|
Post by Kelly Marks on Dec 30, 2011 18:57:27 GMT 1
Please don't think I'm being dismissive of this discussion when I say this ... but what is the point of discussing dominance, as in - what in the best case scenario are we hoping to achieve by an understanding of dominance? Happier horses? More obedient horses? More efficient/quicker training?
I don't think we could consider a study until we know what it is we're trying to find out?
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Dec 30, 2011 19:10:38 GMT 1
Please don't think I'm being dismissive of this discussion when I say this ... but what is the point of discussing dominance, as in - what in the best case scenario are we hoping to achieve by an understanding of dominance? Happier horses? More obedient horses? More efficient/quicker training? I don't think we could consider a study until we know what it is we're trying to find out? I get to discuss with Francis Burton. For me I've needed these discussions to clear my head and understand others' reasoning. It is useful so we can try to get on the same page. It gets me thinking about what I am doing (again) and re evaluating. It's interesting. It sparks all sorts of trains of thought... but really ("best case scenario") I think it's for us as human trainers to be more aware of ourselves which hopefully will help improve interaction with horses.
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Dec 30, 2011 19:26:36 GMT 1
Hey, Yann started it! (Or was it Roger Abrantes...??) ;D
I would echo everything Mandal just said.
Kelly - As to your question about what we are hoping to achieve... having happier horses in whatever we choose to do with them is what I would like to see the most. My personal feeling based on what I have seen is that dominance - as defined in the narrow 'scientific' sense, not Mandal's broader control sense - has overall been more a force for ill than for good, and that it would be better for horses if 'we' were to stop trying to incorporate it into training programmes and philosophies. However, I acknowledge that is both a potentially a very contentious issue and a tough nut to crack, given our natural tendency to generalize our primate principles to the world of equines!
|
|
|
Post by Kelly Marks on Dec 30, 2011 19:39:38 GMT 1
Mandal/FB this IHDG is not just some coffee house for your flirtations and it's no use just blaming Yann! ;D Seriously though FB you say 'has overall been more a force for ill than for good, and that it would be better for horses if 'we' were to stop trying to incorporate it into training programmes and philosophies' can you give examples of what you mean here? Many of us grasp specifics better than generalities and it ensures we're all on the same page as to what we actually mean. So often 'language' gets in the way of we actually mean and for instance, if I said 'I really had to get tough with that horse' it's most likely to mean I backed him up two - perhaps even three paces - Where as someone else might say 'I gave him a little tickle' (heard that one?) Which means they have beaten the horse half to death.
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Dec 30, 2011 20:00:21 GMT 1
CT sessions are generally held privately I believe so the only competitor the horse may have is the human. Also the horse has the human's undivided attention. I wonder what would happen if one of the piles of food was effectively guarded by a human for one horse to eat without fear of challenge? What happens in CT done in a group of horses? The problem with doing CT in groups is that all the horses would get the "Yes!" signal intended for one horse, all at the same time. However, I have seen one-on-one CT when other horses have been nearby and things went pretty smoothly, as far as I could tell. It looked like the others knew that they weren't taking part at that particular moment, and weren't bothered or confused by it. Also, in circus horse training (whatever one may think of it), directed voice cues, praise and food rewards seem to work well enough in terms of obtaining desired behaviours, don't they? I think horses can become jealous of attention, and maybe of another horse being rewarded. It comes back to how much horses understand of the food-delivery system. I tend to think they don't have an intuitive understanding of it, because it is so unnatural. Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Dec 30, 2011 20:20:36 GMT 1
Mandal/FB this IHDG is not just some coffee house for your flirtations and it's no use just blaming Yann! ;D ;D Well, I have in mind many instances of unnecessarily rough and bullying treatment that I have seen in which the horse seemed distinctly unhappy, the treatment apparently being explained or justified by the assertion that the human handler must be dominant to the horse. Do I really have to name names? One specific example would some of the actions (such as chasing the horses off the hay piles) shown in the BBC3 programme "My Life as an Animal: Horses". Did you see that one? Quite! That's a really good example! ETA: Okay, here's a specific example of the dominance being cited and used in a way I feel is unhelpful. The video contains both actions and explanations. www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3ATbfByL2A
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Dec 30, 2011 21:13:06 GMT 1
Omg Kelly, I gave up flirting 20 odd years ago. The problem with doing CT in groups is that all the horses would get the "Yes!" signal intended for one horse, all at the same time. However, I have seen one-on-one CT when other horses have been nearby and things went pretty smoothly, as far as I could tell. It looked like the others knew that they weren't taking part at that particular moment, and weren't bothered or confused by it. Also, in circus horse training (whatever one may think of it), directed voice cues, praise and food rewards seem to work well enough in terms of obtaining desired behaviours, don't they? I think horses can become jealous of attention, and maybe of another horse being rewarded. It comes back to how much horses understand of the food-delivery system. I tend to think they don't have an intuitive understanding of it, because it is so unnatural. Yes, I was thinking of one to one having CT in a group. Thanks for your experience. The other horses knowing they aren't involved makes sense, I was wondering about the food reward in the equation but it seems it may not be very relevant to any effect on bystanders. Some (perhaps all?) horses do seem well aware food is there even if out of sight, evidenced by mugging attempts by some horses. The system becomes important I believe once the horse understands and agrees to abide by the rules...
|
|
|
Post by rifruffian on Dec 30, 2011 21:23:47 GMT 1
Got lost here......what system is that Mandal ?
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Dec 30, 2011 21:56:15 GMT 1
System of CT is what I meant. Not a good word, process is possibly a better one.
|
|
|
Post by Yann on Dec 31, 2011 0:26:23 GMT 1
That's a really good question In the context of the article, and probably my layman's interpretation of the language as well I'd say yes. But as has already been said interpretation of the language used can make these discussions problematic if people aren't using the same words with exactly the same meanings. Even this thread has examples of it. Having 'control' of a horse in a given situation might well often be derived from using a certain amount of physical aggression (pressure) with it at some previous point in time to show it what you wanted, but the relationship you have with them, hopefully based on trust, consistency and a willingness to please is always going to be more important. As you get people on the one hand saying dominance is essential, and on the other that it's uneccessary and damaging this article seems to put forward a neat alternative theory on how it all works, which is why I posted a link to it for discussion I do think it's important not to tie yourself in knots over this stuff, but I suppose the first one would be my own main motivation, and you could argue that the others would be a result of that. I know the article is only proposing a theory, and it's not even about horses but it does ring true to some degree. If I needed for some reason to be able to walk through where one of my horses was standing I'd probably be able to have them yield out of the way to a light touch. It would be a dominant act if you like, but they would probably think nothing of it as it would fit in within the range our normal interactions. If I strode up to them twirling a rope hard and made contact the end result would be the same, they'd get out of the way but they'd also probably be alarmed and offended, so that might be 'alien' aggression. OK, the second approach, if used consistently is going to get you a light reactive horse that gets out of the way before you have time to ask. However you see horses trained and handled that way that are constantly watchful and flinching rather than calm and relaxed which suggests the boundary has been overstepped.
|
|
|
Post by rifruffian on Dec 31, 2011 11:36:52 GMT 1
Referring to the post from Kelly Marks yesterday timed 1757 and posing the question.....'what can be achieved by an understanding of dominance'...?........the answer is safety can be achieved. In the relationship with the horse, dominance is an element which will exist and for safe handling it must be weighted in favour of the handler.
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Jan 2, 2012 12:36:38 GMT 1
Referring to the post from Kelly Marks yesterday timed 1757 and posing the question.....'what can be achieved by an understanding of dominance'...?........the answer is safety can be achieved. In the relationship with the horse, dominance is an element which will exist and for safe handling it must be weighted in favour of the handler. Can you give an example of how, in practical terms, an understanding of dominance can make you safe?
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Jan 2, 2012 12:53:14 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Jan 2, 2012 13:23:19 GMT 1
As you get people on the one hand saying dominance is essential, and on the other that it's uneccessary and damaging this article seems to put forward a neat alternative theory on how it all works, which is why I posted a link to it for discussion To be honest, I'm feeling a bit thick because I still can't figure out how Abrantes article departs radically from what we know already. I can see it might have been written with a certain group of dog behaviourists in mind - those who deny that dominance and dominance behaviours exist at all. But how relevant is it in the case of horses and their owners and trainers? Nevertheless, I am very grateful that you posted it as it has provided much food for thought! One paragraph stands out for me: Of course, we don’t build stable and profitable relationships in the long run by showing dominant or submissive behaviors’. These are necessary behaviors to solve the inevitable social conflicts. We build relationships on the necessity of partnership—we as well as dogs (and wolves of course)—to solve common problems related to surviving and preferably with an acceptable level of comfort. We do not build relationships on hierarchies, but they do exist and they do perform an important role in certain circumstances—for humans as well as dogs (and wolves of course)—sometimes more, sometimes less and sometimes not at all."I like what he is saying here. My belief, as far as horses are concerned, is that: because we don't get into social conflict with horses (unless we choose to - so it generally avoidable), dominance and submission are largely irrelevant - or should be. Of course, we can choose to display dominant or submissive behaviour (more or less effectively), which will have effects and probably lead to the horse learning something - e.g. to yield to body language pressure, or that we get out of their way. And there are different ways and degrees of doing this, as you outlined in your post. But here, I would argue, the use of dominant body language is just a tool and often not the only one - e.g. we also teach horses to yield to gentle physical pressure. As I see it, there isn't any particular benefit to using dominant body language, although arguably it is more 'natural'. (Also, shouldn't we be making a distinction between dominant and predatorial behaviour on our part?)
|
|
|
Post by rifruffian on Jan 2, 2012 18:28:11 GMT 1
Hullo Francis Burton I acknowledge the post timed 1136 today but I do not have intention to devote time to this debate.
|
|