Post by tess1 on Dec 5, 2009 15:43:15 GMT 1
You are all welcome to speculate on my motivations for posting for as long as it amuses you – but I will make this point: I would not have started this thread were it not for the fact that I found, on a completely unrelated thread, that Kelly was apparently suggesting that I was a) potentially implicated in labelling IH as pro-Rolkur; b) responsible for whipping up the anti-Monty brigade, and c) wanting to ‘own the science’. The only time I have been exceptionally controversial on here was relation to the use of the buckstopper on horses at demos. When the thread ended, I thanked the Mods for allowing the thread to run. When Monty answered my email publically, I thanked him for that. I choose not to post on what I have termed the ‘buckstop propaganda’ thread, because I acknowledge that this is a website primarily devoted to showcasing the methods and philosophy of Monty and Kelly, and it was inevitable that they would want to redress the balance after the buckstopper thread that I had started – and of course they had every right to do that. Neither did I rise to the comment that Kelly made about me on the ‘Do we need to know the science’ thread. I did not post on the ‘origin of join-up thread’ either, as the outcome of expressing my views on that thread would have been all too obvious – although seeing as you have brought it up Kanga, the sort of thing that I would have written is included below. Neither did I post on the ‘science trials’ thread, when that was available on the public board, before it was removed. I came on this board clearly stating that I use both positive and negative reinforcement (and negative punishment) when training, because I believe that sometimes positive reinforcement gets mis-represented and/or mis-understood. I have tried to have discussions to expand that idea further, and to identify the common ground, that it is apparent to me exists, between those who adopt methods termed NH and those who adopt +R – we should not be in different camps – it should all be on a continuum. I do not search the internet, or even this forum, looking for things I can attack just for the h*** of it – I objected to the buckstopper in demos, and I object to unwarranted attacks on my personal integrity.
I would like clarification on one point – if people are not allowed to discuss the more controversial methods of one of the most influential horse-trainers working today, here, on this forum (and clearly they are not, as they are either banned, or leave of their own accord through frustration and/or intimidation, or like me, face a torrent of personal abuse every time I post something that does not sit well with the majority opinion on here) and they are not supposed to discuss these methods on the Other Forum either – where, exactly, are we allowed to discuss these methods? And before we have protests of ‘it’s not the content, it’s the tone’, let’s not forget both the content and tone of posts made here, to me, when I have raised perfectly valid points.
My second post on this thread ranged in content from my thoughts on the science trials, through to concepts of dominance and leadership in animal training, and the use of the buckstopper in a behavioural modification programme. Apart from quibbling over the exact meaning of a single line comment, no one has attempted to engage intellectually with anything that I had written – although quite a few used the opportunity to dish out a few more personal insults. Whilst some may label me a ‘troll’, I think that some of the responses to my posts have done more damage to the image of this board as a place where one can have intelligent discussions about horsemanship than anything I could have ever written.
Some posters who have been vociferous in their condemnation of the portrayal of Monty on the Other Forum seem to have sufficient time to read and comment on what they choose. I believe if they read something that genuinely offended them, they should respond to that comment – even if it is on another forum, rather than simply post here complaining about it.
Re: the origin of join-up.
It should not come as a great surprise, truly, that prototype join-up was observed by Monty when watching his father, and/or other horsemen of the day. Clearly the way it is used by Monty is far more sophisticated, and he shows excellent reading of body language, both horse and human – but ultimately it is a demonstration of human communicating with horse primarily through the language of operant conditioning, not ‘equus’. There have been no other scientific studies that have reported the behaviour Monty describes in free-roaming herds of horses, and Sue McDonnell Ph.D does not include any descriptions of the kinds of behaviour that Monty describes in her (2003) book ‘The Equid Ethogram’ (this is the first comprehensive catalogue of all known horse behaviours). Whilst that is not to discredit join-up as a training method, personally I feel it would benefit from a more accurate analysis and explanation. It does bring into question the importance of ‘leadership’ and ‘respect’ in the training of horses. Fundamentally I believe that NH offers many techniques that are very valuable to horse training – and correctly applied some of these techniques are perfectly compatible with positive reinforcement (as are some of the techniques used by Parelli and other folk who come under the NH banner). To my mind the underlying philosophies, and explanations given as to why the methods work needs clarification, more emphasis needs to put on the importance of positive reinforcement as part of a horse’s training experience, and any ‘school of thought’ which claims interest in science needs to take a very close look at what the science currently says about horse training (and management – equally important).
Below is an extract from a study carried out on round pen training, published last year. Whilst I do not entirely agree with the method used (putting pairs of mares and youngsters in a round pen and recording their behaviour) it was an interesting perspective, and forms just one more piece in the puzzle.
I believe it may help to clarify some of the current scientific thinking on join-up.
JOURNAL OF APPLIEDANIMALWELFARE SCIENCE, 11:285–298, 2008
Preliminary Investigations Into the Ethological Relevance of Round-Pen (Round-Yard) Training of Horses.
Amanda K. Warren-Smith1 and Paul D. McGreevy2
1Faculty of Science, Charles Sturt University, Orange, Australia
2Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Australia
The chief premise of the round-pen technique is its claimed use of horses’ behavioral responses in their natural environment where group structure is maintained by the horses’ use of a range of visual communication signals to communicate. Generally, the leader of the group is the most senior mare (Linklater & Cameron, 2000; Miller, 1995b). Anecdotally, proponents of round-pen training have reported that equine leaders seeking to discipline unruly youngsters may chase them away from the group and keep them away from the group for a period. Subsequently, the youngsters may show certain responses such as turning an ear toward the trainer, lowering their head toward the ground, and licking-and-chewing: commonly referred to as signs of submission (Miller, 1995b; Parelli, 1993; Roberts, 1996; Sighieri et al., 2003). These responses are said to prompt the mare to acquiesce by showing behavioral signs that include averting her gaze and allowing the youngster to rejoin the group (Roberts,1996). Unfortunately, among the many studies of horse behavior in wild, feral,and domestic populations, there are no scientific reports of this phenomenon occurring.
According to popular interpretation of the round-pen technique, the trainer assumes the role of the dominant mare and chases the young horse around the round-pen. The trainer will use eye contact and arm movements to initiate this chasing and may keep the horse moving by flicking the end of a long lead (such as a lunge rein) toward the horse; this results in the horse continuing to run around the perimeter of the round-pen attempting to gain distance from the handler. The chasing would normally continue until the young horse shows responses such as turning an ear toward the trainer, lowering the head toward the ground, and licking-and-chewing (Rivera et al., 2002).
It is worth emphasizing that there are a number of different interpretations of these responses, including their being signs of submission (Miller, 1995a) or that the horse is “ready to negotiate” (Parelli, 1993); they may also be a displacement activity associated with onflicting motivations (Goodwin, 1999). Houpt, Law, and Martinisi (1978) reported that licking-and-chewing occur during other activities such as anticipating feed. Although Krueger (2006) found a correlation between chewing and head lowering, there was no association with licking and those responses. Warren-Smith, Greetham, and McGreevy (2007) reported there was no relation between licking-and-chewing and head lowering. Goodwin proposed that head lowering was not a submissive signal but one that solicits distance-reduction and affiliation. Head lowering and licking-and-chewing may also simply be a reflection of the physiological response to the presence of a potential predator (McGreevy, 2004), whereby the horse could be salivating after adrenaline release has caused a dry mouth or simply moving the jaw after having it tightly clenched while being chased. In this instance, as the threat reduces (chasing), head lowering and/or licking-and-chewing may indicate redistribution of saliva around the buccal mucosa.
According to round-pen training advocates, the moment the horse displays these signals, chasing by the trainer should cease. The trainer should then assume a passive stance, turn the body away from the horse, and remove eye contact. This prompts the horse to slow down and approach the handler (Roberts, 1996). This is fundamentally an application of negative reinforcement (Farmer-Dougan & Dougan, 1999; Miller, 2000; Waran, McGreevy, & Casey, 2002). When repeated, a learned association develops between the response (horse slowing
and showing the desired signals) and the termination of chasing (Krueger, 2006; Price, 1999). Essentially, the horse learns to avoid the handler’s chasing by approaching the handler in the center of the round-pen. This phenomenon is often referred to as “join-up,” which is generally described as occurring when the horse willingly chooses to be with the human and walks toward them accepting their leadership and protection (Roberts, 1996).
The outcomes of round-pen training are reported to include the trainer’s becoming dominant over the youngster and the youngster “accepting” the trainer as leader (Farmer-Dougan & Dougan, 1999; Waran et al., 2002). However, a number of questions arise from this, such as whether horses can really regard humans as conspecifics, let alone a higher ranking one. Is a horse able to show “respect” for the trainer (Ladewig, 2007)? In addition, the benefits of chasing horses, especially in confined spaces, have been questioned (McLean, 2003) as it may serve only to enhance the flight response, which in the interest of safety should be avoided in all handling of nonhuman animals (Gonyou, 1995).
Given that different training methods will have different influences on horses (Baragli et al., 2004), it is important to investigate the mechanisms that underpin them. To determine if the explanations offered by round-pen trainers have an ethological basis, this study recorded the behavioral responses of mares and young horses in a round-pen.
To sum up the results of this study:
when mares and young colts were left alone in a round-pen, the mare was not likely to chase the youngster toward the perimeter of the pen. Simultaneous head lowering and licking-and-chewing occurred very rarely. If head lowering and licking-and-chewing are intraspecific signals, in this trial they were delivered predominantly when the most likely recipient was facing away. At the expense of an appropriate consideration of negative reinforcement, the ethological relevance of these responses in round-pen training may have been overstated.
I would like clarification on one point – if people are not allowed to discuss the more controversial methods of one of the most influential horse-trainers working today, here, on this forum (and clearly they are not, as they are either banned, or leave of their own accord through frustration and/or intimidation, or like me, face a torrent of personal abuse every time I post something that does not sit well with the majority opinion on here) and they are not supposed to discuss these methods on the Other Forum either – where, exactly, are we allowed to discuss these methods? And before we have protests of ‘it’s not the content, it’s the tone’, let’s not forget both the content and tone of posts made here, to me, when I have raised perfectly valid points.
My second post on this thread ranged in content from my thoughts on the science trials, through to concepts of dominance and leadership in animal training, and the use of the buckstopper in a behavioural modification programme. Apart from quibbling over the exact meaning of a single line comment, no one has attempted to engage intellectually with anything that I had written – although quite a few used the opportunity to dish out a few more personal insults. Whilst some may label me a ‘troll’, I think that some of the responses to my posts have done more damage to the image of this board as a place where one can have intelligent discussions about horsemanship than anything I could have ever written.
Some posters who have been vociferous in their condemnation of the portrayal of Monty on the Other Forum seem to have sufficient time to read and comment on what they choose. I believe if they read something that genuinely offended them, they should respond to that comment – even if it is on another forum, rather than simply post here complaining about it.
Re: the origin of join-up.
It should not come as a great surprise, truly, that prototype join-up was observed by Monty when watching his father, and/or other horsemen of the day. Clearly the way it is used by Monty is far more sophisticated, and he shows excellent reading of body language, both horse and human – but ultimately it is a demonstration of human communicating with horse primarily through the language of operant conditioning, not ‘equus’. There have been no other scientific studies that have reported the behaviour Monty describes in free-roaming herds of horses, and Sue McDonnell Ph.D does not include any descriptions of the kinds of behaviour that Monty describes in her (2003) book ‘The Equid Ethogram’ (this is the first comprehensive catalogue of all known horse behaviours). Whilst that is not to discredit join-up as a training method, personally I feel it would benefit from a more accurate analysis and explanation. It does bring into question the importance of ‘leadership’ and ‘respect’ in the training of horses. Fundamentally I believe that NH offers many techniques that are very valuable to horse training – and correctly applied some of these techniques are perfectly compatible with positive reinforcement (as are some of the techniques used by Parelli and other folk who come under the NH banner). To my mind the underlying philosophies, and explanations given as to why the methods work needs clarification, more emphasis needs to put on the importance of positive reinforcement as part of a horse’s training experience, and any ‘school of thought’ which claims interest in science needs to take a very close look at what the science currently says about horse training (and management – equally important).
Below is an extract from a study carried out on round pen training, published last year. Whilst I do not entirely agree with the method used (putting pairs of mares and youngsters in a round pen and recording their behaviour) it was an interesting perspective, and forms just one more piece in the puzzle.
I believe it may help to clarify some of the current scientific thinking on join-up.
JOURNAL OF APPLIEDANIMALWELFARE SCIENCE, 11:285–298, 2008
Preliminary Investigations Into the Ethological Relevance of Round-Pen (Round-Yard) Training of Horses.
Amanda K. Warren-Smith1 and Paul D. McGreevy2
1Faculty of Science, Charles Sturt University, Orange, Australia
2Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Australia
The chief premise of the round-pen technique is its claimed use of horses’ behavioral responses in their natural environment where group structure is maintained by the horses’ use of a range of visual communication signals to communicate. Generally, the leader of the group is the most senior mare (Linklater & Cameron, 2000; Miller, 1995b). Anecdotally, proponents of round-pen training have reported that equine leaders seeking to discipline unruly youngsters may chase them away from the group and keep them away from the group for a period. Subsequently, the youngsters may show certain responses such as turning an ear toward the trainer, lowering their head toward the ground, and licking-and-chewing: commonly referred to as signs of submission (Miller, 1995b; Parelli, 1993; Roberts, 1996; Sighieri et al., 2003). These responses are said to prompt the mare to acquiesce by showing behavioral signs that include averting her gaze and allowing the youngster to rejoin the group (Roberts,1996). Unfortunately, among the many studies of horse behavior in wild, feral,and domestic populations, there are no scientific reports of this phenomenon occurring.
According to popular interpretation of the round-pen technique, the trainer assumes the role of the dominant mare and chases the young horse around the round-pen. The trainer will use eye contact and arm movements to initiate this chasing and may keep the horse moving by flicking the end of a long lead (such as a lunge rein) toward the horse; this results in the horse continuing to run around the perimeter of the round-pen attempting to gain distance from the handler. The chasing would normally continue until the young horse shows responses such as turning an ear toward the trainer, lowering the head toward the ground, and licking-and-chewing (Rivera et al., 2002).
It is worth emphasizing that there are a number of different interpretations of these responses, including their being signs of submission (Miller, 1995a) or that the horse is “ready to negotiate” (Parelli, 1993); they may also be a displacement activity associated with onflicting motivations (Goodwin, 1999). Houpt, Law, and Martinisi (1978) reported that licking-and-chewing occur during other activities such as anticipating feed. Although Krueger (2006) found a correlation between chewing and head lowering, there was no association with licking and those responses. Warren-Smith, Greetham, and McGreevy (2007) reported there was no relation between licking-and-chewing and head lowering. Goodwin proposed that head lowering was not a submissive signal but one that solicits distance-reduction and affiliation. Head lowering and licking-and-chewing may also simply be a reflection of the physiological response to the presence of a potential predator (McGreevy, 2004), whereby the horse could be salivating after adrenaline release has caused a dry mouth or simply moving the jaw after having it tightly clenched while being chased. In this instance, as the threat reduces (chasing), head lowering and/or licking-and-chewing may indicate redistribution of saliva around the buccal mucosa.
According to round-pen training advocates, the moment the horse displays these signals, chasing by the trainer should cease. The trainer should then assume a passive stance, turn the body away from the horse, and remove eye contact. This prompts the horse to slow down and approach the handler (Roberts, 1996). This is fundamentally an application of negative reinforcement (Farmer-Dougan & Dougan, 1999; Miller, 2000; Waran, McGreevy, & Casey, 2002). When repeated, a learned association develops between the response (horse slowing
and showing the desired signals) and the termination of chasing (Krueger, 2006; Price, 1999). Essentially, the horse learns to avoid the handler’s chasing by approaching the handler in the center of the round-pen. This phenomenon is often referred to as “join-up,” which is generally described as occurring when the horse willingly chooses to be with the human and walks toward them accepting their leadership and protection (Roberts, 1996).
The outcomes of round-pen training are reported to include the trainer’s becoming dominant over the youngster and the youngster “accepting” the trainer as leader (Farmer-Dougan & Dougan, 1999; Waran et al., 2002). However, a number of questions arise from this, such as whether horses can really regard humans as conspecifics, let alone a higher ranking one. Is a horse able to show “respect” for the trainer (Ladewig, 2007)? In addition, the benefits of chasing horses, especially in confined spaces, have been questioned (McLean, 2003) as it may serve only to enhance the flight response, which in the interest of safety should be avoided in all handling of nonhuman animals (Gonyou, 1995).
Given that different training methods will have different influences on horses (Baragli et al., 2004), it is important to investigate the mechanisms that underpin them. To determine if the explanations offered by round-pen trainers have an ethological basis, this study recorded the behavioral responses of mares and young horses in a round-pen.
To sum up the results of this study:
when mares and young colts were left alone in a round-pen, the mare was not likely to chase the youngster toward the perimeter of the pen. Simultaneous head lowering and licking-and-chewing occurred very rarely. If head lowering and licking-and-chewing are intraspecific signals, in this trial they were delivered predominantly when the most likely recipient was facing away. At the expense of an appropriate consideration of negative reinforcement, the ethological relevance of these responses in round-pen training may have been overstated.