|
Post by Yann on Dec 19, 2011 22:57:26 GMT 1
The importance or otherwise of this in regard to our dealings with our horses has been discussed at length on here in the past I came across this article elsewhere which takes a very interesting and slightly different tack with it and thought it would be worth sharing. It's about dogs but appears to be equally applicable to horses, you can pretty much replace one with the other for the most part. The nub of it if I understand it correctly is that dominance definitely does exist, it's perfectly natural and has an important function, but that the context in which it takes place is all important. I particularly like the last few paragraphs Be warned, it's long rogerabrantes.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/dominance-making-sense-of-the-nonsense/
|
|
|
Post by shan on Dec 19, 2011 23:11:55 GMT 1
You weren't joking were you, that was long! ;D I discovered Jan Fennel's work just before I discovered Monty/Kelly, and was pleased to realise how similar they are. In fact you can apply the methods to almost any herds, including humans! I hadn't heard the denial of dominance stories though... of course there is ranking and domination/submissive behaviour, that's how a group works for its survival - perhaps the people who deny dominance are just being a bit 'PC' because the word has certain connotations(?), but like the author says, it's not just black & white when it comes to herd dynamics, roles alter and change all the time - animals are very adaptable, and that's how they've been around for so long.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Dec 20, 2011 0:14:14 GMT 1
Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Runs and hides. I've lost interest in talking about dominance I'm afraid you'll all be glad to hear.
|
|
|
Post by jen1 on Dec 20, 2011 1:52:14 GMT 1
boogar i aint got mi specs, but thanks for posting i shall have a good read tomorrow
|
|
|
Post by Yann on Dec 20, 2011 7:14:47 GMT 1
Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Runs and hides. I've lost interest in talking about dominance I'm afraid you'll all be glad to hear. ;D Maybe that's part of it but there is a line of thought that dominant behaviour is mainly a result of the pressures of domestication, not natural amongst horses, and therefore has no place in training and is damaging to the relationship. At the other end of the spectrum is training that is based on mimicking the 'alpha horse', most of us on here are probably somewhere in the middle ground. I like the article because it puts forward a theory that explains why that's neither damaging or ineffective which is undoubtedly what the evidence of our own eyes shows us every day.
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Dec 20, 2011 11:16:11 GMT 1
Wow, it is long! Looks interesting though - I look forward to wolfing it down later...
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Dec 20, 2011 11:51:37 GMT 1
Well, going back on what I said. Yann, you may have noticed that this article is up my street. I like very much that he splits dominance and aggression (simplified comment I know) as that is how I see it and where I have had my world rocked so many times by those who see dominance as only aggressive or causing 'damaging' fear. I have never seen it that way. This is how I see dominance, and I quote from the article linked. Dominance and submission are beautiful mechanisms from an evolutionary point of view. They are what enables (social) animals to live together, to survive until they reproduce and pass their (dominant and submissive) genes to the next generation. Without these mechanisms, we wouldn’t have social animals like humans, chimpanzees, wolves and dogs among many others.I have always found it very difficult to take dominance out of consideration in our partnerships with horses because it is part of life. Yes we aren't the same species but I have always thought that the same basic rules apply in any relationship so to dismiss dominance as 'bad' or deny it has a place with horses has always been alien to me. For me it's how we use/display dominance that can have negative effects... My poor attempts to describe what I mean in the past have left me frustrated so thanks for rekindling some faith in my view of the world with this article Yann. Mta. Just to add that I feel the same about submission too. We humans seem to see submission as a negative/undesirable consequence, for me it's the other half of the equation, nothing more, nothing less. Again it's how it is produced/perceived that is the potential problem.
|
|
|
Post by donnalex on Dec 20, 2011 14:05:40 GMT 1
Very interesting reading. I think it relates much better to dogs and people than it does to horses though.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Dec 20, 2011 19:14:33 GMT 1
To me the article relates to all animals and especially those who live in groups.
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Dec 20, 2011 19:36:42 GMT 1
What practical effect would this new perspective, assuming we take it on board, have on the way we deal with horses, if at all? To be frank, that's what really interests me - more than the theoretical aspect.
|
|
|
Post by cookie on Dec 20, 2011 20:07:58 GMT 1
If dominance and submission don't exist in herds then can someone explain to me how a herd does resolve inter group conflict?
Francis- two things,
Firstly, if we are knowlingly or unwittingly displaying inapropriate submissive or dominant behavior I suggest that would have a detrimental effect on productiveness of training (possibly experience of this is one of the drivers for those who deny it's existance?)
Secondly, it reminds me of a teeny bit of primate work i did years ago and the concept of captivity being a 'hothouse of social behaviours' ie captive animals can show traits you may see in the wild but amplified, (eg social grooming) pressumably due to lack of other, more natural stimulation.
So, bear with me, if we see excessive dominance or submissive behaviour in our domestic horses (perhaps resulting in aggression or flight in the extreme) then we should look to our training or management to see if we are somehow predisposing to that.
Mta- any significant study I did of this stuff was +15 years ago so may well be totally outdated!
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Dec 20, 2011 20:20:38 GMT 1
Modified as cookie posted while I was venting. In reply to Francis Burton... That depends on your current thinking. I don't think this is new anyway, is it? Dominance being only aggressive was new to me. Dominance being bad or cruel was new to me. Denying dominance exists in animal groups was new to me. Denying there are hierarchies of one form or another however fleeting and fluid was new to me. Denying we are dominant was new to me. This thinking doesn't change the way I do things, I am not a believer that asking and even telling a horse to comply is a problem or unfair. It can of course be a problem if done unfairly or badly. For me this thinking releases me to enjoy my horses in the moment and intuitively. It doesn't make me rigid with fear of doing them ever lasting damage by occasionally insisting my rules are adhered to or that my way of training is. It releases me from feeling I have to train in a mechanical way at all times. It releases me to be human and myself rather than try and fit others' view of the world into mine. It gets rid of my frustration with the incongruity of a way of thinking that says I must not be dominant when it is clear to me I am in the most basic of needs such as space, food and water. It allows what I observe about my horses to be real. For me dominance was never an excuse/reason to be cruel, hit, bully or be the boss or herd leader etc. I do think this article makes it clear that hierarchies are very fluid things and therefore to me not a basis for training. Perhaps that's one thing in the article some of those who decry dominance might agree with. What does this article do to be unhelpful to us and our horses is the question I'd like to ask? Most of all this thinking allows me to own dominance and work with it and take responsibility for my actions, training etc. etc. rather than trying to avoid it or pretend I'm not ever being dominant or write fine words to explain how I am not dominant when in (my) truth I am. It frees me from being/feeling forced to adopt thinking and methods that are alien to me or I will be considered cruel, unthinking, old fashioned, narrow minded etc. etc. etc. I am no longer left wondering why I can't understand others anger and stuck in a morass of conflicting thoughts/understanding about none dominance theories and a world that doesn't make sense to me. I'm just glad I am not alone tbh. Glad that's out.
|
|
|
Post by Yann on Dec 23, 2011 0:06:34 GMT 1
I would actually see it as an argument for the way a lot of us probably try and operate with our horses already and that it's an argument for thoughtful low pressure training and handling. Some good points there mandal
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Dec 23, 2011 11:31:56 GMT 1
I would actually see it as an argument for the way a lot of us probably try and operate with our horses already and that it's an argument for thoughtful low pressure training and handling. I agree, I think this is the 'framework' in which many train anyway. To me it's so much better to discuss how we train within a world of dominance than try and say/prove it shouldn't exist and isn't a part of our lives with our horses. I must say though that my long and many discussions with those who question dominance has helped me put horse herd hierarchy and it's relevance to my training in a better perspective ie. it isn't important or relevant really. I don't want to emulate a lead or 'boss' horse. How could I possibly do that when I'm not a horse and I spend such a small proportion of their lives actually with them. I'm still learning to understand their 'language' and culture and so still in nursery in that department.
|
|
Caroline
Grand Prix Poster
Intermediate Poster
Posts: 2,277
|
Post by Caroline on Dec 23, 2011 13:06:50 GMT 1
I am pretty sure that dominance and submission do exist and that some of us are more naturally inclined to one or the other. I think this also affects our relationships with horses.
I think that people who are naturally dominant tend to bring that dominance into their relationships with both humans and animals. If that is a mature and well balanced dominance, it is not aggressive and can work perfectly well - unless the horse is more naturally dominant even than the human. In which case, the human may have to find another way to relate to the horse.
Similarly, a naturally submissive person is not going to be very successful relying on dominance to train or relate to a horse - unless that horse is even more submissive than the person (which I don't think is very common). The submissive person can try and fake dominance - which horses can normally spot very easily and feel resentful or unconvinced about - or they also must find a different strategy.
The different strategy that works for both the sub and dom person when sub-dom energies aren't going to be productive, is one of love, patience, understanding and communication.
A friend of mine is a professional trainer who has a strong record with sorting out "killer" horses - horses who are seriously dangerous and aggressive. Whilst my friend is a naturally fairly dominant person, she has to take a very different approach with horses that don't conform to a more natural tendency to gently submit. She tells me that the first thing that is needed is a genuine fearlessness and showing just love. Meeting aggression with aggression is never going to go in the human's favour with an animal as big and powerful as a horse! A horse that has hitherto controlled humans with their aggression towards them can be quite surprised when they meet someone that isn't afraid, isn't asking anything and is just radiating love towards them. They sometimes think about that a while and then are open to a more communication based interaction.
On one occasion, I watched her do Join Up with a horse that, whilst not in the "killer" category, was certainly a very dominant and full-on gelding. She brought the energy of the driving stage down considerably and offered the horse to come in and join up much sooner than I would have expected - and before she got all the signs. I later asked her why as I had observed that the further a horse is pushed into displaying all the signs, the stronger the Join Up that seems to happen. She explained that she didn't want to push him to a stage where he was angry/annoyed and that the point of the exercise had been to establish communication and a first step in a partnership. With a less dominant horse, the interaction could have been pushed to a more intense establishment of dominance, but when the horse is more dominant, that isn't going to work.
The above is not intended to encourage anyone to take any risks with dangerous horses btw! My friend has been doing this for 20 years and knows what she is doing. Never forget that even the quietest of horses can kill us puny humans in a heartbeat...and a dangerous one carries a large risk of that.
Personally, I don't have much use for dominance in my interactions with dogs or horses. I tend to have animals that have been abused in the past and I think that brings a set of considerations to the table. Dominate a creature or human that has been the victim of abuse and I think you will create an unbalanced response. The history of the abuse often creates an exaggerated fear response to dominance. In a dog that can mean excessive cowering or alternatively fear-aggression. In a horse, it seems to be flight, fight or both.
For all my abused animals, I try and provide a quiet environment of care and love and only ask them to do things when it is needed for their safety. My dog is like an obedience champion - she comes instantly when called, walks to heel off lead, sits and stays and works on hand signals from a distance...but all of this relates to making sure she doesn't run in front of traffic or other hazards. She naturally understands this. I don't train her in the house or garden - just a little everyday whilst we are out on walks and certain procedures relating to crossing roads, going over gates. She knows that I ask things for a reason and that she is my highest priority and thought all the time. In return, I observe her needs and routines and the whole relationship just works as a beautiful partnership with each party doing their best to make us both as safe and happy as possible.
I can't claim to have such a perfect relationship with my horses. But we have come a long way and I find that a similar approach yields similar benefits. My abused gelding Zee is a transformed character. He used to be so wild and worried, but is now very tame and happy. Early attempts at Join Up with him were not only unproductive, they were very dangerous because he reacted to the lightest of send aways with an explosion of hooves aimed at my head. I believe this was an example of what I referred to above - a fear-based over-reaction to dominance caused by traumatic abuse in earlier life.
Clicker training was largely instrumental in his gentling, but I think a major element was 8 or more years of gentle, consistent care and an absence of abuse. He knows who brings his bucket and hay, who looks after his feet, who gives him a cuddle and tells him he is a lovely boy. I really think that horses give a lot of respect and weighting to long term care. Effectively, we become the old lead mare who leads the herd to water and grazing. It's a very quiet form of dominance and maybe just a maternal role, but one that horses ultimately trust a good deal more than the flashy and overt dominance of a stallion.
|
|