|
Post by Francis Burton on Jan 9, 2012 19:43:45 GMT 1
Yup, I agree too!
|
|
|
Post by Yann on Jan 9, 2012 23:03:55 GMT 1
I wouldn't automatically equate the use of negative reinforcement and dominant training methods either, and I think it's wrong to suggest that anyone using it is automatically doing so.
I don't personally think this whole thing is nearly as straightforward as either end of the training spectrum might sometimes like to admit. I do think personal space and yielding are significant to horses in their interactions with us however we choose to train them. But I also don't think that they're constantly struggling for supremacy either, and once you've established a relationship with consistency and kindness then there's probably little need to continually worry about things like who is walking where or who is invading whose space. I think unless you keep your horses free range and don't ask much of them then there's always going to be an element of control required from the human side of the relationship. I always think the 'what kind of boss would you work for' thing is a good one, but it's a fact that the best and most inspiring one will always have the final word on what happens when the chips are down. We trust them to make the right decisions even when we're not convinced ourselves, and we'll do what's needed not only because we have to but because we want to please them too. I'm not sure horses are so different, and I think the more you do with them then the more likely you are to find yourself in that situation with them from time to time.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jan 10, 2012 12:32:19 GMT 1
I wouldn't automatically equate the use of negative reinforcement and dominant training methods either, and I think it's wrong to suggest that anyone using it is automatically doing so. Nor me obviously using the accepted dominance definitions. I don't personally think this whole thing is nearly as straightforward as either end of the training spectrum might sometimes like to admit. I do think personal space and yielding are significant to horses in their interactions with us however we choose to train them. But I also don't think that they're constantly struggling for supremacy either, and once you've established a relationship with consistency and kindness then there's probably little need to continually worry about things like who is walking where or who is invading whose space. I think unless you keep your horses free range and don't ask much of them then there's always going to be an element of control required from the human side of the relationship. I always think the 'what kind of boss would you work for' thing is a good one, but it's a fact that the best and most inspiring one will always have the final word on what happens when the chips are down. We trust them to make the right decisions even when we're not convinced ourselves, and we'll do what's needed not only because we have to but because we want to please them too. I'm not sure horses are so different, and I think the more you do with them then the more likely you are to find yourself in that situation with them from time to time. I agree here and I definitely don't think it's as simple as we must not be dominant. I do believe immediate direction (rather than only free shaping for example) is an important aspect of developing a relationship with our horses, I can't put my finger on why but I believe it is a part getting to know each other and build communication through pressure and release/give and take. It is something which I believe is fundamental to horses and training in a completely non pressure/non directly interactive way is somehow denying how horses operate and feels wrong to me. Having said that I think some of the human behaviour in the videos Francis Burton put up is just darn right confusing for the horses. So I see clearly why people object to training based on an idea that we MUST be "dominant". Horses live in the moment and my belief is that learning and a relationship is build up through (very basically) pressure and release, listening/seeing the responses and responding in consistent and appropriate(for the horse) ways in those moments and with a huge dose of empathy. Having a sort of global idea such as we must be the boss/"dominant" is imo fraught with problems of interpretation and execution... I personally am very much of the view that getting the horses life as good and acceptable to that horse as possible is a fundamental that is often forgotten or left out in all this. If a horse isn't truly healthy and content how can it be relaxed and be ready for learning or put up with all the stuff we throw at them? This is where my belief in a 'Natural' model comes from but that model is based on listening and responding appropriately so imo should be very dynamic.
|
|
|
Post by Yann on Jan 11, 2012 0:03:46 GMT 1
I think that's a good point. Despite being on a livery yard my horses are lucky enough to have a pretty good lifestyle and live in a large herd with plenty of room to roam, and I'm free to alter our routine in terms of stabling and turnout to suit their needs depending on the time of year and the amount of grazing. They're very calm and settled, as are all the horses there, how they're kept does make a big difference.
|
|
|
Post by amandap on Jun 17, 2014 11:45:52 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by portiabuzz on Jun 17, 2014 13:49:52 GMT 1
interesting one! off to investigate more
|
|
silky
Novice Poster
Posts: 5
|
Post by silky on Jun 25, 2014 13:36:43 GMT 1
Thanks for posting that article amandap, it's led me to this really interesting thread!
|
|