and enjoy it. Some people really click with a hard-headed animal who never stops trying and will fight you if you try to stop them. Others connect best with super-sensitive animals who can be moved with a raised eyebrow or a whisper but will come to pieces if you are heavy handed. And so on. 

I would venture to guess that it is only the very top tier of trainers who can work with equal success with all personality types. 
@Smilie, I would disagree with you about Rashid and the martial arts. He is on to something there. Aikido is not about fighting, it is about channeling your own and your partner's energy to a single path of harmony. It's very powerful stuff, and it is the very same thing that all good riders are also striving for. Don't knock it unless you've tried it. 

As for all the gimmicks and new ways of branding and marketing old knowledge, well, that's capitalism for ya. Making a living in the horse world has always been tough!


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

bsms said:


> In fact, a non-rider might be more accurate about how a horse moves, and how a rider compensates, since they wouldn't have any personal feelings obscuring what they see happen.


I understand you may believe this but I have serious doubts about it.

@Smilie, being dominant to the horse is not necessarily part of what is normally referred to as the Dominant Theory of horse training. The Dominance Theory of horse training goes far beyond simply being dominant to the horse which every horse owner automatically is.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Here is where I think things go off the rails…people underestimate what can be accomplished with “bonding”. When I say bonding, it isn’t all about some touchy feely thing, though that is in a way, part of it, us being human and all.

We were in the paddock it had been a 110 degrees that day and wanted to have Oliver come over to be hosed down. Hubby had caught Cowboy and hosed him down and it was Oliver’s turn. I went over and put one hand under Oliver’s head and invited him to come with me and then dropped my hand. He was enjoying the grass on the other side of the fence. He turned away from his delicacy and followed me. Why?

Training?
Bonding?
Respect?
Well established Leadership?
All of the above?

Hubby commented that he never could have gotten Oliver to do leave his delicious grass without first getting at least a lead rope around his head. My husband actually does as much of the feeding as I do so it wasn’t goodie motivated. Once I got him over to the hose, and saw what I had in mind for him he decided that he didn't want to be hosed and I let him go back to munching.

This points to something beyond simple training, habit or motives of food (he actually left his favorite delicacy). He does as I ask, because it is me doing the asking. He behaves within acceptable parameters for others because of good training but, appears to save that little bit of extra compliance for me, just because. 

It is that part of the horse-rider relationship that many of us seek and that some people claim does not exist or at the very least is inconsequential in the training formula. That is where much of the controversy over training methods come in….

Balance. A pendulum is able to swing because it is balanced. Too much emphasis on the softer bonding aspects OR on the discipline (a horse is simply a manipulated creature of stimulus-response) and the pendulum eventually becomes static, stops moving and no longer is effective. A good trainer finds where that balance is for each horse they work with and don't just apply a steadfast step by step method to all.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hondo said:


> I understand you may believe this but I have serious doubts about it...


A rarely seen perspective on riding:








​ 
We see what happens from the withers forward. And we look at riding from the side all the time. Thus we suffer, when riding, from an optical illusion. We see what we see, but we don't see the totality. And someone who discusses the pelvis as the seat and doesn't discuss the thighs as part of the seat is missing out on a major part of the weight-bearing structure we all use.

I'll probably delete this video in a few weeks. It is a young horse. And I like her riding. She is carrying a whip, but she uses pats with the young horse. A dressage rider showing off a young dressage warmblood stallion (IIRC) - and doing so with empathy & tact. She is in control of herself, which in turn helps her control her horse - tactfully.

At the beginning, notice how the riders thighs are helping to absorb the motion of the horse. And at the canter...the rider probably FEELS the motion is different than what the video reveals. I know that the first time I saw a video of my riding a trot and canter in slow motion, I was shocked. In the video, FWIW, her spine DOES do things mine is not capable of! Which in turn is why some riders do things differently. Tack, goals and physical limitations affect us all to some degree.






And when you ask a rider how much pressure they use with the reins, they almost always say "Ounces". But the reality is that 3-6 lbs is about as light as it gets once any contact it taken. Our perceptions - our feelings and what we see versus don't see - affect our idea of what is happening. Most of the biomechanic discussions I've seen are based almost entirely on two dimensions. And we believe a horse's back does certain things in part because we never SEE our horse's back when we ride. Heck, I've seen many discussions on the biomechanics of a bit which ignore the horse's tongue entirely!

Someone who doesn't ride but who analyzed pressure and viewed video might well "see" things a rider would not believe happens. I often fool myself about what happens. I don't think I'm the only one.

In behavior, I see both errors. There are scientists who refuse to accept a horse having feelings. Some treat the horse like a machine. But the flip side is the rider who thinks their horse is virtually indistinguishable from a human. I talk about riding a horse's mind, but the truth is that I rarely know what is going on inside that mind. If I did, my horse might not need to buck sometimes to get my attention...


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

@Reiningcatsanddogs I remember quite some time in the past when you asked if I ever just went and sat with Hondo. I can now personally attest that it does make a difference and the horse does in some way appreciate it.

The more I interact with horses, and of course particularly Hondo, the less central and more secondary the riding has become.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> I understand you may believe this but I have serious doubts about it.
> 
> @Smilie, being dominant to the horse is not necessarily part of what is normally referred to as the Dominant Theory of horse training. The Dominance Theory of horse training goes far beyond simply being dominant to the horse which every horse owner automatically is.


Then, we are arguing about nothing, as I certainly believe in 'being as gentle with a horse as possible, but also as firm as needed'
If you do your training correctly, you seldom need to even go to , 'as firm as needed', as in a spoiled horse, who has learned to tell that human to 'shove it', when given a cue he understands, using a light request

Horses like Oliver, that have been abused, need to first learn trust, and a place i think food rewards are acceptable, used in training (clicker)

I don't think anyone here, has the stance, to 'dominant' a hrose, out of fear and intimidation, using harsh training techniques, so we can all agree, that application of dominance to horse training is incorrect, so that, any discussion can be based on actual differences, and not on interpretation of a word.
If we all have difference concepts as to what that word means, applied to hrose training, many here, myself included, will forever be bending over backwards, trying to explain how we see the application of that term, and not like some old time horse mechanic, that got a horse ''broke', not trained, by of course, the application of the word 'broke', to actually break the mind and will of that horse into compliance
Thus, trying not to be misconstrued, I have become very conscientious in not using the term, to 'break a colt, and instead use, 'to start a colt.
Perhaps, now need to not use the word 'dominant', so posts like this don't drag on endlessly, when the concept of training is not really so different-just a word interpretation. Leader, will most likely get the same flack. 
So, then we have partner, which works, but that partnership has to allow that human the controlling 'vote', when it is indicated
Dominant , and to dominate, are not one and the same, in my mind, anyway
Dominant, is the controlling partner, the one that leads, allows input for his partner, gives him the decision making at times, but reserves the right to be the decision maker when it is indicated.

A horse does not know a de wormer is good for him, but I do. It is then my decision that the horse accepts that de -worming medication


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

bsms said:


> Someone who doesn't ride but who analyzed pressure and viewed video might well "see" things a rider would not believe happens.


But then you seemed to criticize Murdoch for repeating what you seemed to believe she had been simply told rather that demonstrating it in the saddle.

That does not realate to me for a non-rider being a good riding coach.



bsms said:


> Wendy Murdoch doesn't understand the biomechanics of riding. That is based on watching a couple of videos, but she needs to test what people have told her against what actually happens in the saddle.


I'm a bit puzzled.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

@Smilie, maybe we should use George W's term when he described himself as "the decider" during his presidency.

Now stop tying your horses up until they "accept" it.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> @Reiningcatsanddogs I remember quite some time in the past when you asked if I ever just went and sat with Hondo. I can now personally attest that it does make a difference and the horse does in some way appreciate it.
> 
> The more I interact with horses, and of course particularly Hondo, the less central and more secondary the riding has become.



Do you feel so superior in your relationship with your horses, Hondo, that you assume none of the rest of us have ever just sat with a horse, or interacted with him, versus just working him? How assuming and wrong!


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

Hondo said:


> @*Reiningcatsanddogs* I remember quite some time in the past when you asked if I ever just went and sat with Hondo. I can now personally attest that it does make a difference and the horse does in some way appreciate it.
> 
> *The more I interact with horses, and of course particularly Hondo, the less central and more secondary the riding has become*.


I believe in good training with ground manners, fundamentals, groundwork and blah blah blah but I found a huge truth in your statement. My horses are at my house so I have spent hours just hanging out with them. Sitting in the pasture reading a book or cleaning in the barn. I spend a ton of time grooming or loving on them and I think that the time spent hanging out with them really does make a difference in the type of bond that you have with an animal. I'm not a koolaide drinking natural horsemanship kind of gal, but...


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> Do you feel so superior in your relationship with your horses, Hondo, that you assume none of the rest of us have ever just sat with a horse, or interacted with him, versus just working him? How assuming and wrong!


Looks like you fumbled an answer to your own question before giving me the chance to answer.

That was just my way of saying thank you to RCD and was not directed at you.

But while we're on the subject, do you sit with your tied horses until they decide to accept being tied?

I'm outta here. Got things to do...........


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

```

```



Hondo said:


> @Smilie, maybe we should use George W's term when he described himself as "the decider" during his presidency.
> 
> Now stop tying your horses up until they "accept" it.


Why? Done correctly, it creates confident horses, that are relaxed, who are safer to trailer, horses you know won't self destruct, the minute you are out of sight, and horses , who, at least in their comfort zone, feel okay without an equine buddy needing to be practically tied to their hip!
By the time I take a horse some place , where he needs to stand tied, like to a horse show, where there are no stalls, and he must stand tied tot he trailer, or over night, on a trail ride, the last thing, far as safety for that hrose, is to then expect that horse to stand tied, without self destruction, if he was never taught that skill.


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

Us horse people are a very opinionated group aren't we? This tying issue has certainly been a point of contention in several threads on this forum throughout the years. I personally think this one falls under a to each his own kind of training method. I can think of six trainers off the top of my head that tie horses as part of the training methods. In simplistic terms, it was once explained to me that tying a horse humbles him. Another trainer told me, it's like a thinking post. I definitely feel like some of my horses found their brains while tied. I didn't agree with it for a long time but I can definitely see a difference in my herd between the ones that spent time on the hitching post vs the ones that did not....


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> Looks like you fumbled an answer to your own question before giving me the chance to answer.
> 
> That was just my way of saying thank you to RCD and was not directed at you.
> 
> ...


My horses grist learn to stand tied, from the time I start to trim their feet, as weanlings, so obviously, I am there!
Right now, the two yearlings I bough, stand tied twice a day, by a feeder, in a stall, while they eat their beet pulp and oats. I do other chores in the meantime, close by. I then alternate as to which one I lead out to the pasture, first, while the other one remains standing tied

When I used to start horses under saddle, I would often bring two horses in at once. One would be tied in a stall, while I rode the other. My stalls have rubber matting.
After the first horse was ridden, they would exchange places.
Thus there is a gradual way of teaching hroses to stand tied,and those hroses never require a patience pole, like horses who have never been taught this process.
So, no, I don't sit by them, when they are tied, as that defeats the entire idea of teaching hroses to stand tied in the first place!


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

Smilie said:


> My horses grist learn to stand tied, from the time I start to trim their feet, as weanlings, so obviously, I am there!
> Right now, the two yearlings I bough, stand tied twice a day, by a feeder, in a stall, while they eat their beet pulp and oats. I do other chores in the meantime, close by. I then alternate as to which one I lead out to the pasture, first, while the other one remains standing tied
> 
> When I used to start horses under saddle, I would often bring two horses in at once. One would be tied in a stall, while I rode the other. My stalls have rubber matting.
> ...


This is pretty much what I did as well. I would tie while I cleaned stalls or rode. I was out there where I could see them in case they got in trouble but I pretty much left them alone while they were tied.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Smilie said:


> Do you feel so superior in your relationship with your horses, Hondo, that you assume none of the rest of us have ever just sat with a horse, or interacted with him, versus just working him? How assuming and wrong!


That was not at all what I took from Hondo's post.

A few years back, Hondo was asking how to achieve a better understanding of his horse. I asked if he ever just sat there with him and suggested that if he wasn't that this would be one way to increase the bond and understanding.

He is simply relaying that doing this worked well for him.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hondo said:


> But then you seemed to criticize Murdoch for repeating what you seemed to believe she had been simply told rather that demonstrating it in the saddle.
> 
> That does not realate to me for a non-rider being a good riding coach.
> 
> I'm a bit puzzled.


Simple. To start with, I'm discussing understanding how a horse moves. Not a riding coach. A riding coach may say, "Feel like you are a tree..." and successfully communicate with the student. But biomechanics should never mistake a rider for a tree.

She discusses what happens when someone puts their feet forward by demonstrating it ON THE GROUND, with a person standing. Unless a person rides a horse by standing on its back, that is irrelevant. We already are straddling or sitting on a horse, so the mechanics differ.

She also discusses a horse rounding its back up underneath a rider, which is physically impossible for a horse. At that point, what she FEELS is less relevant than what a horse's spine is capable of doing - and that can be measured by someone who isn't riding. It has been - by dissecting a horse and using weights to see how much the spine is capable of moving without breaking.

Indeed, a great deal of riding can be measured by someone who doesn't ride. But they need to measure how the horse moves and how a rider responds, not come up with fanciful theories based on skeletons, or by sitting on an exercise ball and pretending they are riding.

Her discussion on how a horse turns "balanced" is easily refuted by overhead photography. It can be refuted by stride analysis, tracking the horse's feet. Philippe Karl has a good refutation of it in his book based on overhead photos and video.

Littauer would also be able to refute it because Littauer understood that movement is never "balanced". Movement comes when we become unbalanced and then take action to regain it.



> Not only the movement of the horse, but that of all animals, including the human being, is based on the losing and recapturing of equilibrium. In walking, for instance, a man shifts his balance forward, taking it off the foot which is left on the ground and catching it again on the one which is being put down ahead of the body, aiding himself with balancing gestures of his arms. *If he were to carry on his shoulders a monkey who, with some arrangements of ropes, were to try to keep his torso back and confine his arms it would certainly make the man nervous, awkward and impede his progress forward*. - Common Sense Horsemanship
> 
> The book can be downloaded as a pdf file free here:
> 
> https://ia600307.us.archive.org/1/items/commonsensehorse010454mbp/commonsensehorse010454mbp.pdf


In her video on circles, she wants the horse to bend its body and to move its feet like a car whose back tires steer as well as the front. But horses, like many rear-wheel drive cars, use the rear to move forward, and the front to channel the direction. They move their feet to create a turn instead of curving their bodies. Littauer would understand why that doesn't happen. Murdoch apparently does not.

This motion is more obvious at higher speed or tighter circles, but it is part of how horses turn:








​ 
If one wants to feel it, get down on all fours and try curving your body versus shifting your front to turn.

All that said, I've only watched a couple of her videos. She may do a better job somewhere else. But in those videos, she gave a faulty analysis of both horse and rider. And that faulty analysis would be easily recognized by an engineer watching videos and recording pressure readouts - even if the engineer did not ride horses at all.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> That was not at all what I took from Hondo's post.
> 
> A few years back, Hondo was asking how to achieve a better understanding of his horse. I asked if he ever just sat there with him and suggested that if he wasn't that this would be one way to increase the bond and understanding.
> 
> He is simply relaying that doing this worked well for him.


Well, the entire thread has gone so much sideways, that it is difficult at times, to see as to where a post is both directed, and what it intends to imply
Since this thread was on dominance, taken in whatever context, it could easily be read into Hondo's post, that anyone who believes in being a'leader,' being dominant tot the horse, as opposed to domineering, then never just chills with a horse, enjoys just being with that horse
Perhaps I am a bit gun shy by now, so apologies if I read the wrong connotation into that post


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Smilie said:


> Well, the entire thread has gone so much sideways, that it is difficult at times, to see as to where a post is both directed, and what it intends to imply
> Since this thread was on dominance, taken in whatever context, it could easily be read into Hondo's post, that anyone who believes in being a'leader,' being dominant tot the horse, as opposed to domineering, then never just chills with a horse, enjoys just being with that horse
> Perhaps I am a bit gun shy by now, so apologies if I read the wrong connotation into that post


Apology accepted.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Actually the thread is not nor was it ever intended to be about dominance in and of itself, but rather the Dominance Theory as relates to training a horse.

I have just rewatched the video and Callie is very clear about what she means by the Dominance Theory as relates to training. Remember that she mentioned that sometimes one had to become very loud or strong to preserve safety. That action under what ever circumstances certainly has dominance in it.

But to repeat, she clearly delineates Dominance Theory Training as opposed to being simply dominante. At least I think she does.

I like the video and am glad I shared despite the hullabaloo.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

@bsms

Engineers Studying Horses

I'm a math and science major. At about 35 yo I went back and used up the rest of my GI bill on Civil Engineering courses.

On two principle courses, Statics & Dynamics and Mechanics of Materials I set the curve on each and every test. They both had calculus as prerequisites, which I was rusty on but had gotten A's on them 10+ years prior.

Those are exceedingly intricate calculations and concepts.

I am here to tell you they do not apply to a living animal. The guy Steve on the net that swears heel first landings damage the horse does his analysis using CAD drawings and regards the hoof as having joints made of metal without addressing the absorption of the back of the foot at all.

Well, if the hoof were a mechanical object he would be right. Landing heel first would cause the hoof to violently flip forward and cause all kinds of havoc. But the hoof is not a mechanical object. There's a whole bunch more going on.

And every professional from one end of the universe to the other speaks of the horse rounding it's back. And there is a slight movement in the spine that allows that. Plus there are muscles. I can't really speak to that because I'm a 75 YO beginner putt putt rider. But every authority in the univers past and present cannot be wrong. The horse's spine is not made of metal.

All that said, I did learn how little movement there is in the saddle fit area with my cantle fitted camera. But a slight rounding of the back impossible? I think not. And don't forget the vertibrae between the last rib and the pelvis which have quite a bit of movement.

Whew! Got me going.


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

These types of threads always confuse me for two reasons: firstly, because I generally come in late and then have a lot of reading to do to catch up (and they tend to be quite winding, oh my goodness) and secondly, because they never actually arrive at any sort of destination.
It's generally the same people saying the same things and using the same examples as every other training thread on this site. 
Riders and trainers should be dynamic in their approach, as horses are not inanimate objects. I can't imagine that even the most "tried and true" method will work for each horse we come in contact with. 

As far as the video goes, I think she may be over-simplifying why this "dominance theory" is so prevalent in the horse world. I don't think it's because most riders think they need to have an inherently aggressive demeanor for the horse to listen, I think it has more to do with the fact that when a horse doesn't listen, things can get dangerous very quickly due to the horse's sheer size.
I thought it was interesting that she said horses seek out friendship to dominance (leadership?). I wonder if this is anthropomorphizing? 

As a whole, I agree with what this trainer is saying. Use as much as necessary, and no more. But the fact of the matter is that you don't need to man handle a well trained horse and honestly I feel like she's simply mincing words (assertive vs aggressive).


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hondo said:


> ...And every professional from one end of the universe to the other speaks of the horse rounding it's back...But every authority in the univers past and present cannot be wrong. The horse's spine is not made of metal...


Actually, every supposed expert can be wrong...except the REAL experts KNOW that horses do not round up their back under a rider. 



> "When I had the chance to talk with Dr. Hilary Clayton in January 2009 and asked her about how a horse's back shape changes under weight, her answer was a very quick and sure "*It sags*". So the idea of a horse "rounding up under the saddle" doesn't even seem to be a question in the minds of people who actually study biomechanics. They know it doesn't actually happen. It is just one of the many "saddle fit myths" that have been perpetuated without any real backing."
> 
> Yup, riding a horse does make his back extend...


Jean Claude Racinet presented a drawing which can be verified by science:








​
That simple diagram explains what we can measure and also gives food for thought. The problem isn't what do experts know, but what do many supposed experts teach in defiance of what is known.

Consider what happens when a rider, sitting in a saddle, extends his legs forward. Does that put more or less weight on the rear of the saddle. Well, all other things being equal....when you move weight forward, the center of gravity MUST move forward. But many self-proclaimed experts will look at a 2-dimensional diagram, look at a person standing upright on the ground, and insist it puts more weight to the rear.

These things do not take highly complex equations to figure out. If some weight moves forward, and none moves to the rear, then the center of gravity moves forward.

Others are more complex. Exactly HOW a horse does certain things is difficult to know. They can make changes in stride length & duration that affect the horse significantly but that are impossible for us to see or feel without high-speed cameras. Happily, those cameras have been used, at least sometimes. But getting people to accept the results is a whole different ballgame!

Supposed experts still teach the idea of "The Circle of Energy" - which is about as ridiculous an idea as one can get. Supposed experts will tell people that horses cannot be ridden above 20% of their body weight in spite of millions of horses who ARE ridden that way successfully. Mark Rashid wrote an influential article about Tom Thumb bits which mainly made it clear he had never paid any attention to what happens in a horse's mouth with one...but he's famous. Wrong, and it is easy to demonstrate it...but folks swallow what he preaches.

Consider another question: Do curb bits generate significant poll pressure? I've seen lots of experts say they do - but when I stick my fingers under the poll strap and have someone use the reins, my fingers don't feel it. No equipment needed, other than a curb bit and bridle. And fingers. But it gets repeated because so few riders ever think to test the idea.

Won't go on. When an experienced rider or clinician tells me something, I go with Reagan's dictum of "*Trust, but verify*". Until I've seen it, it is just someone's guess.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> I went over and put one hand under Oliver’s head and invited him to come with me and then dropped my hand. He was enjoying the grass on the other side of the fence. He turned away from his delicacy and followed me. Why?
> 
> Training?
> Bonding?
> ...


A good word I think we forget to use with horses (but that horses well understand the concept of) is friendship. A lot of the other words have connotations that may end up meaning one party should be in authority over the other. But friendship does not require this. And still is a strong motivation for doing something that pleases another, even if it doesn't immediately or obviously benefit oneself.

Friendship is something that has to be given freely, based on a mutual "like" between two parties. It also can be rescinded at any time if one party becomes untrustworthy. I believe my horses do many things for me not because they feel they need to, but because we're friends. 

The conversation about tying should include what was discussed earlier, that some horses have the personality of "never give up, never surrender," and others are more pliable. 

If you can observe that tying a horse for a period of time helps the horse become calm and learn patience, then it's fine to use that method. If it only makes the horse more anxious and determined to find a way to relieve his need to move, then that is absolutely the wrong method to use, as with horses that people tie in the arena night after night only to find the horse standing in a deep trench in the morning. Or horses that appear to be "flooded" by the tying and achieve only learned helplessness with dull eyes and depressed posture. 

For those horses, much can be achieved with short, positive experiences that end before frustration sets in. Some horses have to gradually build up to becoming more mentally patient because they are not computers, and you can't download a few terabytes of patience all at once into their brains.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

There are some prerequisites, before you ever tie a horse solid
First one being, the horse must be 100 % solid on giving to pressure.
In fact, John lyons series on 'Communicating with cues', goes into this in great detail, and goes way beyond a horse just leading with respect
He also dispels the myth that some horses, because of their nature, breeding, can never be expected to learn to tie solid, , and it is futile to expect them to, without the horse pawing, getting upset. That is  not true, although, as in all things, some horses take a longer learning curve, and also, if that horse was not trained to do so, correctly, in increments,.like any other aspect of training, the end results will not be good
It is way better to train a horse correctly, from the start, then to try and un train bad habits. Learning to stand tied is no different
No flooding is involved, done correctly. I don't believe any more then anyone else, in just tying some young horse up, and letting him battle it out, until he gives up
If you include tying, as a regular part of your training program, same as foot handling, leading, etc, the horse just accepts it as part of his training, same as anything else
You can argue that point, far as some horses are just not mentally able to accept standing tied, with John Lyons, or anyone else that uses it as part of their training program
Sure, on a trail ride, during a noon break, I'm not far away from my horse, who is tied. I also hand graze my horse before tying him, while I eat.However, I am not one of those trail riders, afraid of tying up their horse, and who thus has to stand there holding their horse

My horses look relaxed, and if you can't get this,you really limit as to where you can ride, JMO


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Zexious said:


> I thought it was interesting that she said horses seek out friendship to dominance (leadership?). I wonder if this is anthropomorphizing?


Not anthropomorphizing at all. In the herd of, now 18, that I practically live with, it is very clear that horses both have buddies and horses they'd prefer to be around while they avoid horses showing dominance traits, as in the lead mare.

Mark Rashid and others talk about this as well and it is documented in wild herd videos such as The Adventures of Cloud.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

Working professionally with horses all my active life, I rarely had time to just hang out with them, something I loved to do. 

I really don't think that it makes a great deal of difference to their reactions to me. It I went off for a holiday or a short break, the moment I drove through the yard and the horses saw it was me I was greeted and it wasn't feed time. 

One older horse, a hunter, I hadn't had in my care for very long, perhaps six weeks. His order had taken him hedge hopping, I was there to help the rider and all went excellently (way, way better than I expected!) on our return Sam was done over, fed and turned out with the other horses. 
Come evening I, and hos rider went to bring them in. Edward offered to walk down the field and catch the three. He approached Sam who was haltered and the rope thrown over his neck. He then started to walk to where I was waiting. Edward went to grab the rope and he just avoided him. As he came up,the hill I could see he was going a bit short on one front leg. That horse walked straight to me and lifted the lame leg up holding it out to me. 

I brought him in and felt all over, no heat or visible injury and only when I felt into the hair did I feel what felt like a spot. Close examination showed he had a blackthorn into the front of his fetlock. 

Now, that horse knew I was the one who was going to help him not his owner. To me he was a sweet horse, easy to do and a real gentleman. I had never hung out with him. Sure, i looked after him, mucked him out and fed him, gave him a pat or a scratch but never anything special.

He is not the only horse I have had this sort of thing happen with. They knew I was their care giver, would often walk with me when I was exercising the dogs across a field they were in yet I never did anything much to them in the way of individuals.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> Not anthropomorphizing at all. In the herd of, now 18, that I practically live with, it is very clear that horses both have buddies and horses they'd prefer to be around while they avoid horses showing dominance traits, as in the lead mare.
> 
> Mark Rashid and others talk about this as well and it is documented in wild herd videos such as The Adventures of Cloud.


Again, we are not part of an equine herd, where horses buddy up with various other horses,often depending on the general ranks they each enjoy n that herd. Thus, for instance, my yearlings buddy up with each other, in a herd
We are only at best, ever a 'herd; of two with our horse.
In that herd of two, even when there is great harmony and friendship, one is still dominant to the other.
I have yet to see horses, even that are very close, where that role reverses, changes daily, with one horse moving the other off a pile of hay, and then that roll reversed the next day.
Rotten as that term of dominance might be in your mouth, one horse, even the best of buddies, is dominant to the other
That dominant horse might invite his buddy to eat with him, but that is way different the deferring to him


My problem with Rashid, is some of his observations are very flawed.
Best example is his rant on the Tom THumb'', which is not truly on the TOm Thumb, but any jointed mouth curb.
He is using the stance of considering that jointed mouth curb a form of snaffle,thus using it on a green horse, BUT NOT as it is meant to be used-ie, a curb, that can be a transition between that of a snaffle and a curb with a port.
He grew up in the Vaquero tradition, and where only curbs with ports are considered to be curbs , or 'proper bits'

Thus, trying to compare wild herd dynamics with any interaction by us, with a horse one on one, is equally flawed, unless you plan on sleeping , grazing, breeding and living with that herd!
The attempt to totally take wild horse hoof dynamics, herd interaction and apply it to domestic horses, is very flawed
THE ONLY thing that applies, far a s herd behavior and our relationship with ahrose, is that we recognize that horse as being a herd prey species, and that has a body language it communicates with

As aherd species, there is ALWAYS a herd order, which can change, as horses age, become ill, new horses introduced, ect

However, there is always an order in that herd, with every horse knowing as to where they fit. Once that order is established, it takes very little outward expression to maintain, and all herd members are secure in that order.

We have a one on one relationship with our horse, so one of us is dominant to the other, and as far as I'm concerned, that has to be the human. That does not mean you can't be a friend tot hat horse, that it takes any great amount of R- to keep that order, but it does require consistent boundaries, because if you don;t lead the horse will

Horses are perfectly happy and secure with that, as they really hate needing to ask, esp is scary situations, 'are you still the leader?"

As a prey species, we understand their flight reaction, and work at having the horse learn to dampen it, as he learns to trust us, and see us as a leader he can trust in the first place

Again, we try to understand the hrose, for the creature he is, far as being a herd and prey species, communicate with him, using some of his own body language, but we are not a fellow horse, living in that herd.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I recently got a book from Western Horseman on solving various issues. He has two chapters on teaching a horse to tie. One is for horses who don't show any signs of fearing it, and one is for horses who do. My current 3 horses arrived here comfortable with being tied, so I don't know if his advice works. But I thought it interesting that he had separate chapters depending on how the horse responds.

He also has a good chapter on spooking. He covers patterns for working a horse near something, or going around it (when possible). A big part of his advice is summarized in the photo below. I really wish I had read his book about 9 years ago...








​
In the introduction, he discusses the difference between making a horse do something and allowing the horse to find something out for himself - and he strongly prefers the latter. He says the difference between fear and respect is important, but it takes time and experience to recognize it - and thus mistakes will be made. Problem Solving by Marty Marten.

It doesn't address any 'problems' that my horses have. My current three, which may also be my final horses, are pretty easy going horses. Now. 

But his chapter on groundwork is much better than most I've seen. Bandit's groundwork was done along the approach of Clinton Anderson, who his owner picked because CA was so much gentler than the experienced trainers where he lived. Bandit...gets concerned about groundwork. And little Cowboy is afraid of groundwork. But the stuff Marty Marten describes isn't 'round pen'. No endless circles. I may try some of it with mine, just for fun.

Like @*Smilie* describes, the book is focused on teaching a horse, not bossing a horse. The goal is a relaxed, accepting obedience. Not a fearful one. It has been around 20 years, and he admits in the introduction that none of it is new, that he is just consolidating advice and lessons he has learned from others.

It seems to me the "Dominance Theory" that @*Hondo* is concerned with would be better described as the "Bully Theory". And it does exist. There is a reason Bandit's previous owner turned to Clinton Anderson as a gentle & caring trainer. There are also 'lead horses' who are actually just bullies. But while Mia was a very dominant mare, the others adored her. She was a "Lead Mare", not a "Bully Mare". It is an important distinction.

PS: Reviewing my post, it occurs to me that most of Mia's bolts were caused by me. Her spooks - her startle reactions - were what they were, but the many bolts were rooted in my pushing past what she could handle. And I did that because I was told to push her, that I couldn't 'let her get away with refusing', etc. Her bolts were rooted in the Bully Theory, which is still pretty common. "Dominance" rooted in "The Team Wins" isn't a problem. Dominance rooted in "_Don't let her win!_" - which I heard a number of times when Mia & I were starting riding - is bullying.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> Rotten as that term of dominance might be in your mouth, one horse, even the best of buddies, is dominant to the other


I somewhat resent that remark as both unfriendly and unhelpful Smilie. I have been very clear that I am in fact dominant to my horse as is every horse owner. I have went out of my way to to stress the topic is the Dominance Theory of Training, similar to the Alpha Theory of Training.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

bsms said:


> It seems to me the "Dominance Theory" that @*Hondo* is concerned with would be better described as the "Bully Theory". And it does exist.


Exactly, and that may be the main point of the thread, that what is popularly called Dominance Theory Training is often if not usually the Bully Theory of Training. And that in the long term it is counter productive to both the horse's learning and trust.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Foxhunter said:


> That horse walked straight to me and lifted the lame leg up holding it out to me.


Never had a horse do that, that I was aware of, but my dog does it fairly frequently. Cool story.


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

@Hondo, I take issue with your example for two reasons:
Firstly, you seem to be overcomplicating what I was saying (I think an issue we've had in the past?). My statement was simply "is it anthropomorphizing to assume that horses SEEK OUT friendship over dominance"? (reworded for clarity). Nowhere did I suggest that horses cannot have particular horses that they're attached to. 

Secondly, we have no way of determining (at least, not in the example you provided. It may be possible to deduce in a highly complex survey study of several populations of wild and domestic horse herd dynamics) that horses SEEK OUT (again, you must pay attention to the wording used) "friendship" over "dominance".
Can you explain to me what behaviors you see that would suggest this? 

____________

@bsms, in regards to your post on the previous page, I think some trainers may use technically incorrect language to convey a point. It's really neither here nor there, and the real world doesn't function like a textbook, so it's sometimes forgivable.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hondo said:


> Exactly, and that may be the main point of the thread, that what is popularly called Dominance Theory Training is often if not usually the Bully Theory of Training...


Many of the videos I've seen of round pen work are using the bully theory. They call it 'respect' when what they mean is unquestioning obedience - or else. That can be useful for certain horses for a short time. If the horse is inclined to bully the human, the human needs to establish that the human is formidable - someone the horse needs to work with rather than dominate.

I like and respect the lady that I took round penning lessons from, and she did very good work with my horses. But her round pen work was rooted in unquestioning obedience or else. Little Cowboy was round penned badly as a lesson horse. If he accidentally gets in a round pen with a human, he immediately tries to act like a dog. He believes it is the only way to get the human to leave him alone. Open a gate, and he'll FLY out of there!

Anytime I hear or read, "Don't let the horse win!", I get nervous. In some cases it is correct. But a lot of bullying and bad training takes place on horses who would cooperate if they only understood. The problem is genuinely "proverbial":



> The French say, when speaking of a horse that shows restiveness, "il se defend" - he defends himself...There is much truth in this expression, and it is one that riders should constantly bear in mind, for insubordination is most commonly the result of something having been demanded from the horse that it either did not know how to do or was unable to perform...
> 
> - On Seats and Saddles, by Francis Dwyer, Major of Hussars in the Imperial Austrian Service (1868)


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I have that Marty Marten book. It's a good one. The techniques are pretty consistent with what many other trainers use, but are well documented and explained in that book.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Zexious said:


> @Hondo, I take issue with your example for two reasons:
> Firstly, you seem to be overcomplicating what I was saying (I think an issue we've had in the past?). My statement was simply "is it anthropomorphizing to assume that horses SEEK OUT friendship over dominance"? (reworded for clarity). Nowhere did I suggest that horses cannot have particular horses that they're attached to.
> 
> Secondly, we have no way of determining (at least, not in the example you provided. It may be possible to deduce in a highly complex survey study of several populations of wild and domestic horse herd dynamics) that horses SEEK OUT (again, you must pay attention to the wording used) "friendship" over "dominance".
> Can you explain to me what behaviors you see that would suggest this?


The sensitivity of the internet baffles me.

How about to the question, "is it anthropomorphizing to assume that horses SEEK OUT friendship over dominance?", I simply comment, IMHO, no.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Zexious said:


> ... @*bsms* , in regards to your post on the previous page, I think some trainers may use technically incorrect language to convey a point. It's really neither here nor there, and the real world doesn't function like a textbook, so it's sometimes forgivable.


If the saying is something like, "Pretend you are a tree, growing into the sky...", well, it doesn't do much for me but I'm sure it helps others.

But if someone claims their teaching is rooted in biomechanics, they really ought to pay attention to the actual biomechanics.

And maybe it is just me, but when Jean-Claude Racinet talks about the horse diverting energy into lifting at the withers - something a horse can undoubtedly do - it creates a very different picture than a horse who rounds up BETWEEN the driving and restraining aids. "_This of course requires that the horse is well contained between the pushing aids and restraining aids, *because this relatively high basic tension which is necessary for collection can only be obtained in this way*..._" One says, 'Don't use it for forward motion, but for a lifting motion', while the other says 'I'm squeezing you with necessary high tension, trapped between the driving and restraining aids'. One has release. The other endless tension.

Folks can teach riding any way they wish. But if they claim their teaching is rooted in biomechanics, and others are not, then they need to get the biomechanics right. *Trying to get a horse to do what the horse cannot physically do must get frustrating for both horse and rider.*

In terms of behavior, I see the same problem. If you want to teach a horse blind obedience, that isn't too tough. If you want to teach a horse respect, then you need to *earn* the horse's trust and respect. But if one claims to teach respect by insisting on blind obedience, then you end up with the conflict that bothers @*Hondo* (I think...not trying to put words in his mouth).

If I use a whip to insist the horse move at the speed, the direction, and turn the way I wish, and not rest until I decide, and do all that arbitrarily, then I may be teaching it blind obedience. But I'm going backwards in terms of teaching it trust and respect and WILLING obedience. 

And yes, I just described how I was taught round pen work. As part of "_Natural Horse-Man-Ship_", to use Parelli's title for his first book. Looking back, I think the round pen work I was taught with Mia as the subject set us backwards. I was also taught that with Trooper as a subject, which may be part of why he still dislikes me. Training that isn't reality based sets us backwards. It moves us in the wrong direction.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> I somewhat resent that remark as both unfriendly and unhelpful Smilie. I have been very clear that I am in fact dominant to my horse as is every horse owner. I have went out of my way to to stress the topic is the Dominance Theory of Training, similar to the Alpha Theory of Training.


Well, then we are even, Hondo, as I see we seem to go over the same ground again and again, be it R- used in training, . ask, ask louder then demand, interpretation of dominance, as you seem to always take the extreme of any degree of correction, shutting a blind eye to the idea of balance, and as to how those factor are applied correctly
This has caused me to see many people on this site falling over backwards, trying to explain their correct use of balance, needing to justify that they, like you have empathy towards hroses, enjoy a partnership with them
Do you not recognize where so many of your posts wind up going"?
Many times, relationships are just 'good; with both parties secure in that relationship, happy, ect, without that relationship needing to be taken apart by some psychological analysis. It evolves out of experience that works, and not by reading various theories
Theory is great, but practical application, proven results, speak way louder to me.
You can google every latest NH guru, yet ignore those truly great trainers out there, who have quietly been producing great horses, time after time, year after year-horses that are both 'good citizens', and who stay sound in both body and mind.
I have enjoyed relationships with quite a few horses, loved them, built part of my life around making sure they had the best of care, and in return, it is not unreasonable that they work for me, and they do, happily.
I have had horses give me their very best, even over riding their basic nature of flight
Like Foxhunter, I have had horses look to me for comfort, when hurt.
Once, when Einstein had gas colic, out in pasture, he whinnied and walked up to me, and I thought he was just happy to see me, perhaps eager to go on a ride.
I took him to the barn, and gave him some of his favorite beet pulp. He just stood there and pawed, so I know he had gut pain, and looked to me to solve it.

He did not chase that bull moose, when I asked him, out of fear in not obeying me, but rather in complete trust of my decision.

Now, to end this thread on lack of clarity- if you were posting of the concept of completely dominating a horse out of fear and intimidation, then there is no one here that is going to dispute that as being wrong. A horse that only works for you out of fear, is not going top be ahorse I want to be riding, when 'sh--t hits the fan
On the other hand, if you believe there is no need to be just alittle bit above your horse, far as 'herd' order, then I disagree. Okay?


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo, we have been over the correct application of not having the horse win, time and time and time again, also of when to use the =ask, ask louder then demand.
YOU DO NOT use it on a horse that does not understand as to what is being asked!!!!
No trainer worth his salt disagrees with that.
You thus FIRST teach those requests, using patience, rewarding every slight try, etc ect
ONLY when a horse under stands a request, and basically tells you to 'shove it' (yes,sorry all pain issues ruled out. Must put in those disclaimers, or sure as heck they come up,instead of taking them as a given and common sense), do you go to making sure the horse does not win, responds to that light ask, ect, ect/
You can't disparage a tool or method, if the user has no sense in to how to use it correctly!
One of our pathologists , got atable saw once for a Christmas present. He returned to work, minus two fingers. The table saw was not flawed, his application of it;s use was!


----------



## mmshiro (May 3, 2017)

Hondo said:


> The sensitivity of the internet baffles me.
> 
> How about to the question, "is it anthropomorphizing to assume that horses SEEK OUT friendship over dominance?", I simply comment, IMHO, no.


I believe that applying the concept of "friendship" to horses is anthropomorphizing, but I am also quite certain that horses, if given the choice, seek out, nay!, SEEK OUT, calm and peace over drama and stress. So why would they not SEEK OUT the company of horses that don't push them around?

Who horses hang out with is just a function of SEEKING OUT comfort. Hang out with the same individuals often and long enough, and I believe that genuine attachment develops. Is that "friendship" or "companionship"? I don't think it matters what you call it - if we understand what is meant by it.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

mmshiro said:


> I believe that applying the concept of "friendship" to horses is anthropomorphizing, but I am also quite certain that horses, if given the choice, seek out, nay!, SEEK OUT, calm and peace over drama and stress. So why would they not SEEK OUT the company of horses that don't push them around?
> 
> Who horses hang out with is just a function of SEEKING OUT comfort. Hang out with the same individuals often and long enough, and I believe that genuine attachment develops. Is that "friendship" or "companionship"? I don't think it matters what you call it - if we understand what is meant by it.


I would ask, "Are some human behaviors found in animals or are all human behaviors found only in humans?"

If animals do in fact exhibit at least some human behaviors, which I believe they do, is it anthropomorphizing to recognize those behaviors?


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Comfort
Familiarity
Pleasure

In that, I don’t think humans, dogs, horses are all that different. Why do I hang with “friends”? It certainly isn’t because they make me uncomfortable, are wildly unpredictable or cause me pain. I don’t really think it is anthropomorphizing as those criteria for selecting who to hang with are shared characteristics of many social animals. (Anthropomorphism: the attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object.)

Here is another thing that is shared: the release of endorphins, specifically things like Oxytocin, serotonin and Dopamine in response to comforting touch or pleasurable experiences. 

All of these things affect the way the brain functions. Oxytocin actually has an effect on the brain similar to heroin and is almost as addictive according to some studies and can cause some pretty crazy behaviors to get that next oxy-high.

Oxytocin is known as the “bonding” hormone is produced in the hypothalamus. It is stored and released from the pituitary. Oxytocin is most known for its role in bonding a mother to a baby but, Oxytocin is released in all mammals who are in physical contact with one another. 

If you have ever been in a new romantic relationship you have experienced the effects of Oxytocin, it is responsible for that “new relationship high” where you can’t stop thinking about that special person, want to be with them constantly and at times it seems your brain can't think of anything else (some people call this love). The more often the (contact) release happens, the stronger the "bond" becomes. Think of the buddy/heard soured horse. The effects do acclimate at some point and become less volatile in which case, the relationship either takes on a deeper understanding or dissipates (6mo - 2yrs in humans).

Not all individuals within a species have the same number of receptors for Oxytocin so the strength of the reaction may vary. Testosterone interferes with uptake (may be why studs appear less socially attached).

Just physiological food for thought re: bonding/friendship/companionship


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

> While it is easy to abuse your horse mentally without noticing the little inconsiderate things which one may do without meaning harm, it is also as easy to acquire a habit of thinking about your mount as a living being. It is encouraging to realize that the horse by his nature normally tries to cooperate and be good, and it is disturbing to know how often he is not given a chance to do so. Great satisfaction can be derived by any civilized human being out of the consciousness that he is kind to his animals, particularly those he uses for his pleasure.
> 
> There are thousands upon thousands of riders in this country who have a great accumulation of delightful experiences derived from companionship with their horses. If you don't happen to be one of them I would like to suggest your trying it; it will increase greatly your pleasure in being in the saddle. I am particularly addressing these words to a young woman who, while sitting on the horse's kidneys and pulling with all her might on the curb, was overheard to say: “Oh boy, ain't riding fun!"
> 
> And what about punishment? If your schooling is based on the ancient law of reward and punishment, and you are very faithful in observing it, then the horse quickly learns to understand the meaning of both. He learns to understand the meaning of punishment especially fast if the rider is careful never to ask more than the horse can easily do at that particular stage. In such cases, and when the punishment is in proportion to the disobedience, the punishment is not a cruelty but merely an unpleasant though just necessity. Omitting rewards while exaggerating punishments is an abuse. As a general and not always accurate rule one can say that the better the trainer the less punishment he needs to apply to his horses. Most disobedience takes place when a rider, lacking in equestrian tact, asks from his horse more than he can do that day without straining himself. - VS Littauer, Common Sense Horsemanship 1962


Much of what we've discussed on this thread is contained in that quote. Like @Smilie says, good horsemen have known it all along. And like some of us have noted, good horsemanship sure isn't universal! For me, it has been a growing process, with horses teaching me much about my own soul. I suspect many riders feel that way.

He accepts punishment as an option, as I do. There may be people who never need to resort to it. I'm not one. My horses, like my kids, sometimes choose to behave in a way that might serve their short-term interests, but only at the cost of the long-range good. "_...and when the punishment is in proportion to the disobedience, the punishment is not a cruelty but merely an unpleasant though just necessity._"

But the longer I ride, which isn't even 10 years yet, the more I understand how to set a horse up for success, how to break things into small steps and how to allow the horse to find the right answer rather than punish him for a wrong one. That is "equestrian tact", a phrase that goes back at least into the 1800s and maybe further. Learning "tact" or "feel" is a journey.



> A horseman who has great delicacy and tact, will stop the animal at the first time and pat him. But the less tact he has, the less capable is he of judging if the time is in cadence. Such a man will continue in his attempts to catch the cadence, and will succeed only in upsetting the nerves of his horse. These remarks explain the fact that a clever and tactful horseman will obtain all he wants from his mount, without making him either vicious or unsound. Being able to recognize the slightest sign of obedience, he immediately stops the work, in order to make the horse understand, by pats on the neck, that he has done well. The quickness with which he perceives the slightest signs, saves him from overtaxing and disgusting the horse, and provoking him to battle, which will wear them both out...*Hence, the important point is to recognize the slightest signs of good will, and to be content with little*. - James Fillis, Breaking and Riding: With Military Commentaries, 1890


----------



## mmshiro (May 3, 2017)

Hondo said:


> I would ask, "Are some human behaviors found in animals or are all human behaviors found only in humans?"
> 
> If animals do in fact exhibit at least some human behaviors, which I believe they do, is it anthropomorphizing to recognize those behaviors?


I would answer that observing X partially is evidence for, but not proof of, X. I would say that the human view of a friend as someone to call upon purposefully for aid and comfort in times of distress, and to receive such aid and comfort specifically because of the friend-friend relationship (as opposed to donating to a charity, say, or taking a crying lost child back to his or her parents) will be quite difficult to test experimentally. And if it's not falsifiable, it generally won't get considered as a theory to explain something.

I lent support to your assertion that horses are _not attracted_ to being shown "who the boss is"...why the need to romanticize the equine behavior? I bet horses still stay close enough to the alpha animal to receive guidance and leadership when sh*t hits the fan in the herd. It's not as though horses are repulsed by the dominating animal, especially one that has earned their trust in guiding the herd. Unless they have career ambitions, they simply prefer to stay out of trouble. That doesn't create a bond of friendship amongst like-minded herd members, though.

There are colleagues in my "herd" at work whose company I prefer while we share the same industrial carpet "pasture" – that's a long way away from considering any of them my "friend".


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Lilly and Mia had been corral mates for 3 years prior to either of them coming to us, although we got them several months apart. We sold Lilly a couple years later because she & Trooper could NOT get along, and most of the family voted to keep Trooper. 

Mia spent 3 days at the corral closest to where she last saw Lilly, nickering. Less so as time went on, and she stopped after 3 days. A few years later, they briefly met again. They didn't "know" each other, but they recognized...something. Mia feared and loathed strange horses, but she understood Lilly wasn't "strange", although she didn't quite place her during the short time they had next to each other (over a fence). 

What was it between them? Mia was clearly dominant, so she wasn't missing security or protection. I think she clearly missed someone she had spent 5 years with at that point. Was it the familiarity? Was it friendship?

It looked like friendship to me, so that is what I'll call it. I have no interest, after all, in how scientists would describe my relationship with my wife after 30+ years. Not everything falls under the domain of "science".


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

mmshiro said:


> I bet horses still stay close enough to the alpha animal to receive guidance and leadership when sh*t hits the fan in the herd.


Well, you'd lose your bet.

Horses only submit to the alpha male horse and dominant mare horse in order to be allowed to be part of the herd. The reason they want to be part of the herd is safety in numbers. In 5 million years they have etched in their brains that a lone horse is a dead horse.

When there is the possibility of an attack, the dominant horses go the the center of the herd with the less dominant farther and farther out. Sort of a take off on the tennis shoe/hiking boot joke. Eat the one on the outside of the herd, not me.

They do NOT look to the alpha male or dominant mare for protection. They only look to being a member of the herd, some herd, for protection, hence they are so willing to cooperate. Which with us humans, has so often been their downfall.

@bsms, maybe I'm just a lucky horse owner or an aging sentimental old [email protected] but I cannot visualize any situation where I would actually punish Hondo.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

@*Hondo* , I can't imagine my daughter punishing Trooper. She & Trooper click. They always have.

But that isn't entirely typical of what most people encounter in riding. And frankly, the large majority of the "punishment" I offer Bandit is of the "_Wrong answer, Try again_" sort. I don't have a whip, don't use spurs, rarely use heels, and a Mullen snaffle or a solid shank curb aren't going to inspire fear or terror in Bandit. If he gets too mouthy, his face will meet my elbow. Too dangerous for me. If he bucks, I'll use whatever force is needed to get his head up. I don't get upset with him crow-hopping at times, but I'm not going to encourage it. I will sometimes put my heels into him, but I promise you he can ignore my heels without stressing out.

For the most part, I use Tom Roberts' rule of "_This will profit you. This will profit you not._" I find that way of thinking is almost always useful. And to be honest, that is a large part of how Bandit trains me. Some things work with Bandit. Some don't. So use what works and discard the rest. A large part of our interaction is then based on what profits us as a team versus what causes us problems.

Also: Both Mia and Bandit take on the role of 'herd protector'. Both Mia then and Bandit now were/are my horses most likely to spook or say no, but they also were the horses most likely to take on a challenge. And when there is trouble, the others used to hide behind Mia. Now they hide behind Bandit, and Bandit will go out alone to decide what to do. Trooper is dominant over food, but Bandit makes all the decisions for them if there is trouble. And if he perceives a threat, Bandit may well decide to take it on...by himself, because the others sure wouldn't help him.

That is part of why Bandit & I click, and maybe why Mia & I liked each other. If there is any question, we like to go out and decide how to handle it. Bandit & I together.


----------



## mmshiro (May 3, 2017)

Hondo said:


> Well, you'd lose your bet.
> 
> a lone horse is a dead horse.


We were not talking about "lone horses", we were talking about "horse friends".


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> Well, you'd lose your bet.
> 
> Horses only submit to the alpha male horse and dominant mare horse in order to be allowed to be part of the herd. The reason they want to be part of the herd is safety in numbers. In 5 million years they have etched in their brains that a lone horse is a dead horse.
> 
> ...


You are someone who has had a relationship with one or two older geldings, so, 'never say never, far as all horses, and the correct response being the same for all horses.
Were a stallion to bite of charge you, your view might be different.
Far as the herd not looking tot he alpha mare or stallion for guidance, that is wrong.
Who brings up the rear, when in flight from perceived danger? It is the herd stallion.
Who leads that herd, guiding as to where they run? It is the lead mare
Horses just happen to hang out with other hroses near their own social level, which makes perfect sense.
Again, you are not a horse, living with a herd of horses. You are one member of a two different species relationship, and with an animal whose social structure is built on herd order. There has to be a leader. If it is not you, it will be the hrose.
Enough posts here, prove that fact. It is not the fault of a horse that becomes barn sour, herd bound, kicks, bites, rears,etc etc It is the fault of that human, somewhere along the line.
In the words of Mary Twelve Ponies,'there are no problem horses, just problem people'
I have seen enough problem horses, created by people who just want that horse to 'love them', and equate that expression of love, with never setting boundaries, hoping that the horse will then just chose to to be a willing partner out of some bond alone, and that works, until , \push comes to shove', with many of those same people then crushed,because the horse that 'so loved them, was bonded to them', acted like a horse, bolted, or bucked them off under some circumstances where something beyond a loving bond was needed, that of clear leadership, respect of that human's judgement, that then over rides their natural flight response.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> You are someone who has had a relationship with one or two older geldings,


You speak of that which you know not. I have a relationship with each and every horse of 18 and with some that are no longer on the ranch.

For five summers I camped in and hiked the Pinenut Mountains behind Carson City and Minden Nevada. I still have pictures taken of wild or feral herds located somewhere in my external storage.

I was almost on a friendly basis with the stallion of one herd. It was some other horse in the herd that would finally cause them to move on. The stallion was curios and would often linger. I got within 1/8 mile at least at times.

And then there is the valuable DVD series Adventures of Cloud where he was followed from birth to 9 years of age and is still being followed. There's a lot to learn in that video.

Dare I assert that I have very likely spent more hours observing wild herds than you, even if only in a 5 year span?

Not sure about your age, but I may have been driving a team prior to your birth.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

mmshiro said:


> We were not talking about "lone horses", we were talking about "horse friends".


You were talking about


mmshiro said:


> I bet horses still stay close enough to the alpha animal to receive guidance and leadership when sh*t hits the fan in the herd.


A lone horse is a dead horse is the reason a horse stays with the herd. Not to recieve "guidance and leadership" which would be a clear case of anthropomorphizing.

Each horse looks out for him/herself. If any horses head goes up, they ALL go up to assess a threat if any. Yes, if one horse takes off running, they mostly all will, but not for guidance, they just sort of assume something may be after the running horse and they don't want it to get them.

That's how it works.

I realize some people like to think of themselves as the leader that the horse looks to for guidance and leadership but that does not in reality happen.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hondo said:


> ...I realize some people like to think of themselves as the leader that the horse looks to for guidance and leadership but that does not in reality happen.


A couple of years ago, I was riding Cowboy when we were shot at. Some idiots emptying their pistols at a paper target hung in a tree with no concern for the trail that exited straight behind the tree. The other guy riding with me said he could see the bullets cutting the vegetation near Cowboy's legs.

Since it was 1/4 mile to the shooters, but a mile the opposite direction to safety, we - the humans - decided to advance.

Cowboy? He was scared. Very scared. Did he race away? No. He very obviously wanted ME to decide how to handle a threat he had no clue about. And when we humans decided to go towards the gunfire, both horses obeyed.

That REALITY is what many riders on this thread train toward. Not with round pen tricks. Not by desensitizing. But by building a track record of making good decisions in a stressful situation. By building a track record of fairness and by demonstrating, over time, that they want good things to happen to horses.

And when we were probing Bandit's heel last week, sticking forceps into a wound and trying (without success, as it turned out) to get all the splinter out of Bandit's leg, Bandit...was a little tense. It obviously involved some pain. And he didn't understand it. But his previous owner DID teach Bandit that people did good things for horses. And my wife and I have built on that. He was worried, but he held his foot steady as we worked. Well...my RN wife worked while I tried to keep Bandit relaxed.

I've seen a lot of cases where a horse who was feeling overwhelmed clearly expected the human to make the right decisions. Heck, the one time I came off a horse, in Jan 2009, I slammed back first into a rock and Mia bolted away. I started cussing loudly, including her name, and Mia spun around and raced back to me. I thought I was going to be trampled, but as I crawled to near standing, she slid to a stop and put her head next to my chest. Shaking, but waiting for me to make the bad thing (a 2-stroke engine) go away. I could barely stand, so I used her to help ME get her back to the corral, then slowly limped inside.

I'm sure many others could give countless examples. If I'm sick, I want to find an MD. If a properly trained and cared for horse gets in trouble, he wants to know what his human thinks. *When your horse wants to know what you think because you are such a good thinker, you have willing obedience.* Not dominance. Willing obedience.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

@bsms I have had similar experiences with Hondo, but my perception of what was going on in Hondo's head is different that what your perceptions were.

One, which you may remember me having mentioned happened in the months of riding Hondo before he became mine. It was that incident that convinced the ranch to allow me to ride on roundups with a Cook's rather than a snaffle that I had been using.

As I approached the gate, which was open, to the 60 acre field where Hondo and Dragon now live, the rest of the herd, 22 at the time, were near the gate and suddenly became frightened. They absolutely stampeded on both sides of us within maybe 3 feet or so at times. Hondo was whirling this way and that but I kept him in what I've estimated as a 10 to 20 foot circle. He wanted badly to go with the herd before whatever it was that scared them got us, or mostly him I'd guess.

I was talking, reacting, doing who knows what with the reins, but I stayed on and he finally settled. We finally rode on in and grazed with the herd for more settling before going to the yard/pen to untack.

My perception was/is that he was merely being subservient to the dominant rider on his back. He was not looking for advice. He was very clear on what he felt he should do.

If I'd been dismounted with him ground tied, there's no doubt what he would have done. I'd suggest the same would have been true in your example. If your horse was ground tied I doubt he/she'd simply said, "Ok, what do we do now boss?".

FWIW, that's my perception.

Additionally, when out riding Hondo will often ask, which way? But he's not looking for leadership and guidance. He's just asking which way I want to go. Other times he'll ask, "Hey, let's go this way". And sometimes we do.

Edit: I also wonder if Mia would have came back to you if there was another horse to run away with. Hondo does not like to be alone. Sometimes he'll remain in the yard/pen with me when Dragon or others leave, but if I go inside and he's alone, he's gone to the other horse/horses.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

@*Hondo* , I'm pretty sure my horses are sometimes looking to me for advice. Or decisions. Cowboy was rigid, ears back (not pinned), and turning his head a little - where I could see the panic in his eyes. And the moment I said go forward, he did - with enthusiasm. He was overwhelmed. He waited for me to decide, then performed it with vigor.

I'm certain Bandit looks to me for advice, at least. The most consistent explanation for how he behaves is that he knows his hearing and sniffer are vastly better than mine, but my eyesight is good and my judgment (about something I've seen) is very good.

Bandit is pretty clear about what he thinks, but he often listens to a nudge of the reins. Not always. But again - he smells and hears while I am limited to seeing. And if he doesn't want to listen to a nudge of the reins, we discuss it some more. I really don't think Bandit views me as dominant. I think he (and Mia before him) understands that HIS feet are on the ground and mine are not. I think he understands, at some level, that I cannot make him go or make him stop.

A lot of his obedience is rooted in habit, but not all. And if we are doing something challenging, he gets very responsive to my inputs. Far more so than when strolling down a paved road. The more he needs help, the more responsive he is to help.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'll assume it is a duck until I see better evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> You speak of that which you know not. I have a relationship with each and every horse of 18 and with some that are no longer on the ranch.
> 
> For five summers I camped in and hiked the Pinenut Mountains behind Carson City and Minden Nevada. I still have pictures taken of wild or feral herds located somewhere in my external storage.
> 
> ...


 far as relationship with horses, I was not referring to observing wild horses, although I do run into them, every time I ride out west, on our side of the Panther river. They prefer to remain in the foothills, and do not venture into mountains
Herds with a stallion, mares and foals are usually no problem. When the stallion senses danger, he will round up his herd, and drive them ahead.Some w stallions will stop, ,and come towards us, checking us out, others just drive that band
Bachelor stallions are another thing altogether, and there have been times when we had to fire a shot over their heads
Far as getting close to feral hroses, some are more used to people then others, esp those whose range is near an outfitter camp. I actually got right up to a foal
Far as my age, all you need to know, is that I'm closer to your age then you might realize, and while you were driving that team, I could as well have been driving some of our Percherons, including hauling water out of a drainage ditch in our woods, using a stone boat.
That is neither here nor there.
As a kid, when my mis guided step father,bought me a spoiled anglo Arabian stallion, all I can say, I sure wish I had known more about correcting a spoiled horse then.
My point being, there is a time to physically correct some horses, even if you never need to do so with any particular horse. 

All I was saying, Hondo, that members here, who have ridden and trained a number of horses, all agree that there is a time some horse needs to be corrected, shown that he can't, 'dominant a human. Most, if not all of those kinds of horses, where you need to resort to strong measures, have been man made, by never having been given boundaries in their relationship with humans.
I was going to try and find another word, but what the heck!
Wild foal
Feral stallion, wounded by wolves


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

:mrgreenur wild stallions drive the herd, but they are Canadian, eh!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Dominance, Leadership, and Hierarchy

It’s just part of equine nature, stemming from wild herd days, that domestic groups of horses create social hierarchies. These rankings work to safeguard the herd, maintain family groups, and determine priority access to resources (food, water, and shelter). 

Understanding Herd Dynamics | TheHorse.com

“We like to think of our horses as being nice and generous, but the thing is that what they’re really looking out for is themselves,” says Elke Hartmann, PhD, of the Department of Animal Environment and Health at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, in Uppsala. 

As such, horses will set up an order of who eats first, drinks first, and accesses shelter first. “It’s all about resources when it comes to social order in domestic horses,” Hartmann says.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Well, here we go, an article by Mark Rashid, on the difference between feral and domestic horse herd dynamics.
I actually agree with what he has written, so perhaps need reevaluate his writings

https://consideringthehorse.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/herd-dynamics-hierachy-and-behavior/


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

RE: our wild stallions drive the herd, but they are Canadian, eh!
Comment: I never saw a stallion drive a herd in the feral herds I observed in Nevada. Excerpt #2 from Rashid's article also seems to give the lie to stallions driving the herd.“

RE: We like to think of our horses as being nice and generous, but the thing is that what they’re really looking out for is themselves,” says Elke Hartmann, PhD, of the Department of Animal Environment and Health at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, in Uppsala.

Comment: Agreed. That is more or less what I posted previously.

@Smilie Glad you liked Rashid's article. Mark certainly gives the lie to the Alpha Theory of Training which is another name for the Dominance Theory of Training and puts the article right on topic for this thread.


Excerpt 1. "On top of that, many trainers, clinicians and instructors have begun basing training techniques on the replication of certain actions or behaviors of horses that are (often perceived as) the “dominant”members of the herd. These actions and techniques are designed to ultimately have a horse see the handler as the dominant or “alpha” horse, and thus cause the horse to become submissive and easy to work with.

Unfortunately, this “alpha theory,” as we might refer to it, has actually become quite prevalent in recent years and has in many cases done more harm than good when it comes to the development of relationships with horses based on leadership and trust. But more about that later."

Excerpt 2. "The second thing we want to understand is that the vast majority of the members of any feral band, including the stallion, are followers, and they generally have only one leader. That leader is always an older, established mare. You see, when a mare is born into a herd they will usually stay with that herd for life, while the males within the herd will generally come and go. So not only are the mares the ones that establish the herd’s stability (and therefore it’s general hierarchy) but it is also the lead mare that establishes where the herd goes, when it goes, and why it goes."


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Yup, that alpha mare leads the herd
Driving the herd from behind, bringing up the rear, is following, although in a protective manner. There is a reason, horses in group trail rides, would rather lead, then be in the back!
The stallion brings up the rear.That is the vulnerable position, for horses in flight.
If the wolves catch up with that herd, it is the hroses in the back that are at risk.

Don't know if you saw that video on Youtube, of a stallion in the everglades, attacking a gator. There were foals in that herd, and that is the stallion;s job-protection, while that alpha mare, experienced with the territory leads
Nothing in that article , for me, is contradicting that hroses enjoy, get security from fair and strong leadership.
My agreement was on the feral versus domestic hrose dynamics, as I have always maintained, that our domestic horses are not examples of true horse dynamics- horses without set feeding schedules, man made introduction into herds, most herds being non breeding, ect etc
Anyway, entertaining as this discussion has been, I'm off few a few days out west with the horses. 
Lots of stuff to get together for both us as the horses, as, while my equine partners are tied up over night, they are well cared for.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

I learned another surprising job that the stallion does from the Adventures of Cloud video. If a newborn is deformed or has problems to the extent it cannot stand up, the stallion will kill it so the mother plus other protective mares can move on. Don't know how they actually think of course, but it would almost seem that the defective foal was a threat to the security of the herd. There's likely other ways to spin it.


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

@Hondo -- Firstly, I don't see how you've mistaken my response to you as sensitivity; I'm confident that my way of riding and handling horses is successful, so I have no "dog in this fight". I also don't constantly make threads questioning the training antics of others, and only respond to what's been presented already.

Furthermore, you didn't "simply comment, IYHO, no". You said: Not anthropomorphizing at all. In the herd of, now 18, that I practically live with, it is very clear that horses both have buddies and horses they'd prefer to be around while they avoid horses showing dominance traits, as in the lead mare.

And I was simply asking you to provide evidence of your claim which you, for whatever reason, chose not to do, and instead chose to rebuff me.

I don't always agree with @Smilie, but I think she's pretty much hit the nail on the head, here.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hondo said:


> I learned another surprising job that the stallion does from the Adventures of Cloud video. If a newborn is deformed or has problems to the extent it cannot stand up, the stallion will kill it so the mother plus other protective mares can move on...There's likely other ways to spin it.


Other ways to spin it:



> I report an infanticide attempt by a free-living feral stallion on a recently born female foal. The stallion picked up the foal by the shoulders, tossed it around twice and bit in on the neck several times. The dam of the foal charged the stallion and successfully protected her foal from additional attacks. The foal survived the attack and later weaned successfully. The stallion recently took over the band and was excluded as the sire through genetic analysis. While this type of attack is rare, this case lends support to the sexual selection hypothesis and further demonstrates that equids have evolved with the risk of infanticide. Furthermore, it shows that maternal protectiveness can be successful against attacks by infanticidal males.
> 
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20354-pragmatic-mares-abort-to-avoid-stallion-sabotage/





> Based on questionnaires from horse breeders, we found that bringing a pregnant mare which had been mated away from home into a vicinity of a familiar male who was not the father of her foetus increased probability of pregnancy disruption. These mares aborted in 31% of cases, while none of those mated within the home stable aborted...We speculate that, once returned to the home “herd”, and introduced to familiar males, mares were more likely to terminate their pregnancy to save energy and avoid likely future infanticidal loss of their progeny by dominant male(s) of the home social group.
> 
> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00265-011-1166-6





> An example of such a rule would be to kill foals when taking over a band of mares from another stallion. Though mares do sometimes sneak outside the harem to mate with other stallions, on average the foals in a rival’s band will not be sired by the new stallion. So if the new stallion kills them all, he _might _be killing a few of his own offspring as well, but he will primarily be getting rid of a rival’s children. He will then be able to focus his energy on producing and protecting the next generation of foals, _most _of which will be his own.
> 
> *In the clip from Cloud, the stallion who attacked and killed the foal was a rival stallion from a different herd.* He could be fairly confident that the foal was not his own and sadly that was enough for him to decide to kill it.
> 
> https://good-horse.com/behaviour-cognition/stallions-kill-foals/





> No one knows for sure how common infanticide is in wild zebras. It has been observed fairly regularly – and even studied – in captive zebras. Yet, our research showed that infanticide has only been witnessed 3 or 4 times in wild populations and never before filmed. The usual explanation for infanticide is that the new male cannot afford to use his energy to look after another male’s offspring. When we see the lengths to which zebra parents go to protect their own offspring – risking their own lives in some cases – we can appreciate that the stallion would rather dedicate his energies to furthering his own genetic line. When infant animals are killed, it can also accelerate the onset of the mother’s estrus cycle. In which case the female can become pregnant sooner, and the new male can maximize his chances of producing his own offspring.
> 
> Great Zebra Exodus | Q&A with Great Zebra Exodus Filmmaker Adrian Bailey | Nature | PBS


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

mmshiro said:


> I lent support to your assertion that horses are _not attracted_ to being shown "who the boss is"...why the need to romanticize the equine behavior? .
> ".


I do not think you are totally correct here. If you have a horse that hhas been allowed to become boss and push people amd other horses around they have a heck of a job keeping that top position. When a human interferes with this and says that it is unacceptable behaviour they might not like being told at first but soon learn that not being in charge gives them a happier and more relaxed way of life. 

I was asked to take a mare at livery as the owner had had an accident, she was just to be turned out. The transporter who brought her warned me that she had a reputation for being dangerous and mean. 

I led her to a field with two brood mares to turn her out. She was fine leading her up the drive, the normal squeezing and kicking went on and I left them to it.

That afternoon I drove on the ATV to feed the three. My two were waiting with the new one behind them. I would open the gate, drive in and across the field with the horses following me. This day as I got off the bike so the new mare charge hard at the gate, cheating it as she tried to get me. I have no doubt that she meant to herm me. 

I got back on the bike drove back to the barn and picked up my trusty twitch made from a broken pitchfork about 4 ft in length. Back to the gate, again the mare charged. I hit her hard straight down the front of her face. It hurt her and shocked her. She turned and ran off tomstand under a tree. I drove in, went across the field to feed. She did follow. I put out the feed and hay, the mare stood back and when I approached her she ran off. 

Next day I caught my two mares and allowed the new one to follow us into the barn. I took them into one of the loose pens, from there put my two into stables, the had to herd the newbie into a stable. Then I could catch her. 

I had to put very tight boundaries on this mare, I had to correct the slightest misdemeanour, not with anything forceful my hand was enough and soon just my voice and then I had no bad behaviour. I could catch her and lead her in or out with no problem. She never offered to threaten me in any way. 

Her feet were a mess, she hadn't been trimmed in months. I asked my farrier to trim her. She was tied where he worked and when he went to pick up a foot she swung towards him. I just said "EH!" and she stood like a rock. 

Afterwards the farrier told me that he had refused to trim this mare as she was dangerous and not a lot frightened him or made him throw in the towel. He had recognised her and knew that I would have put manners on her or, warned him if I expected problems. 

That particular mare went from being ugly and miserable to being kindly and happy in less than a month. 

If you look at pictures of world leaders see how much they age in their term of office - responsibility of Boeing a leader comes hard.


----------



## mmshiro (May 3, 2017)

Foxhunter said:


> I do not think you are totally correct here. If you have a horse that hhas been allowed to become boss and push people amd other horses around they have a heck of a job keeping that top position. When a human interferes with this and says that it is unacceptable behaviour they might not like being told at first but soon learn that not being in charge gives them a happier and more relaxed way of life.


Nothing wrong with your response, albeit taking mine slightly out of context. Hondo argued that horses like to hang out with "peers" while in the herd, expanding that observation into calling it "friendship". My argument was that horses do seek peace and calm, so hanging out near a horse that'll pin their ears and move them all the time is not what they'd do.

On the flip side, I argued later, that this circle of "friends" still values the presence of the lead animals to provide guidance in times of distress - otherwise they'd just pack up, separate their herd (not "from the herd" as the lead animal is merely an individual), and tell the lead horse to shove it. 

So yes, in my opinion,

- horses prefer to chill with pals in times of peace,
- horses value the leadership of alpha specimen to keep them safe,
- calling the bond between "peer" animals "friendship" is an anthropomorphic stretch.

I also agree that horses value leadership in humans. I myself could observe a horse doing "more" for me after I put him through some mildly stressful situations, and he learned to trust me: I didn't ask him to do anything that ended up hurting him and I always brought him home safe. That was person-dependent, not situation dependent, because he'd already be doing all these things for his owner - I had to earn that trust. (To be concrete: We went from "not being able to ride him 30 yards up the driveway" to "taking him on an hourlong solo trail ride".)


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

Mark Rashid says in one of his books how his horse Buck was never aggressive and would stand back from the apparent alpha gelding who ruled with force and how other horses would rather hang with Buck.

My mare Madam was like Buck. I could never fathom out why she was leader as she was always so passive yet all curtsying and bow to her! 

Only once did I ever see her actually chase another horse away from the feed bowls and she kept it up until all,feed was finished. The mare being chased was bossy with heels and teeth. Haven't a clue what she had done to upset Madam but there was no way Molly was going to be allowed to eat. Madam didn't get any either but she was never greedy for hard food. 

I would turn Madam out with the mares and foals and wishing a couple of hours the foals gravitated to her using their mother's a mobile milk bars. At feed time Madam was always to the last feeder. Within seconds she would have two or three foals eating from her feeder. The mares would finish their grub but never went near Madam and their foals whilst they were eating yet there were no ugly faces or hassling - it was almost as if they weren't there. 

Anyone watching for herd dynamics would be wrong thinking she was omega. 

One night there was a big firework display very close. I went out just before they started to make sure the horses - Madam, Werner foals and yearlings were OK. As soon as the whizz bangs started they all moved close to Madam who stoically walked up to the top of the hill turned and watched the display. She was totally unconcerned with it all so none of the youngsters bothered.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

mmshiro said:


> calling the bond between "peer" animals "friendship" is an anthropomorphic stretch.


I understand that you state this as an opinion and not an assertion, but if you watched the video of The Adventures of Cloud, you just might change that opinion.

After Cloud had matured and had a band of his own, he was unusually agitated one year. When bands of bachelor studs were eve within view he would go after them which is unusual. He whole demeanor was different than it had been.

The photographer noted that Cloud had another stallion's mare that had been paired with the stallion for some years. Then in the days that followed she discovered the stallion was hanging behind the herd in the distance, sort of stalking it seemed. He was older and no match for Cloud at the time.

Cloud would "snake" the mare and prevent her from leaving. But when a mare foals, that is the one time when a stallion will permit a mare to leave the herd to foal in isolation.

When this mare left to foal Cloud became more nervous and agitated as she did not return in the time frame that she should have.

Yep, she took off with her old boy friend.

After that, Cloud settled to his normal self.

The photographer herself was surprised at this and had spent countless hours videoing this herd over a period of nine years.

The more I learn about these creatures the more amazed I become.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

bsms said:


> In the clip from Cloud, the stallion who attacked and killed the foal was a rival stallion from a different herd.


According to Ginger who filmed the event and had been familiar with the band for years, this is totally incorrect. It was in fact, the band stallion that did the killing, but only after the foal had made many many unsuccessful attempts to stand. The narrator, again Ginger, was commenting that it did not appear the foal would ever be able to survive or even stand.

I have the full length documentary. Although infanticide does take place as described in your link, I feel certain they missed it on the Cloud documentary.

Incidentally, Ginger was there when Cloud was born and he traveled 15 miles on his day of birth, (as I recall). I'll need watch again to verify that was Cloud.

I stumbled upon Molly the lead mare here this summer immediately after she gave birth to a foal. Placenta was still present and the foal was still wet. I believe I got to see him stand for the first time. And I definitely gave him his first Hug. And that is his name, Hug.

It was almost funny watching him nose around on Molly looking for something to eat. He did fall a few times but after 10 minutes or so he was nursing.

Molly is the mare that I had a little "interlude" in the past much like Foxhunter described but we are the best of friends now.

There's a little filly here, a great little filly, Sage Heart, sister to gelding Wisdom, that I got to hug on her first day.

The experiences I've been able to have on this ranch are priceless to me.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> Yup, that alpha mare leads the herd


Hope you're having fun out West.

Agreed that the stallion brings up the rear. Driving? I guess it depends on how you look at it.

This discussion has caused me to review my memory of the herds I watched years ago. Knowing what I now know, what I thought was the curiosity of the band stallion lingering behind to watch me was I now think not curiosity but rather mulling over whether I was a threat to be concerned about.

Another thing that puzzled me back then was why the band stallion always looked so remarkably grand compared to the other horses.

Now I realize it was his stance of alertness, standing tall with head raised and looking big in a fight or flight mode which makes all horses look grand, at least to me.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hondo said:


> According to Ginger who filmed the event and had been familiar with the band for years, this is totally incorrect...









> That’s definitely the most asked question I get about the program. There are a lot of interpretations of what he did. The foal was not going to be a survivor and Looking Glass may have simply sensed that it was ill and killed it. Another explanation is that the foal did not get up and get out of the way when the elders arrived, and this is a strict rule of horse society. This foal, being ill, couldn’t get out of the way and was punished severely for it. Lastly, it could be that Looking Glass is simply an aggressive animal. He had the opportunity to kill something and he took advantage of it. One of my location scouts saw him breeding one of his mares, and he had her down on the ground by the neck, which is very aggressive and unusual. The bottom line is that the sick foal died quickly, which is a better fate that what could have been in store for him...
> 
> ...You know, Cloud doesn’t care a bit that he’s the star of a television program and a book, but my hope for Cloud is that he becomes an ambassador for his species, so that people will realize what great animals they are and therefore want to play a bigger role in preserving them in the American West. - Ginger Kathrens
> 
> Cloud: Wild Stallion of the Rockies | Interview: Filmmaker Ginger Kathrens | Nature | PBS


Ginger Kathrens has her own agenda. As an example:

https://rtfitchauthor.com/2012/01/06/erasing-the-memory-of-cloud-the-stallion/

Saying the stallion killed the foal to help the herd sounds a lot better than saying it killed because sometimes stallions are mean, or because he sensed it was not his foal and wanted to kill the foals of rivals. Whether or not a stallion CAN sense it is open to debate. But I think this data point:


> we found that bringing a pregnant mare which had been mated away from home into a vicinity of a familiar male who was not the father of her foetus increased probability of pregnancy disruption. These mares aborted in 31% of cases, while none of those mated within the home stable aborted...


indicates things go on what we don't fully comprehend.

Maybe the stallion DID kill the foal because it wasn't acting healthy. Maybe the foal would have died anyways. But I wouldn't count on Ginger Kathrens to present an unbiased account of what she has filmed. Disney sells better, and her agenda is helped more by a Disney approach than a heartless one.



> *BLM Targets Famous Wild Stallion Cloud’s Babies *
> 
> *Obama’s BLM Retaliates Against Cloud Foundation for Litigation*​
> 
> ...


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

I'm not a supporter of the Cloud Foundation, although the $40 spent on the DVD went to it, but I really do believe Ginger and most of her followers have their heart in mostly the right place. But that's my opinion. I think they are just so head over heels for the horse that they are in denial of certain things they do not consider.

I accept the spins from Ginger. But the one that said it was from a stallion out of the band is clearly false. There is a lot of incorrect information on the net and one has to be careful not to quote it.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hondo said:


> ...But the one that said it was from a stallion out of the band is clearly false. There is a lot of incorrect information on the net and one has to be careful not to quote it.


I don't know that it was "false". I provided a link to the original article. 

The author made the point that a stallion often kills foals born during the first year it is in control, possibly to get rid of foals who may have a different sire. Without spending $40 to buy the DVDs and watch the entire thing (which I don't wish to do), and without the film-maker's original notes, I don't know if the stallion in charge at the time of the birth had a totally dominant role at the time of conception. This is particularly so since the film-maker wants to present a view of mustangs that will lead to people wanting more wild mustangs.

If I couldn't quote something without a detailed QC, I'd never be able to quote anyone on the Internet. Heck, your own description of why the foal was killed left out the film-makers alternative reasons, which included:

"_Lastly, it could be that Looking Glass is simply an aggressive animal. *He had the opportunity to kill something and he took advantage of it*._"

I provide links or citations to all my quotes. People can decide for themselves if they are valid.










:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:​


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> Hope you're having fun out West.
> 
> Agreed that the stallion brings up the rear. Driving? I guess it depends on how you look at it.
> 
> ...


 Yes, thanks, had a good time with the hroses out west. There had been a big wind storm the day before we went, thus new obstacles on many of the trails, that needed some thoughtful detours, etc. Good for the hroses!
I watched , I think, one small part of that Cloud story, and it just had some wrong interpretation/observations at times, plus again, I find wild horse herd behavior, or even that modified herd behavior of domestic horses, totally mis leading, when people try to use those herd dynamics, for their own interaction with a horse, beyond understanding the basic nature and language of horses

Yes, horses, like any other group, form their social clicks around those that enjoy a similar status within that organization
That then does not mean they don't follow that order of dominance, because even within that sub group, their is an order
Horses live by that herd hierarchy , so all it means, that in your herd of two, you only need to be dominant enough to your horse, to establish you make his feet move, for instance, and not the other way around
You establish that order , by being as soft as possible, and only as firm as needed. Thus, you vary the degree of either, depending on the hrose


This sentence, from the following link, sums it up very well, far as the human/horse relationship:

'Sometimes the sincere but unfortunately misguided person believes that the horse/human relationship is an equal partnership, not realizing one partner has to assume the dominant role according to the guidelines horses themselves live by.

Horse Herd Hierarchy


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Well, I still reject the notions of the herd of two. I think for the most part, most of the time, the horse just recognizes the human as a non-threatening but dominant member of a different species.

I think dogs sort of get that also. I would reject a notion of a dog pack of two also.

But, oh well, not only are all horses different, but us humans also.

I was thinking about Rashid's article where foals born into a wild feral herd assume the status of the dam.

I have Dragons sister in with him and Hondo now because Dragon is the only member of the herd that Dolly can eat and drink out of the same container with. And their mom is the undisputed lead mare for the last 10 years.

She would of course allow Dolly to nurse, but she would never allow Dolly to eat pellets with her.

Dragon and Dolly make up the bottom two horses in the herd with mom at the top. But then, that's a domestic herd.

In an email from Cloud Fnd. the claims from those who claim to be experts say that the minimum horse herd size to maintain genetic viability is 200. Haven't looked it up but I'm guessing it must be to override inbreeding effects. Good Google search project.

I've been literally sitting around all day. I was in the saddle for a full 8 hours yesterday with a couple of guys from a club trail committee. We covered some very very gnarly Arizona terrain and they cut me no slack what ever. Hondo hasn't been ridden much lately but checked his back today and could not find anything that bothered him. I must have done a good job on his saddle bars.

If I took a ride like that twice a week I'd be super tough, or dead.

Hondo finally succeeded in absolutely demolishing his right hind glove gater. That's the foot he uses for twisting up switchbacks. The rider on a stunning Appaloosa mare, an MD, had a couple of Renegades in case the mule his buddy was riding barefoot got sore. He put one on Hondo's right hind and laughed at the suggestion, "what if I lose it?"

It didn't come off while I had about 3 other rebootings. Looks like I may be scraping up $400 for some new Vipers. Sigh. It's only money right?

The mule belonged to the Dr. also and no horse could get between his Appaloosa mare and the mule or the mule, a she, would attack. With both mouth and hind feet.

They said if the Appaloosa mare was not on the ride, the mule was fine. But is both were present, everyone knew to stay out from between them. She just seemed to think she was the Appaloosa's guardian or something.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Yes, foals from dominant mares, assume that role, WHILE on their dam, but once weaned, have to find their own order in that herd, when re -introduced
I Have raised many foal crops, and those foals from bossy mares, will also tend to grow up in turn to be higher ranking, but once weaned, they have to establish their position, without mom there to back them up
I used to wean my foals in the fall, and they would spend their first winter in a separate pasture,, right across from that of their dams, sharing a common fenceline, and at stock waterer
Once weaned, with that maternal bond broken, it would be the weanlings own dams who who tell them the strongest to 'bug off', if they displayed any interest, drinking across from their dams, who were back in the main herd
In the spring, those yearlings would be integrated with that main herd, with mares separated, last three months before due to foal
Those new weanlings would be at the bottom of that herd, with them moving up slowly, over the years, as they matured, new crops of young hroses introduced, ect
They certainly did not automatically assume their dam' s position in that herd!
I think Rashid was a bit unclear in that point!
I only use that term',herd of two;, since there is so much focus in trying to extrapolate our relationship with horses,based on herd behavior
I am quite sure horses see us as another species and not as a fellow hrose! They do however, relate to us, using some of the parameters they learn, being a herd animal, and thus learn to see us as an entity they can respect, trust, but also one who out ranks them in the social order of things


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Glad you had a good ride. We had two days of long rides, and two with shorter rides.

Hubby takes Tylenol 3 now, for those longer rides, and tells me that he does not have bionic knees yet!
I was happy that our horses were shod.although I carried a hoof boot for 'just in case'
Four nights of sleeping in a tent, even with a wood stove is enough now, at my age!
Horses or mule. Sorry, but they need to be mannered to know it is not acceptable to be aggressive towards another equine who is being ridden!
I got put over the edge of a steep bank like that, with the offending hrose just missing connecting with my knee as she kicked out, running past my horse , trying to catch up to her barn buddy, who had gotten separated by a few horses between them


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

I had just one brood mare and her foal at home. The colt was a right royal cheeky chap who wanted someone to play with and his mother was fed up with him. I had three yearlings in an adjoining paddock and decided to let them in together. 
The foal wasn't so cocky when they came through the gate and immediately tried to hide behind hos mother. I was expecting some hassle but the yearlings in single file, walked to the mare, sniffed noses and the yearlings all mouthed to her and wandered off. 
Within the hour the foal was playing happily with the three and mother was happy to have some peace.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Foals from from dominant mares, tend to then also become dominant ADULT horses
Nurture at work!
However, they do not automatically inherit their dam's position in a herd, as can be read into Rashid;s writing.
Take that dam away, and that foal does not just inherit her position in that herd. As that then complete individual, that foal earns his position within that herd, as he matures, with foals from dominant mares, more likely to progress faster and higher in that herd hierarchy, over time, but they are not 'born' into any position


----------

