Thursday, 31 May 2012
What now?
Predictability, all the things that tell horses what to expect, and what to do next. When we’re training them they rely on the clues, such as where they are, where any apparatus is, what their person is doing, what other persons (including horses) are doing, and so on. Discriminating exactly which stimulus (clue!) reliably accompanies a behaviour and its outcome is a process of elimination. The horse has to learn a stimulus-behaviour-outcome sequence and to do so he has to turn detective.
Can horses really be that bright? Mischka, a 22 month old sports horse filly is learning to touch cones with her muzzle for food, then to learn to touch them in alternation in order to earn the food, and then to perform the same pattern of alternation with an increasing distance between the cones.
That’s hard. At 22 months of age Mischka is a horsey teenager, puzzles like this can easily frustrate her and make her either quit the training process or become enraged by it. She really needs clues as to what to try next. The first clue is that her person is looking at one of the cones which are placed side by side; their position will become another clue. Mischka investigates, her person says YES! and immediately presents her with a handful of food. Miscka investigates the same cone again but her person is now looking at the other cone. Miscka investigates more thoroughly in case her person hasn’t noticed then switches to investigating the same cone as her person. This makes her person say YES! again, and more food is presented. The person’s attention returns to the first cone and after a trial investigation of the second cone, Mischka returns to investigate the first, with another YES! and more food. The clues Mischka used to get the right answer were the direction of her person’s attention, the position of the cones, her preceding behaviour, and the behaviour reinforced via the reception of food.
Mischka rapidly makes the link between alternating her touches of the cones and food, or no food if she makes the incorrect choice, and consistently swaps cones. The stakes are then raised. The cones are placed nearly half a metre apart. Now Mischka has to make an effort to get her nose from one cone to the other. Perhaps it’s easier to stick to just one cone now? Mischka tries this and only touches the first cone after being rewarded with food the first time. There is no outcome for this behaviour and Mischka makes the effort to bring her nose to the second cone. This makes her person say YES! and food is delivered. Mischka recognises the clues from the earlier lesson, notices where her person’s attention is, recognises that touching each cone is only rewarded on the first touch, never the second, third or any other number of touches, then smoothly returns to alternating her touches.
This raise in the stakes is repeated several more times, with the distance between the cones growing to nearly 8m. Now it becomes very apparent that one of the clues that Mischka is using is the proximity of the other cone. When it’s further away and slightly out of view because it’s behind her, the behaviour of switching between the cones falls apart. Swinging her forehand from one cone to the other no longer works because the stretch is too far and it puts the previous cone out of sight so that it is no longer a clue that it is also the next cone.
Mischka first tries to solve the problem by walking to the people in the training area, perhaps to get a better idea of what they are looking at! Her attention seeking behaviour is ignored and then Mischka spies the other cone. She’s told YES! just as she starts to head towards it. This gives her the clue that she’s got the right answer, but she continues her route and touches the cone before looking for her handful of feed. The clues to keep going are the early signal for reward, and her person looking at the cone and also walking towards it where she ultimately gives Mischka the food. Mischka tests investigating the people again when she finds them closer to her than the next cone, and after a few trials gives up as there is no outcome.
The sight of the next cone remains an important clue. On one occasion Mischka starts to walk to her person after leaving a cone, then remembers that this will not result in food, so stops and starts to walk backwards. While reversing she notices the next cone and turns and walks forwards to touch it – with the now firmly expected outcome of food reinforcement. After consuming the food Mischka walks backwards again, because last time she got reinforced for touching a cone she had just happened to be walking backwards in the same place. Mid back-up she steps forwards again and touches the cone she just backed up from. Her person fails to reinforce her because it was the incorrect cone. Mischka walks forwards then and circles around finding the next cone, and some positive reinforcement for doing so. Then she reverses, catches sight of the next cone and walks onto it.
Reversing has become a means of sighting the next cone, and a clue that she is going to make a correct choice. So also does circling forwards and away from a preceding cone. Clearly a less changeable ‘go find the next cone’ signal is required. Mischka needs to discern just one signal or specific compound of signals that means ‘there is another cone for you to find and touch’. Her person adds in a verbal signal ‘TOUCH’ while focusing on the next cone just as Mischka is on route to it and success, regardless of whether she reversed to sight the cone or simply walked forwards from the preceding one.
The next chapter is where Mischka learns to look for the cone in direct response to her person’s direction of focus and the verbal cue, perhaps even if the next cone has been moved a little since she was last there.
Saturday, 21 January 2012
Connecting with horses
When people talk about having a connection with their horse, where the communication between horse and person is invisible or once you know what they’re doing, nearly invisible I’m reminded of the Clever Hans story.
For those who don’t know Clever Hans could count and do maths, and counted out the answer by pawing the ground. But actually he couldn’t. His skills were scrutinised and it was found that if his owner didn’t know the answer, he didn’t either. What he could do well was read his person! He would watch his owner, Herr von Osten, and paw the ground when he saw a very, very slight downward movement of von Osten’s head, and then stop when von Osten very, very slightly raised it again when the ‘right answer’ was reached. Initially von Osten denied helping his horse in these puzzles, and quite possibly he was not aware that he was helping his horse. It took a very observant student to notice what was actually happening. Horses are amazing observers and I think that is part of the ‘pure connection’ that people talk about – horses are ready to receive information.
I think that connection is based on three things: attraction, empathy (at least from the human) and communication. We are intrinsically attracted to our horses, for one reason or another. We are ready to communicate with them, but there has to be a ‘how to’. That ‘how to’ is empathy – to feel for – and communication, and what we communicate to the horse will affect how attracted he or she is to us.
With attraction and empathy our channels of communication with the horse are set to ‘ready to receive’. I think all people who are very good with horses are ‘ready to receive’. And once ready to receive, we can then be ‘ready to respond accordingly’. That’s where timing our communication signals comes in – sending the message when the recipient is ready to receive. I think that in good horsemanship it’s working both ways, if we send messages when the horse indicates through his or her behaviour that he or she is ready to receive, then the horse learns when and how to open lines of communication with us.
I also think that communication is learned, that we co-create a language with our horse. I do get a bit behaviouristic about this. Having my communications received and responded to in the manner that I wanted is reinforcing – if I signal ‘please do this’ to my horse, and she does so in response, then I’ve got what I wanted and am more likely to do it again in future. I may also learn to make this request when my mare is attentive to me, so she learns how to communicate to me to cue her to do something that invariable ends up in reinforcement for her and so we both become more sensitive or ‘connected’ to each other.
Scientific definition
Reinforcement: A consequence of behaviour that makes the individual more likely to perform that specific behaviour under the same circumstances in future.
In my experience horses tend to ask for opportunities to get positive reinforcement more often than they do negative reinforcement unless they are stuck in a pickle as it were. Positive reinforcement is more pleasing to the horse, and a pleased horse is more pleasing to me. I don’t like my horse to get in pickle, so mostly she’ll be getting positive reinforcement – for her those things are food when she’s in the mood (that’s a lot!), scratches when she’s in the mood (“but there’s only so much scratching I like Jen”), and a canter up the common when she’s in the mood (quite often these days as she’s leaner and meaner). This all means that I don’t think food, when used most deliberately, gets in the way of greater sensitivity or connection to each other, but it will if there is no understanding about how it is given – from either party, horse or person!
Scientific definition
Positive reinforcement: To ADD a rewarding stimulus to the individual as a consequence of behaviour increasing the likelihood of that behaviour occurring in future.
Negative reinforcement: To REMOVE an aversive stimulus from the individual as a consequence of behaviour also increasing the likelihood of that behaviour occurring in future.
If a person wishes to become a horseperson who has a connection with his or her horses, that person needs to love horses, needs to understand what their horse’s behaviour means to their horse, and needs to learn how the laws of learning work and are applied (not necessarily in academic language, it’s practical application that’s at stake). Then they may become a horseperson and realise that the state of being for a horseperson is lifelong personal development. So yes, like Ghandi they may be different today as the result of what they learned yesterday – I know I am.
For those who don’t know Clever Hans could count and do maths, and counted out the answer by pawing the ground. But actually he couldn’t. His skills were scrutinised and it was found that if his owner didn’t know the answer, he didn’t either. What he could do well was read his person! He would watch his owner, Herr von Osten, and paw the ground when he saw a very, very slight downward movement of von Osten’s head, and then stop when von Osten very, very slightly raised it again when the ‘right answer’ was reached. Initially von Osten denied helping his horse in these puzzles, and quite possibly he was not aware that he was helping his horse. It took a very observant student to notice what was actually happening. Horses are amazing observers and I think that is part of the ‘pure connection’ that people talk about – horses are ready to receive information.
I think that connection is based on three things: attraction, empathy (at least from the human) and communication. We are intrinsically attracted to our horses, for one reason or another. We are ready to communicate with them, but there has to be a ‘how to’. That ‘how to’ is empathy – to feel for – and communication, and what we communicate to the horse will affect how attracted he or she is to us.
With attraction and empathy our channels of communication with the horse are set to ‘ready to receive’. I think all people who are very good with horses are ‘ready to receive’. And once ready to receive, we can then be ‘ready to respond accordingly’. That’s where timing our communication signals comes in – sending the message when the recipient is ready to receive. I think that in good horsemanship it’s working both ways, if we send messages when the horse indicates through his or her behaviour that he or she is ready to receive, then the horse learns when and how to open lines of communication with us.
I also think that communication is learned, that we co-create a language with our horse. I do get a bit behaviouristic about this. Having my communications received and responded to in the manner that I wanted is reinforcing – if I signal ‘please do this’ to my horse, and she does so in response, then I’ve got what I wanted and am more likely to do it again in future. I may also learn to make this request when my mare is attentive to me, so she learns how to communicate to me to cue her to do something that invariable ends up in reinforcement for her and so we both become more sensitive or ‘connected’ to each other.
Scientific definition
Reinforcement: A consequence of behaviour that makes the individual more likely to perform that specific behaviour under the same circumstances in future.
In my experience horses tend to ask for opportunities to get positive reinforcement more often than they do negative reinforcement unless they are stuck in a pickle as it were. Positive reinforcement is more pleasing to the horse, and a pleased horse is more pleasing to me. I don’t like my horse to get in pickle, so mostly she’ll be getting positive reinforcement – for her those things are food when she’s in the mood (that’s a lot!), scratches when she’s in the mood (“but there’s only so much scratching I like Jen”), and a canter up the common when she’s in the mood (quite often these days as she’s leaner and meaner). This all means that I don’t think food, when used most deliberately, gets in the way of greater sensitivity or connection to each other, but it will if there is no understanding about how it is given – from either party, horse or person!
Scientific definition
Positive reinforcement: To ADD a rewarding stimulus to the individual as a consequence of behaviour increasing the likelihood of that behaviour occurring in future.
Negative reinforcement: To REMOVE an aversive stimulus from the individual as a consequence of behaviour also increasing the likelihood of that behaviour occurring in future.
If a person wishes to become a horseperson who has a connection with his or her horses, that person needs to love horses, needs to understand what their horse’s behaviour means to their horse, and needs to learn how the laws of learning work and are applied (not necessarily in academic language, it’s practical application that’s at stake). Then they may become a horseperson and realise that the state of being for a horseperson is lifelong personal development. So yes, like Ghandi they may be different today as the result of what they learned yesterday – I know I am.
Monday, 13 June 2011
Giving up
Learned helplessness is a debilitated state where the horse has learned that it has no control over the outcomes of its behaviour. It is related to the use of aversive stimulation such as inescapeable restraint coupled with painful or otherwise adverse treatment and is a welfare concern(1). Horses that have no prior experience of successful escape or avoidance in other adverse conditions are more likley to be susceptible(2) .
Scientists called Seligman and Maier (3) took three groups of domestic dogs raised in a lab and tested their ability to escape after receiving one of three treatments. Two groups were put in a harness from which they could not escape - the first group experienced electric shock but learned they could stop it by pushing a panel with their nose. The second group received the shock but could not turn it off. The third group of dogs had no such treatments and were used as controls. When tested on their ability to escape electric shock by jumping a hurdle, the dogs in the first and third groups succeeded but the second group who were subjected to inescapable shock did not succeed. The conclusion was that the dogs that failed to escape had become learned helpless (3).
A possible way of causing learned helplessness in horses is to use the somewhat controversial Imprint Training. This comprises restraining a foal on the ground and exposing it to a variety of aversive stimuli, such as human fingers inserted up the nostrils and other orifices until it no longer struggles against the restraint. It was developed to make foals more tractable to veterinary treatment and husbandry (4).
Newborns have had limited time in which to solve any problems at all, and the procedure involves exposure to adverse stimuli until they stop trying to escape. There is some possible evidence of a learned helpless effect. Compared to controls, imprint trained foals were more easily handled (5,6,7) suggesting that either they had learned they couldn't escape from human handling or had habituated to human intervention. But as the foals got older and had no further imprint training, the differences reduced with imprint trained foals becoming harder to handle (5) with the effects of imprint training disappearing by six-months-of-age (6).
If imprint training did produce learned helplessness effects they clearly did not last. Maier and Seligman (2) also discuss more temporary effects such as mongrel dogs that were not lab reared and only subjects to one session of inescapable shock that were still able to successfully escape over the hurdle when tested.
The take home message. It's not advisable to subject animals to any situation in which they will be frightened and unable to escape!
1. Hall, C. Goodwin, D. Heleski, C. Randle, H. and Waren, N. 2008 Is there evidence of learned helplessness in horses? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 11(3): 246-266
2. Maier, S. and Seligman, M. 1976 Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 105(1): 3-46
3. Seligman, M. and Maier, S. 1967 cited in (2).
4. Miller, R. and Close, P. 1991 Imprint training of the newborn foal. Western horseman, Colorado Springs
5. Williams, J. Friend, T. Collins, M. Toscano, M. Sisto-Burt, A. Nevill, C. 2002 The effects of early training sessions on the reactions of foals at 1, 2 and 3 months of age. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77: 105-114
6. Williams, J. Friend, T. Collins, M. Toscano, M. Sisto-Burt, A. Nevill, C. 2003 Effects of imprint training procedure at birth on the reactions of foals at age six-months. Equine Veterinary Journal 35(2): 127-132
7. Simpson, B. 2004 Neonatal foal handling. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 78: 303-317
Scientists called Seligman and Maier (3) took three groups of domestic dogs raised in a lab and tested their ability to escape after receiving one of three treatments. Two groups were put in a harness from which they could not escape - the first group experienced electric shock but learned they could stop it by pushing a panel with their nose. The second group received the shock but could not turn it off. The third group of dogs had no such treatments and were used as controls. When tested on their ability to escape electric shock by jumping a hurdle, the dogs in the first and third groups succeeded but the second group who were subjected to inescapable shock did not succeed. The conclusion was that the dogs that failed to escape had become learned helpless (3).
A possible way of causing learned helplessness in horses is to use the somewhat controversial Imprint Training. This comprises restraining a foal on the ground and exposing it to a variety of aversive stimuli, such as human fingers inserted up the nostrils and other orifices until it no longer struggles against the restraint. It was developed to make foals more tractable to veterinary treatment and husbandry (4).
Newborns have had limited time in which to solve any problems at all, and the procedure involves exposure to adverse stimuli until they stop trying to escape. There is some possible evidence of a learned helpless effect. Compared to controls, imprint trained foals were more easily handled (5,6,7) suggesting that either they had learned they couldn't escape from human handling or had habituated to human intervention. But as the foals got older and had no further imprint training, the differences reduced with imprint trained foals becoming harder to handle (5) with the effects of imprint training disappearing by six-months-of-age (6).
If imprint training did produce learned helplessness effects they clearly did not last. Maier and Seligman (2) also discuss more temporary effects such as mongrel dogs that were not lab reared and only subjects to one session of inescapable shock that were still able to successfully escape over the hurdle when tested.
The take home message. It's not advisable to subject animals to any situation in which they will be frightened and unable to escape!
1. Hall, C. Goodwin, D. Heleski, C. Randle, H. and Waren, N. 2008 Is there evidence of learned helplessness in horses? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 11(3): 246-266
2. Maier, S. and Seligman, M. 1976 Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 105(1): 3-46
3. Seligman, M. and Maier, S. 1967 cited in (2).
4. Miller, R. and Close, P. 1991 Imprint training of the newborn foal. Western horseman, Colorado Springs
5. Williams, J. Friend, T. Collins, M. Toscano, M. Sisto-Burt, A. Nevill, C. 2002 The effects of early training sessions on the reactions of foals at 1, 2 and 3 months of age. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77: 105-114
6. Williams, J. Friend, T. Collins, M. Toscano, M. Sisto-Burt, A. Nevill, C. 2003 Effects of imprint training procedure at birth on the reactions of foals at age six-months. Equine Veterinary Journal 35(2): 127-132
7. Simpson, B. 2004 Neonatal foal handling. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 78: 303-317
Monday, 6 December 2010
Emergency positive reinforcement
I'm very soft regarding my own horses, the slightest hint of ailment or injury and I'm worried!
This morning was no exception when I arrived in Penny and Khatani's cattle court to pick out feet, feed, turnout and muck out.
Got to Khatani's left hind and it was swollen and sore with what looked like a gash down the front of his hock! My partner mentioned something about him lifting that leg higher than normal when he did his weekly antibac hoof soak last night. Rang the vet and while I was waiting for them to call back with a visit time, I set about working with Khatani to keep still enough for me, and potentially the vet, to examine it without risk of any human injury (Khatani becomes very emotional if he thinks something will hurt!). At this point I should probably make a note to self that it's good to clean up the horrific looking would before calling the vet - it clearly wasn't fresh as all blood was dry...
So how to keep an emotional TB still while I examine and clean a wound? Positive reinforcement for the 'incompatible with kicking human behaviour aka keeping still'. Positive reinforcement for this job was to be horse and pony cubes, nice enough to keep still for, not as thrilling as carrots which can create self control problems in Khatani when he's very upset. Decided to mark positive reinforcement with a clicker as it, unlike my voice, can't convey my own emotion (arrgh my poor horse is hurt bad!!!!).
Clicked and treated K for keeping still while I first stroked his left rump, secondly ran my hand down his thigh, thirdly ran gamgee down his thigh, fourthly ran saline dripping gamgee down thigh, fifthly ran saline dripping gamgee over what actually happened to be a graze!. Sixthly, while I palpated the hock and surrounding limb to find softer and less painful swelling than I'd thought!
Not bad for an impromptu training session and hopefully a positive first aid experience for the emotional TB. Now just to keep an eye on that leg!
This morning was no exception when I arrived in Penny and Khatani's cattle court to pick out feet, feed, turnout and muck out.
Got to Khatani's left hind and it was swollen and sore with what looked like a gash down the front of his hock! My partner mentioned something about him lifting that leg higher than normal when he did his weekly antibac hoof soak last night. Rang the vet and while I was waiting for them to call back with a visit time, I set about working with Khatani to keep still enough for me, and potentially the vet, to examine it without risk of any human injury (Khatani becomes very emotional if he thinks something will hurt!). At this point I should probably make a note to self that it's good to clean up the horrific looking would before calling the vet - it clearly wasn't fresh as all blood was dry...
So how to keep an emotional TB still while I examine and clean a wound? Positive reinforcement for the 'incompatible with kicking human behaviour aka keeping still'. Positive reinforcement for this job was to be horse and pony cubes, nice enough to keep still for, not as thrilling as carrots which can create self control problems in Khatani when he's very upset. Decided to mark positive reinforcement with a clicker as it, unlike my voice, can't convey my own emotion (arrgh my poor horse is hurt bad!!!!).
Clicked and treated K for keeping still while I first stroked his left rump, secondly ran my hand down his thigh, thirdly ran gamgee down his thigh, fourthly ran saline dripping gamgee down thigh, fifthly ran saline dripping gamgee over what actually happened to be a graze!. Sixthly, while I palpated the hock and surrounding limb to find softer and less painful swelling than I'd thought!
Not bad for an impromptu training session and hopefully a positive first aid experience for the emotional TB. Now just to keep an eye on that leg!
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
Ethical equitation?
This is a subject that is frequently on my mind. Ethics are not something that can be forced onto others, they are a personal matter derived from what you know, think and feel about a matter. Despite this, many people promote more 'ethical' ways of doing things in many aspects of life, not just horsemanship. I play quite a substantial part in promoting more ethical ways of keeping and interacting with horses so I'm as guilty of the implied charges as anyone. Realising this brings me to thinking about what ethics are, and where they stand in relation to what we do with our horses.
We who care about horses are likely to consider the effects of our behaviour on them. And what we understand of our impact on them shapes our future behaviour towards them. This is so for many people who interact with horses, yet on any given day, at any given location where there are horses, we can observe a variety of human behaviour towards horses with varying impacts on them. We might not think that all of these impacts are good for horses, despite good human intentions.
Whenever we find that we might be lacking in information, there is a growing body of scientifically verified information availible on the effects of human behaviour towards horses that we can draw on. I'm not saying that science knows all and that it should be followed to the letter. What I am saying is that many aspects of human behaviour towards horses has been examined via rigorous, objective scientific method. As such, such information has a solid foundation in fact, sometimes confirming what tradition has always told us, sometimes blowing tradition out of the water. Being open to scientifically verified information can be most humbling as well as most enlightening and empowering. I find it most useful when acknowledged, and where appropriate, drawn into daily practise. Take 'equitation science' as an example. Some scientists have identified what many already know regarding the education of the riding horse. This knowledge has been distilled down into key points that some have pointed out to me as being highly mechanical, removing the 'feel' from horsemanship. I think that they can be treated as highly mechanical and appear to remove the sensitivity with which a trainer might bring to thier interaction with a horse. But I also think that the converse is true, correct training, applied with empathy for the horse will also have those key points of training held inherently within. Science's downfall is often the manner in which information is relayed, highly distilled in order to convey facts, losing feel for its subject, the horse. I think that most often this is only something lost in translation, not absent from the beginning, feel for the horse is what motivates equitation scientists in the first place.
So scientific information can tell us about how well our interactions and interventions with horses facilitate the horse's ability to be at his best. And in turn, this information can help us to decide what is ethical.
Perhaps a 'welfarist' approach might be taken. Pragmatically coming to the conclusion that you do indeed use your horse to your own end, but make a conscious decision to cause as little negative impact on your horse's welfare in the process. This, startling as it may be, does not preclude causing a little harm necesary for you to reach your own end e.g. riding using a bit when there is the alternative not to (there is a little documented evidence to suggest that bits are not good for horses and that they are happier ridden without one).
At the other end of the scale you might take more of a 'rightsist' approach, because you love to interact with the horse, but must only do so in a manner that actively enhances your horse's experience of life. After all, your horse not only has the right to be free from negative welfare, he also has the right to enjoy life. Providing your horse with all his needs, all of the time, and only engaging in interactions that bring mutual enjoyment such scratching an itch.
Perhaps instead you find yourself on a 'middle road'. An approach somewhere between the two.
No matter which of the above stances the 'ethical horseman' takes, all will consider themselves 'ethical', even though ideals and behaviour towards horses will vary greatly. Perhaps the most heated debates I've either been in, or have encountered are between people who behave differently towards horses, but who all believe they hold the moral high ground and cannot accept that the other might. Different people have different high ground!
Talk about ethics is often talk about welfare, and talk about welfare is often talk about ethics! Science might add to information that affects one's ethical stance, but it does not define the moral high ground. It is for each of you to be as informed about what horses need and like as you can be, and then find your own high ground.
We who care about horses are likely to consider the effects of our behaviour on them. And what we understand of our impact on them shapes our future behaviour towards them. This is so for many people who interact with horses, yet on any given day, at any given location where there are horses, we can observe a variety of human behaviour towards horses with varying impacts on them. We might not think that all of these impacts are good for horses, despite good human intentions.
Whenever we find that we might be lacking in information, there is a growing body of scientifically verified information availible on the effects of human behaviour towards horses that we can draw on. I'm not saying that science knows all and that it should be followed to the letter. What I am saying is that many aspects of human behaviour towards horses has been examined via rigorous, objective scientific method. As such, such information has a solid foundation in fact, sometimes confirming what tradition has always told us, sometimes blowing tradition out of the water. Being open to scientifically verified information can be most humbling as well as most enlightening and empowering. I find it most useful when acknowledged, and where appropriate, drawn into daily practise. Take 'equitation science' as an example. Some scientists have identified what many already know regarding the education of the riding horse. This knowledge has been distilled down into key points that some have pointed out to me as being highly mechanical, removing the 'feel' from horsemanship. I think that they can be treated as highly mechanical and appear to remove the sensitivity with which a trainer might bring to thier interaction with a horse. But I also think that the converse is true, correct training, applied with empathy for the horse will also have those key points of training held inherently within. Science's downfall is often the manner in which information is relayed, highly distilled in order to convey facts, losing feel for its subject, the horse. I think that most often this is only something lost in translation, not absent from the beginning, feel for the horse is what motivates equitation scientists in the first place.
So scientific information can tell us about how well our interactions and interventions with horses facilitate the horse's ability to be at his best. And in turn, this information can help us to decide what is ethical.
Perhaps a 'welfarist' approach might be taken. Pragmatically coming to the conclusion that you do indeed use your horse to your own end, but make a conscious decision to cause as little negative impact on your horse's welfare in the process. This, startling as it may be, does not preclude causing a little harm necesary for you to reach your own end e.g. riding using a bit when there is the alternative not to (there is a little documented evidence to suggest that bits are not good for horses and that they are happier ridden without one).
At the other end of the scale you might take more of a 'rightsist' approach, because you love to interact with the horse, but must only do so in a manner that actively enhances your horse's experience of life. After all, your horse not only has the right to be free from negative welfare, he also has the right to enjoy life. Providing your horse with all his needs, all of the time, and only engaging in interactions that bring mutual enjoyment such scratching an itch.
Perhaps instead you find yourself on a 'middle road'. An approach somewhere between the two.
No matter which of the above stances the 'ethical horseman' takes, all will consider themselves 'ethical', even though ideals and behaviour towards horses will vary greatly. Perhaps the most heated debates I've either been in, or have encountered are between people who behave differently towards horses, but who all believe they hold the moral high ground and cannot accept that the other might. Different people have different high ground!
Talk about ethics is often talk about welfare, and talk about welfare is often talk about ethics! Science might add to information that affects one's ethical stance, but it does not define the moral high ground. It is for each of you to be as informed about what horses need and like as you can be, and then find your own high ground.
Thursday, 3 June 2010
Offering behaviour
Using the clicker as a training tool is something I've really enjoyed doing for quite a number of years now, and sometimes it's hard for me to understand why anyone wouldn't want to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Oy7eBOFaE4
There are differences between using the clicker to train horses and using more traditional or natural horsemanship methods. With the latter we tend to stimulate the horse to perform some behaviour via means of our own actions. We prefer the horse not to do behaviour unless prompted by us. Unwanted behaviour is normally corrected, or more accurately termed, 'punished' by a swift verbal or tactile reprimand.
With the clicker things are different. We, as the trainer, are more passive and instead look for the horse to offer behaviour that we can capture. By 'capture', I mean signal to the horse in the instant that the specific behaviour is being performed that their behaviour has earned them a reward, usually a food titbit. The signal is usually the clicker noise, but it could be another easily perceptible signal, that has previously been associated with the titbit. The horse learns that that click announces food, and any behaviour that the horse can do that makes that happen is normally repeated fairly frequently!
When unwanted behaviour occurs during clicker training it does not normally meet any sort of interuption - unless lives really are at risk! Instead the unwanted behaviour fails to get any sort of reinforcement. Behaviour that fails to earn clicks and treats normally dissappears from the repertoire, but if the worst comes to the worst, incompatible behaviour can be trained to take the place of unwanted behaviour.
My latest example is pawing with the forelimb. This behaviour is normally rooted in frustration at not getting food when the horse expects that it should - after all, horses paw snow covered ground to get the grass beneath, it's a natural instinctive response to frustration. It may also occur when the horse is frustrated in other ways and can't solve the problem in the manner it would like. In this case pawing isn't really appropriate because it won't work to solve the problem. But nevertheless, it is an instinctive, unconscious response to feeling highly frustrated and relatively helpless - but not helpless enough to become shut down and inhibited. In this context, such inappropriate behaviour is referred to as 'displacement' behaviour.
One of my customer's horse's expressed pawing behaviour during training with a more traditional trainer. The behaviour was reprimanded either by a verbal correction, or by jolting the lead rope attached to the horse. The behaviour didn't decrease in frequency until the horse was performing other, incompatible behaviour under direction of the trainer, and therefore was not effectively punished as these reprimands failed to completely inhibit pawing.
This session compared to a more recent session with clicker training was interesting. The session with the traditional trainer had seemed to set a precedent for increased pawing behaviour, something we'd not been seeing recently in our sessions, but it by the most recent session it had made quite the comeback! So, as we were clicker trianing we ignored it - while taking care not to stand in front of the offending forelimbs! Instead we shaped standing still behaviour, in order to set up for new tasks inspired by our traditional trainer. Pawing no longer got any pay off, not even attention - it must be remembered that looking at and speaking to horses when reprimanding them does constitue attention, even if it's not exactly the quality the horse might want. Standing still did get a pay off, and so the horse became confident in performing this behaviour and able to offer further behaviour for us to capture.
So what's the moral of this story? To get into clicker training it may be necesary to let go of ideas about inhibiting behaviour, and to accept that horses can offer behaviour and that we can increase the likliehood of certain offered behaviour by clicking and treating it, and lose behaviour we don't want by ignoring it, and training incompatible behaviour in its place.
Want to know more about clicker training? Why not see my website for a presentation near you?
www.jenninellist.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Oy7eBOFaE4
There are differences between using the clicker to train horses and using more traditional or natural horsemanship methods. With the latter we tend to stimulate the horse to perform some behaviour via means of our own actions. We prefer the horse not to do behaviour unless prompted by us. Unwanted behaviour is normally corrected, or more accurately termed, 'punished' by a swift verbal or tactile reprimand.
With the clicker things are different. We, as the trainer, are more passive and instead look for the horse to offer behaviour that we can capture. By 'capture', I mean signal to the horse in the instant that the specific behaviour is being performed that their behaviour has earned them a reward, usually a food titbit. The signal is usually the clicker noise, but it could be another easily perceptible signal, that has previously been associated with the titbit. The horse learns that that click announces food, and any behaviour that the horse can do that makes that happen is normally repeated fairly frequently!
When unwanted behaviour occurs during clicker training it does not normally meet any sort of interuption - unless lives really are at risk! Instead the unwanted behaviour fails to get any sort of reinforcement. Behaviour that fails to earn clicks and treats normally dissappears from the repertoire, but if the worst comes to the worst, incompatible behaviour can be trained to take the place of unwanted behaviour.
My latest example is pawing with the forelimb. This behaviour is normally rooted in frustration at not getting food when the horse expects that it should - after all, horses paw snow covered ground to get the grass beneath, it's a natural instinctive response to frustration. It may also occur when the horse is frustrated in other ways and can't solve the problem in the manner it would like. In this case pawing isn't really appropriate because it won't work to solve the problem. But nevertheless, it is an instinctive, unconscious response to feeling highly frustrated and relatively helpless - but not helpless enough to become shut down and inhibited. In this context, such inappropriate behaviour is referred to as 'displacement' behaviour.
One of my customer's horse's expressed pawing behaviour during training with a more traditional trainer. The behaviour was reprimanded either by a verbal correction, or by jolting the lead rope attached to the horse. The behaviour didn't decrease in frequency until the horse was performing other, incompatible behaviour under direction of the trainer, and therefore was not effectively punished as these reprimands failed to completely inhibit pawing.
This session compared to a more recent session with clicker training was interesting. The session with the traditional trainer had seemed to set a precedent for increased pawing behaviour, something we'd not been seeing recently in our sessions, but it by the most recent session it had made quite the comeback! So, as we were clicker trianing we ignored it - while taking care not to stand in front of the offending forelimbs! Instead we shaped standing still behaviour, in order to set up for new tasks inspired by our traditional trainer. Pawing no longer got any pay off, not even attention - it must be remembered that looking at and speaking to horses when reprimanding them does constitue attention, even if it's not exactly the quality the horse might want. Standing still did get a pay off, and so the horse became confident in performing this behaviour and able to offer further behaviour for us to capture.
So what's the moral of this story? To get into clicker training it may be necesary to let go of ideas about inhibiting behaviour, and to accept that horses can offer behaviour and that we can increase the likliehood of certain offered behaviour by clicking and treating it, and lose behaviour we don't want by ignoring it, and training incompatible behaviour in its place.
Want to know more about clicker training? Why not see my website for a presentation near you?
www.jenninellist.co.uk
Monday, 1 March 2010
Beware the sharp, pointy, long and yellow teeth!
Aggression is a symtom of fear. Just think about what it takes for you to behave aggressively, such as to feel road rage or snap at a loved one. Aggression involves a lot of emotional energy, normally accompanied by a 'bad hair day'. Behaving aggressively on a regular basis is hard work and emotionally draining. The same is true for our horses and other animals, yet often we counter aggression with more aggression - the horse threatens to bite or kick, and we yell at or hit it! This is fairly natural. We got scared by the horse, and behaved aggressively back. It's true, aggression really is a symptom of fear!
But while I think we can all be forgiven for retaliating in the heat of the moment, we must be careful not to get locked into a downwards spiral of aggressive behaviour. Just think about what you learned last time you were frightened by a horse, and at very least, were tempted to retaliate with further aggression. It's possible that you were scared, and now you are aware of the potential for dangerous, aggressive behaviour from your horse in future. You might have found that this affected your behaviour towards your horse in similar circumstances - maybe you tied your horse up shorter, or were ready to deliver a reprimand in order to prevent being bitten, something we're often taught to do. You are simply more aware of the potential danger, and prepared to defend yourself.
Now think about it from the horse's perspective. The horse bit or kicked because he was scared. Scared of what might be unclear, but it is most probable that he was scared. He then recieved what he considered to be aggresive behaviour in return. This taught him he was right to be afraid, and this has an impact on his future behaviour. If a horse anticipates he may be frightened, then he is already priming himself to use defensive behaviour, including aggression. If he does behave aggressively again, and get the same result, retaliation from a scared human, then future aggression from both parties becomes more likely, unless there is intervention.
It's important to realise just what it is that is setting the horse up for aggression. One way to set horses up for aggression is to put them in situations where there is competition between horses for vital resources such as food, water, dry places to stand, shelter from the elements, and so on. This is one way to ensure a horse experiences mutiple 'bad hair days'. When such resources are in short supply, horses feel more agitated. And when they have repeated aggressive encounters with their herd mates, they feel worse. Feeling uncomfortable like this makes small niggles, such as accidentally jerking the grith when tightening it, into major discomforts that may trigger aggression. Horses may also become more aggressive towards people around their feed bowls, fearing that their people have now taken a liking to horse food and wish to take it from them. Fear of loss is as bad as fear of pain; both are highly averisve to horses.
It is fear of loss that may teach a horse to bite over food. It's a bit of a no-brainer, but hungry horses find being fed a highly pleasurable, and indeed, exciting event. But it's also an unpredictable situation from the horses's perspective. Humans can walk off without notice, taking the food with them, they often do when carrying food past a horse, whether the food is in a bucket or in a pocket. Horses can see this as totally devastating, and they are provoked to solve the 'moving food puzzle'. Horses have little natural preparation for moving food; only when they are a foal does their food actually have legs! Foals resolve the moving food problem by cutting in front of mum, forcing her to 'stand and deliver'. When people walk off with food, horses repeat the same action they used on mum. They catch up, over take, and park themselves in front of us. And if they are very tense, they can take this one step further. When faced with sudden and unexpected removal of something valued so highly, they are triggered to intense fear and frustration, and more extreme aggression is the result.
So what's the solution? Well, it does depend on the horse and the exact situation. But, aggressive horses need to be managed so that they have a happier lifestyle. This way they'll have fewer bad hair days and be less sensitive to aversive situations. But it is also important to remove the source of fear, by identifying it, and then taking action to either avoid it or desensitise and counter condition the horse to it. The aim of desensitisation is to help the horse learn that the perceived threat is nothing to be feared. Counter conditioning teaches the horse to actually enjoy the previously frightening event. In the meantime, it is our responsibility to handle an aggressive horse as calmly as we can possibly muster.
But while I think we can all be forgiven for retaliating in the heat of the moment, we must be careful not to get locked into a downwards spiral of aggressive behaviour. Just think about what you learned last time you were frightened by a horse, and at very least, were tempted to retaliate with further aggression. It's possible that you were scared, and now you are aware of the potential for dangerous, aggressive behaviour from your horse in future. You might have found that this affected your behaviour towards your horse in similar circumstances - maybe you tied your horse up shorter, or were ready to deliver a reprimand in order to prevent being bitten, something we're often taught to do. You are simply more aware of the potential danger, and prepared to defend yourself.
Now think about it from the horse's perspective. The horse bit or kicked because he was scared. Scared of what might be unclear, but it is most probable that he was scared. He then recieved what he considered to be aggresive behaviour in return. This taught him he was right to be afraid, and this has an impact on his future behaviour. If a horse anticipates he may be frightened, then he is already priming himself to use defensive behaviour, including aggression. If he does behave aggressively again, and get the same result, retaliation from a scared human, then future aggression from both parties becomes more likely, unless there is intervention.
It's important to realise just what it is that is setting the horse up for aggression. One way to set horses up for aggression is to put them in situations where there is competition between horses for vital resources such as food, water, dry places to stand, shelter from the elements, and so on. This is one way to ensure a horse experiences mutiple 'bad hair days'. When such resources are in short supply, horses feel more agitated. And when they have repeated aggressive encounters with their herd mates, they feel worse. Feeling uncomfortable like this makes small niggles, such as accidentally jerking the grith when tightening it, into major discomforts that may trigger aggression. Horses may also become more aggressive towards people around their feed bowls, fearing that their people have now taken a liking to horse food and wish to take it from them. Fear of loss is as bad as fear of pain; both are highly averisve to horses.
It is fear of loss that may teach a horse to bite over food. It's a bit of a no-brainer, but hungry horses find being fed a highly pleasurable, and indeed, exciting event. But it's also an unpredictable situation from the horses's perspective. Humans can walk off without notice, taking the food with them, they often do when carrying food past a horse, whether the food is in a bucket or in a pocket. Horses can see this as totally devastating, and they are provoked to solve the 'moving food puzzle'. Horses have little natural preparation for moving food; only when they are a foal does their food actually have legs! Foals resolve the moving food problem by cutting in front of mum, forcing her to 'stand and deliver'. When people walk off with food, horses repeat the same action they used on mum. They catch up, over take, and park themselves in front of us. And if they are very tense, they can take this one step further. When faced with sudden and unexpected removal of something valued so highly, they are triggered to intense fear and frustration, and more extreme aggression is the result.
So what's the solution? Well, it does depend on the horse and the exact situation. But, aggressive horses need to be managed so that they have a happier lifestyle. This way they'll have fewer bad hair days and be less sensitive to aversive situations. But it is also important to remove the source of fear, by identifying it, and then taking action to either avoid it or desensitise and counter condition the horse to it. The aim of desensitisation is to help the horse learn that the perceived threat is nothing to be feared. Counter conditioning teaches the horse to actually enjoy the previously frightening event. In the meantime, it is our responsibility to handle an aggressive horse as calmly as we can possibly muster.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
