What good horse training is about …

This was not intended to be a Christmas post, I had already started to write it some months ago - but time flies and this year has been crazy. So, it might just become an “end of the year” reflection.

The more I have been involved in discussions about horse training, the more I have also been exposed to in part quite emotional and sometimes straight forward aggressive discussions about how horse training should be. So many schools, so many different views on how horses’ “function”, so many strong personalities who are utterly convinced that they do it right (which often includes the logic that all others are wrong). I do not believe in shaming and blaming (abusive training methods explicitly excluded) - I tend to believe that all this toxicity prevents us from being better horse people. Whatever we carry in us will eventually impact the way we interact with our four-legged friends. Not talking about the waste of energy all this negativity costs us. There comes a price with anger and aggression; I’d rather not pay it. But of course, one of the lessons learned in 2024 was that I may have to position myself more explicitly – And I herewith do, I am always on the horse’s side!

As a scientist, I believe that effective and ethic horse training should be as science-based as possible. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that the scientific foundations need to be explicitly recognized. I know many excellent horse trainers who train in a very horse-friendly manner without an explicit reference to the potential scientific principles underlying their methods. Yet, when I examine their training techniques more closely, I often detect a common pattern: their methods generally align with learning theory, these trainers are precise in their demands and signals, and the training is predictable, making it manageable and controllable for the horse. Additionally, I would argue that skilled horse trainers succeed in creating a friendly and non-threatening work environment. You could also say the atmosphere is relaxed and peaceful….

Such a statement explicitly excludes dominance-based training methods. Contrary to popular belief and the claims of some training techniques, horses in groups or herds do not adhere to a dominance hierarchy, rather they build social networks (e.g. Bernátková et al. 2023). The concept of dominance is a human construct applied to horse training; horses do not operate like humans, training based on dominance theory is essentially anthropomorphism at its worst.

How could it happen, that these methods became so popular?  Dominance-based methods can be somewhat effective because horses are socially intelligent and often manage to decipher what is expected of them. However, this effectiveness comes at a significant cost. Dominance-based training often involves aggression from the human handler and sometimes even overt abuse, justified by the notion that one must "take over leadership" or “the horse has to respect me as the leader”. Horses do not have a clue about the human concept of “respect” and this approach can severely damage the relationship between horse and human, sometimes irreparably. Furthermore, if aggression is part of unpredictable training, it can lead the horse into a state of learned helplessness, akin to human depression. Some horses may never recover from such a profound psychological and emotional trauma. Beyond the ethical concerns, these methods ultimately fail to achieve their goal of developing a reliable and safe partner for equine activities.

Moreover, it is in fact very “human” to infer our own experiences our own particular world-view into everything we do, even in science! This leads us to the question, how “objective” science is. Whow, strong statement from a dedicated scientist! But let’s be honest, every period of “science” happened and still happens in a societal and historic context. There is, of course, also a certain dependency on available methodology, which has been very influential e.g. in Neuroscience. Therefore, it is one of the fundamentals of science, that results need to be questioned and if necessary to be revised. One of the most amusing examples is in my eyes the discovery that the famous “Birka Warrior” who was seen as a powerful male Viking leader, even though he was a bit small and light build in frame was actually female! https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/viking-warrior-woman-archaeology-spd 

It was previously unimaginable that a rich and well-established Viking leader buried with honors could be a woman. Only with advancements in DNA technology was the true identity of the Birka Warrior revealed, prompting a reevaluation of the Viking Age and the roles of women in Viking society. 😊

Humans typically live in a world structured by hierarchies, often male dominated. The case study of the “Birka Warrior” who, in fact, was a Shield Maiden is a hilarious example how implicit social concepts work, also in science. The concept of dominance hierarchies is evident in the military, politics, religious institutions, universities, and many other aspects of human society. Since transitioning from hunter-gatherer societies, humans (often in patriarchic societies, even though the Birka Shield Maiden is the perfect example, that even that interpretation must be questioned 😉) have organized themselves into roles like warlords and priests, navigating through dominance hierarchies often marked by aggression. However, why do we assume that other species are socially organized in the same way as humans? This assumption is a clear example of anthropomorphism. In reality, most other species do not adhere to the hierarchical structures typical of human society.

Returning to the topic of dominance-based horse training: These methods are designed for humans, as we are most familiar with dominance hierarchies. However, they are certainly not suitable for horses and have the potential to cause more harm than good. Negative emotions in horse training should be minimized as much as possible because they not only damage the horse-human relationship but also impair the horse's ability to learn effectively.

But returning to the initial question: What represents good horse training? Beyond creating a friendly, peaceful, and aggression-free learning environment, all the proficient horse trainers I've had the privilege to meet or work with employ a highly structured training system that is logical, making it predictable and reliable for the horse, often beginning with groundwork and then transferring the same signals to riding. Signal consistency means that a specific response is requested, and the correct response from the horse is always reinforced under all circumstances.

Thus, good horse training ensures reliability and predictability, providing a sense of mental and behavioral "safety" for the horse, a prey animal by nature, prone to be fearful. As a general rule, the connection between a signal and a response is established through the application of the principles of learning. Such a structured approach not only fosters clear communication but also enhances the horse's confidence and trust in their handler.  (also see my blog on instrumental conditioning and learning theory: https://www.scienceforhorselovers.com/en/blog-entry/learning-by-success-from-thorndike-s-puzzle-box-to-houdini-horses-a-short-gallop-through-learning-theory ).  Predictability and controllability in training are likely the most crucial prerequisites for the mental health of our four-legged companions (beyond good husbandry). Check out the five domains model for horses e.g. on this website: https://www.worldhorsewelfare.org/advice/the-5-domains-of-animal-welfare?srsltid=AfmBOookE1DBaaURKc-wgS4ki3qxQ2aiJb_3CqyRyZbrkp7QqQjBnkT9 .

In my view, ALL good horse trainers adhere to these principles, whether they explicitly acknowledge them or not, and regardless of their awareness of them. Of course, this assertion also hinges on my definition of "good." Horses pay a price for our use of them (and hopefully not abuse) for our purposes. The moment we decide to engage with horses, we choose to "use" them in one way or another. From my perspective, this decision carries an ethical obligation to minimize the costs for our four-legged friends and maximize the benefits for them as much as possible.

 I am certainly not alone in pondering what defines good horse training. The International Society for Equitation Science (ISES) outlines 10 principles of horse training that offer a solid framework for ethical practices (ISES Training Principles https://www.equitationscience.com/ises-training-principles )). I believe these principles serve as an excellent guideline for ethical horse training. They not only assist trainers in their mission but also aid equestrians in selecting the right trainer, regardless of whether the trainers are consciously aware that they are adhering to these principles.

While I strongly advocate for science and the scientific method, this does NOT imply that I only endorse training methods that explicitly base themselves on scientific principles or learning theory. On the contrary, from my perspective, good horse training universally adheres to the same foundational principles, regardless of whether they are explicitly labeled as "scientific."

Indeed, the term "scientific" has sometimes (and maybe even “more often” lately) been misappropriated as a pseudo-label to denote quality and to endorse supposedly science-based approaches. Unfortunately, this label is often used to lend credibility to methods that may include unjustified claims and may even be used to justify abusive practices. Therefore, it's crucial to remain vigilant and critical when "science" is invoked to justify training methods, especially those involving abusive or violent tactics. True scientific principles do not support violence in training, and any claim to the contrary should be viewed with skepticism. Authentic science-based training should promote the welfare and ethical treatment of animals, emphasizing methods that are violence and aggression free, effective, and grounded in well-established scientific research. When somebody claims their methods are “scientific” it is most legitimate to ask for the reference or resource.

My personal approach emphasizes the importance of understanding and applying the laws of learning to evaluate various horse training methods. By doing so, I am very consciously not dismissing methods that aren't explicitly labeled as "scientific," but rather, I try to recognize the underlying principles that make a training method effective as well as horse friendly. Beyond that and most important, I watch the horse and his behavior, facial expression and body language. Horses tell us, how they feel and what they need. Beyond all techniques, may they be as elaborate as can be, we need to listen.

This perspective is crucial because it acknowledges that good horse training, regardless of the specific approach or terminology used, often relies on similar foundational principles. These principles include understanding of and respect for the horses nature, consistency in training, the absence of aggression, violence and/or dominance or threatening behavior on the side of the human. By focusing on these core principles rather than getting caught up in the specific labels or minor differences in approaches and opinions, trainers can adopt a more holistic, horse friendly, and effective approach to horse training not only enhancing training outcomes but also promoting the ethical treatment of horses, aligning with the best practices in animal welfare.

The mission of "Science for Horse Lovers" is to disseminate the growing body of knowledge concerning the nature of our four-legged companions and the related field of Equitation Science. This initiative is founded on the belief and understanding that most equestrians deeply love horses and share a common goal: to provide the best possible care for our equine friends, encompassing both their mental and emotional well-being beyond attending to their basic needs.

While the specific paths and methods equestrians choose to achieve this goal may differ, the underlying objective unites us all. It transcends the subtle differences in traditions and terminology that might otherwise separate us. "Science for Horse Lovers" aims to bridge these divides by promoting an informed, compassionate, and scientifically grounded approach to horse care and training. Ultimately, this mission is driven by the love for horses and respect for their true nature, striving to enhance our understanding and treatment of these magnificent animals for the betterment of their lives and our shared experiences with them.

Reference:

Bernátková A, Oyunsaikhan G, Šimek J, Komárková M, Ceacero F. Social networks of reintroduced Przewalski's horses in the Great Gobi B Strictly Protected Area (Mongolia). Curr Zool. 2023 Mar 27;70(2):182-194. doi: 10.1093/cz/zoad011. PMID: 38726256; PMCID: PMC11078051.

Just some selected recommended readings for the holydays😊

Lynn Acton 2020. What horses really want. Unlocking the secrets to trust, cooperation, and reliability. Introducing protector leadership. Trafalgar Square Books, North Pomfret, Vermont, USA.

Paul McGreevy, Janne Winther Kristensen, Uta König von Borstel, and Andrew McLean 2018. Equitation Science 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Hoboken, United States.

Konstanze Krüger & Isabell Marr 2022. Forschung trifft Pferd. Kosmos Verlag, Stuttgart