[Reiningcatsanddogs]

Smilie, I simply stated that people might find it interesting, it was not an invitation to you to waste your time or mine.

I read that book the first year it was published and have had more than enough time to review it in a professional capacity so I am already quite familiar with it. As a matter of fact, I have recommended here on the forum that people read it. Not because it is correct or absolute, but because it provides a semi-clear explanation of ONE perspective.

If you understand even the most basic constructs about psychology and neurosciences then you know that there are different sects of it. NONE of which have all of the information to provide the whole picture. If we did, then no one would ever suffer depression, anxiety or mental illness. As an example, they cannot even agree on a definition of what emotion is.

One of the biggest faults of that book is a common difficulty in understanding horses in general. The information gathered as to what parts of the brain do (which by the way is constantly changing), is taken from humans and transferred to other animals with a different evolutionary history.

Evolution provides for necessary variations according to the needs of a particular species right down to physiology of individual cells such as neurons and synapses as well as whole segments of the brain.

To take what is known of one species and apply it to another without also doing the requisite tests to the same depth of analysis on the species to which you are applying it is flawed science. Until that is done, the application is suspect at best. It unfortunately, leaves us no closer to arriving at a conclusion than before.

That book is educational and I recommend people read it but, like most other books, it only provides one person’s perspective from the limited information they have on hand.

 

[Smilie]

No intention to waste either of our time.
If your horses are safe for you to ride safe for your daughter, are happy, then why worry? Whatever you are doing must be right for the relationship you enjoy with your horses.
Allow that what I do with my horses, must also be correct, and I do not need to grab a clicker and start clicking, although I certainly believe in positive re enforcement, give treats at the right time
While I don't use treats to catch horses, I will reward a horse after he is haltered, and led to the barn, giving that horse some beet pulp,ect

The horse's learning processes break down into three components: cognition (mental ability ) Ethology (the natural behavior, like the flight response )and psychology (learned behavior)
The human brain is different from the horse's brain because it has a dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which enables reasoning

Understanding Horse Psychology

I am not arguing with you, trying to convert you from whatever you are doing , far as interacting with your horses, but just wanting the acceptance that perhaps using the correct balance of R+ and R- , on horses with no past baggage, produces a horse every bit as willing and a horse that enjoys working for you, as one that is predominantly trained using just R+
Far as mentioning what I do/done with my horses, it is only an application of practicality to pure theory \They even had to do that with the atomic bomb!

 

[gottatrot]

If I had some strong moral objection to R- training, I suppose I would try only R+. Frankly, I think some who would only try R+ would do it because they saw it as the most natural approach. But I believe when I see horses training each other, that they use both R+ and R- approaches fairly equally. So wouldn't this then be the most natural approach?

Some would say yes, but horses kick each other hard enough to injure, so that justifies using harsh methods with a horse. Of course I would disagree with that line of thinking.

Personally, I've had many times where using my own "science experiements" I have been unable to see how an R+ or an R- approach could possibly work.
An example where R- did not work at all: My mare Halla had been taught to be impossible to get close to in a field. People had lassoed her, tricked her with treats, taken other horses out and then put them back in while keeping her, and chased her around endlessly. Her experiences after getting caught had been negative, being tied up short for hours and isolated.

I tried an R- approach one time, and quickly saw that would never work. The only way to train her to be caught was to only reward her for a positive change. Each slow positive change such as letting me get closer was rewarded with me turning and walking away, eventually when I got close enough I got her a treat and then left, and then put a hand on her before also leaving. Finally I would halter her, give a treat and release her, and eventually take her out of the field for a few seconds before returning her to it.
I don't see how she could have been taught to get caught by any R- methods at all.

But there are also many times when I don't see how I can clearly teach a horse something without applying pressure, and then removing it when the correct goal is reached. How could I have ever taught this same horse that I wanted her to move in a straight line, by somehow rewarding her at the moment from her back? The only way I knew to teach her was to pressure her (without pain) into the position I wanted, and then rewarding her by a time of pressure free riding when she was doing it correctly. This is a very easy and well understood way to teach horses, and trying to do it by only R+ would be difficult.

When I first started riding Amore, she was terrified frequently and pressure made her panic. So I did try some R+ methods with her. I taught her to stop with no pressure by giving her a treat incidentally when I said a command and she stopped, and soon learned that you don't want a horse to slam on the brakes if they hear a rustle behind them that might be a tidbit coming their way. I'd like to experiment more with different methods, it is very educational.

 

[Hondo]

@Smilie There is not one single person on this thread that has not mentioned using -R. Every single one. THAT is documentable.

So how do you get the impression that people suggest those who use -R use ONLY -R??? That'd be every poster on this thread!

@bms; RCD mentioned having used R+ exclusively on one horse. If I understood correctly. A recovery horse that could not handle any R-

I don't think R+ training is anything new.

It is very very easy to do on kids if you raise them yourself. They want so badly to please.

I actually trained a pony that my youngest son's grandfather gave him when he was only about 6. I knew nothing about training or R+/- at the time except some from General Psychology and Developmental Psychology. But I didn't even think about that stuff with Moonshine. I just interacted with him. Messed with him. Leaned on him. Stood a stool by him and laid over his back. Finally sat on him. We had to move because of jobs situation and had to sell him. But I never ever quarreled with him at all about anything and he learned a lot.

I have not been patient enough or self controlled enough to use R+ on Hondo exclusively. But all R- seems to have sabotaged our relationship. That said, he had lots of R- before we got together so that makes it a little different which is also your experience. Unless you throw "urging" in with R- and as mentioned I do a lot of that. Arguing and urging. He always gives in nicely if he knows I really want to do what I'm asking.

As gottatrot eluded to, I think it may be a mistake to pattern our training on herd interactions. That has worked and probably pretty well for many people, but I think the horse has us humans over on an entirely different bandwidth/frequency than his herd mates. He has this symbiotic relationship with this predator that doesn't seem bent on eating him and provides good stuff for him instead.

Reading stuff on body language the other day. They had a pie diagram/graph. Communication was over 50% body language, then the spoken word and tonality, then written. I think written was down to about 7%. So we could all be in agreement about everything and not even know it.

 

[Hondo]

I'm personally really glad to hear all of the discussion on the ins and outs whens and how much on R+/- but remember that was not the original topic which was a horse reacting out of fear of consequences as compared to just being willing in the spirit of getting along.

It's actually a little bit hard for me to think of using pressure/release as R- when the pressure is so light as to be a form of communication which I think it is. I just don't think it should be included under the same symbol as whipping a horse around a round pen until he gives up and faces his agressor.

From what I've read it seems that a horse eventually considers a slight pressure as a game. "They want me to do something, I wonder what? I'll try this". At least that's how some trainers seem to speak of it.

They don't know anything about being pulled by a rope until they are pulled. Oh? That means go where the rope goes. That kind of slight pressure I can see would be hard to avoid. But that is not what was happening in my first post/description.

And I'm pretty certain there is 100% agreement that a fearful response is not the proper objective of training/teaching.

 

[Smilie]

Hondo, you did mention that you would never demand anything of a horse
Also, the fact remains that any R- or esp 'demand' implies abuse or pain-not so
Trottin, I think you will see that I did mention that a horseman reads what a particular horse needs, far as R-, R+ or the right combo, so , I agree with the way you handled that example, as that horse came with past 'history' -thus your approach has to reflect that past history.
Also, there is the idea projected to me anyway, as I can read into things as well as the next person, that Tom dorrance principles are ignored by people like me, and his reference to kinder and better ways ,w as directed towards training methods commonly used on the range in those days, and none of which I, or any traditional trainer I have ever taken clinics from, suggests
In Tom's day, un broke horses, never taught to give to pressure, were simply snubbed up, left to fight it out. They were also roped, hobbled, blind folded, and then bucked out, once hobbles and blind fold were removed, with not a cue as to how to respond to any rein pressure
Thus, you have to take his comments in reference to the times, and not apply them towards good accepted training today

 

[loosie]

I'm sure that a lot of the people that do over react when correcting a horse to the point where it does become abuse do so as much out of fear than anything else
I also think that some people behave that way because they get an odd form of pleasure

Yeah, I think fear is a(maybe the) major motivator (you must dominate this powerful, dangerous animal & show him who's boss...) but it is ignorance & misunderstanding, either under this motivation or otherwise, that I think is THE biggie. (You can never hurt a horse as much as they can hurt eachother, therefore anything you do is acceptable...). Heck, even whacking the horse for a fear reaction can be seen as 'abusive'... particularly to the horse:-? and how often do horses(& dogs ime) get punished for this type of thing??

Yeah, I know there are those warped people out there, who derive pleasure from being abusive - to animals or people... but I truly think intentional cruelty is extremely rare, compared to the above, those who claim to 'love' their horses but will jab them with a bit, attack them with a crop, force them into terrifying situations, hurtful tack... etc, etc.

 

[Smilie]

To get back on track, concerning this topic, I think everyone here is well aware that there are abusive people out there, who feel they must dominate a horse out of down right physical force, fear, even pain, but that has zero to do with the original topic, which was willing compliance.
So, to sum thing sup, far as I'm concerned, willing compliance is a learned behavior, using communication tools the horse evolved to understand, being a herd prey species, in a fair manner that creates trust and respect in a horse
Whether mainly R+ , R- or a combo is used, depends on past history of the horse, but fear or abuse is never part of that package
The horse thus responds willingly to cues he understands, in a relaxed and trusting manner, instead of having a ;make me attitude
While working for a treat, is a clear form of communication, and has it;s definate uses, esp on an abused horse, that needs to learn trust, it also does not it itself, indicate ' willing compliance, as you can't separate that 'compliance from the antisipated food reward
There is a time, on a horse , that has no past baggage, understands a request, but fails to comply , to use the 'ask, ask louder, then demand' while then always giving the horse in the future, a chance to respond to that very light ask first, to then make that willing compliance an ingrained response. Horses are creatures of habit
You don't shout , when a whisper works.
I do believe , it was tOm Dorrance himself, where I got the quote,'be as gentle with a horse as possible, but also as firm as needed, to make that horse a'good citizen'
Willing compliance is not following you around at leisure, although nothing wrong with that, but it is responding to a request, that he understands, and one that is asked using the lightest aid possible, in a willing manner, with no sign of stress, such as tail swishing, mouth gaping, tense body, ect, but with soft eyes, relaxed body and willing attitude.
That's my story, and nothing more I don't know hoe physical pain, force, intimidation, horse not wanting to be with you, ect, ect, ever became part of this thread
Use what works, for you and the horse you are working with. If the horse is happy, not stressed and does the job you want, even if just hanging out, then those methods are right for you and that horse.

 

[Foxhunter]

Has anyone ever even TRIED using R+ ONLY with a horse? If so, what results have they documented, and is there a reasonable chance an average person could duplicate those results?

Would it be possible to train using only R+? I doubt it as it is going very much against nature.

A simple example would be if a R+ trainer was leading a horse and it started to pull a correction of taking a contact on the rope would be a correction or a hand on a horse to stop it moving into you would be a correction moving away from the horse's movement could lead to far worse things. Even using a voice to correct would surely be R-

So, I do not see how it is possible.

In a herd/pack animals learn from corrections. The foal learns at a very early age. Mum eating her feed and foal wants to suckle will first stand square making the udder difficult to get to, of foal persists she will move her quarters into the foal to push it away, if it still persists then she will either lift a hind leg to it or punch bite it on the butt. It is one of the first lessons a foal learns.

You can bet your bottom dollar that the mare that doesn't correct her foal ends up with a bossy, obnoxious foal that will have little respect for people or its mother.

I bred a litter of pups from my Border Terrier. They were about 4 weeks old and running about in the yard. My old Border Collie was sun bathing and the pups 'attacked' her, jumping all over her and finding the long hair on her tail a good thing to practise hanging onto. The old dog put up with it and played for quite some time and then had enough. She got up to move away. Four pups returned to their mother, three persisted. The old dog turned on them and bowled them over. Two ran back to Mum the third continued to annoy so the old girl really fixed it, had it on its back without biting but certainly letting it know that she was not going to suffer it. That pup, when released ran back to his mum who immediately got up and walked away as if to say, "You were told, warned and ignored, don't come running to me when you didn't do as you were told."

Horses are much the same, pesky foals will be put in their place with the right amount of force by other horses in the herd if they transgress.

I always liked the old saying, 'It takes a couple to make a child and a village to make a man.'

 

[loosie]

I came across this on fb in a discussion on positive reinforcement and couldn't resist sharing it here.

Ha ha! Your quote reminds me of one a dog trainer I worked with used to spout, that I also thought was a keeper...

"For one to be an effective trainer, one must be smarter than the animal in question. That is why some breeds are harder to train than others!"

That line doesn't go down well when someone's dog is... patently not 'desiring to please' them! :twisted:

I've had no experience with mules(except riding in a canyon somewhere when I visited the States as a teenager...) but lots of experience with donkeys, and I always maintained donkeys are 'stubborn' because they're... smarter than the average bear! That 'stubborn' in people is usually thought of as 'persistence' which is thought of as a good trait of intelligent people. ;-)

 

[loosie]

I might in turn, take the other end of the spectrum, into the realm of spoiling, where a horse is never truly given any guidelines that make them a 'good citizen?

So... what you seem to be saying is, maybe the assumption that 'NH' & 'positive training' generally produces 'spoiled' and never effectively trained animals is no more correct than assuming you're about being cruel by using 'pressure'. ;-)

 

[loosie]

There is the fact, that horses lack the part of the brain that allows higher thinking,reasoning.

Yeah, and, regardless of neurobiology, there's also the fact that so many people lack thinking & reasoning skills too... :winetime:

 

[Foxhunter]

I have had many a sour horse - usually from race trainers. Horses that are refusing to go on the gallops or to start at a race (jumpers start behind tapes and not from starting gates) My job is to sweeten them up.

I have never used clicker training nor pure R+ even if they will not go without another horse in front of them I have taken them out with hounds. Nothing like it for sweetening a horse up and getting some work intomthem without them realising it.

One horse had for this was fine at the Meet but when everyone moved off he went into reverse. After 30 minutes of going backwards round and round a field he condescended to follow where they had gone. I never got cross, never tried to stop him from reversing, just sat on him. We caught up with the Foeld and as soon as they moved off backwards we went.

Only after several hunts did he begin to think that it might be interesting to follow closer and see what was going on. It was a boring day and another woman and I went off to jump come cross country fences that were near. After that this horse loved hounds, he was a brilliant and clever hunter. We kept him at home and Point to Pointed him. His owners and the man who had race trained him came tomsee him run. I was leading him around the paddock when the trainer told my boss that the horse needed two people to lead him as he would freak out.
He was totally relaxed and striving around as if he did it every day.

At the start he jumped off with the rest, led all the way around and won by 12 lengths still on the bridle. He would n four races on the trot with no sign of him balking.

He went into training but with a smaller trainer who treated horses as individuals and won some good races.

Nothing like hounds to sweeten a horse.

 

[loosie]

Has anyone ever even TRIED using R+ ONLY with a horse? If so, what results have they documented, and is there a reasonable chance an average person could duplicate those results?

If by 'anyone' you mean... anyone, then yes, I have seen a demo at Equitana, among others I've seen on vids, where solely +R was used, and yes, results were definitely there to be seen. There is definitely a 'reasonable chance' that anyone can duplicate this, just as they could 'reasonably' duplicate other training tactics.

If by 'anyone' you mean anyone here on this thread... yes, I've tried myself. And yes, succeeded with the basics, do understand the whys & wherefores & do use solely +R with some animals/situations. But, as I've already said, as you put it, I have no moral problem with -R, I got frustrated with using it for 'normal' training, when I could add just a little 'pressure' in the right places to make it all happen so much quicker & easier. Not sure if anyone else here is a +R only trainer any more so than I have been.

And apart from a science experiment, why would someone take that approach UNLESS they thought using R- methods was either ineffective or morally objectionable?

That is precisely it, IMO. And on the 'other side' I also see(here & in 'real life') SO many people with a strong attitude against using actual +R, due either to lack of understanding what it is('the only reward a horse(or dog) needs is release of pressure & a Good Boy'...), or due to a belief that 'the horse(or dog) should work for you Because You Said, not for rewards' which IMHO can also only be a 'moral', rather than rational stand too. Each to his own tho, everyone's entitled to their own morals, so long as they don't impinge on or harm others IMO.

that folks are treating as cave-man tactics. At least, my impression in reading this thread is that using R+ techniques = good person who cares about horses, and using R- techniques = bad person who has not experienced what a good relationship with a horse means.

As this thread has kind of... run away with itself, I never did get to catch up with those 8 or so early pages. I have also not read every word of every post since. But the above is far from the idea I get from what I have read, personally. But perhaps this is because I come from a 'combo approach' kind of attitude, that I'd feel 'set upon' if I didn't use +R, I don't know...

 

[loosie]

What I have 'heard' here... not that anyone NEEDS to 'grab a clicker', but that it is valuable to learn, and that perhaps(not assuming automatically...) if you haven't learned the method fully, then you don't understand it well enough to have a strong opinion on it.

Strong opinions against c/t... or whatever, stated here, do indeed very often come across like trying to 'convert' people. Of course, to hold a strong belief means we'd naturally like others to hold it too. I think that's where we have to choose our words very carefully, in order to remain respectful and considerate of alternate opinions too.

And nowhere here have I 'heard' anyone at all argue against using a 'balance' of +R & -R in 'normal' training. On that note though, re the 'it can be better' comment, I took from what I read, that we weren't talking about 'balance' but about using -R without any significant +R - the 'release of pressure/pat/praise is adequate' type attitude. It does seem to be a very common belief, and people commonly misunderstand what actual +R is & how it can create a different *attitude*. This is one subject I do have strong opinions about personally, of which I was trying to explain why it matters/is different to me.

 

[loosie]

Also, the fact remains that any R- or esp 'demand' implies abuse or pain ... Tom dorrance principles are ignored by people like me, and his reference to kinder and better ways ,w as directed towards training methods commonly used on the range in those days, and none of which I, or any traditional trainer I have ever taken clinics from, suggests

Huh?? See I don't get where on earth those 'facts' came from - nowhere have I seen it written here. Altho when reading posts without punctuation, more than the average misunderstandings can be made...

FWIW, while I haven't read my Tom Dorrance books recently, I don't recall him being particularly into +R at all...

 

[loosie]

A simple example would be if a R+ trainer was leading a horse and it started to pull a correction of taking a contact on the rope would be a correction or a hand on a horse to stop it moving into you would be a correction moving away from the horse's movement could lead to far worse things. Even using a voice to correct would surely be R-

Talking behaviourally, positive punishment is something unpleasant that's added in order to weaken/reduce the likelihood of that behaviour in future. Based on that behavioural 'fact', the practice of using -R necessarily includes the use of +P - there must be some unpleasant stimuli the horse is motivated to get 'release' from. Any amount of touch stimuli or sound could be perceived as unpleasant 'pressure' to the horse, depending on it's experiences. Or light stimuli - the slightly firmer feel of pressure on a halter, the touch of a leg on a side, a vocal or other sound could be felt as nothing unpleasant whatsoever. Therefore it is not a +P of which -R can come out of. So 'cues' aren't necessarily +P/-R

In your above eg, if the horse pulled back and the handler did not put any pressure on the rope, tried to stop it, just went with it/allowed the rope to slide, then this is not necessarily 'pressure'. When the horse stopped pulling, and was rewarded +R for that, then it would be more likely to stop sooner in the future.

Perhaps it's easier to understand if we use leg aids as an eg... If the horse has been sat upon & legs dangled down, touching his sides, he may be quite comfortable with this. If then, every time he went to move in a certain direction(whether of his own accord, or to begin with, lured there or such), that leg touched him in a particular manner & he was +Red, he would soon associate that feeling with that movement, and be motivated not by discomfort, but by the +R.

It CAN be done & HAS been done. I just personally don't see the point & IME it's not the easiest way. I still admire people who can achieve it tho.

You can bet your bottom dollar that the mare that doesn't correct her foal ends up with a bossy, obnoxious foal that will have little respect for people or its mother.

Of course, in application you also need to ensure that the Wrong behaviour is not reinforced at all. Need to ensure it doesn't work, or at worst only works weakly, and the alternate Right behaviour works far better for the horse, in order for the Wrong behaviour to extinguish. And in application, IME, it is far easier, more effective to add a little -R to the mix. But it is possible to do without. I've done so with other animals(chickens, ducks, cats...) too, who take -R/+P to heart(& the wrong way) a lot more than horses.

 

[Hondo]

This is the bottom line I woke up to this morning. I look at them as MY OWN hard and fast rules. I believe in them deeply and am not very likely to be dissuaded from them. On the other hand, I do not insist that any other agree.

1. R- in training as a communication device is acceptable and may even be necessary providing it produces absolutely no pain and no fear.

2. P+ is to be used only for self defense. And a horse understands the difference in self defense against his/her attacks as opposed to attacks directed at him/her. The first produces no fear where the second may produce both fear and defensive actions by the horse.

3. If a horse is attacking from self defense and fear, the use of P+ should be avoided if possible by not placing one's self in a position to be attacked. The horse must learn there is nothing to fear before the horse can be further worked with properly.

4. If a horse is attacking in effort to establish dominance, a strong P+ must be used that should include pain. To repeat, a defense under these circumstances produces no fear in the horse.

5. All training must be guided at all times by the avoidance of producing fear in the horse.

 

[Foxhunter]

All the R+ R- P+ P- has taken me way back to algebra lessons! :think: :lol:

 

[Foxhunter]

HONDO

You asked the question and had the answer all the time - well put.