Rope halters, patience poles, and clickers, oh my!
A recent discussion about the dangers of rope halters, patience poles, and other forms of restrictive training methods got me thinking. (Can you smell the smoke from there?) Is clicker training really as dangerous as tying a horse to a pole and letting the horse learn through physical and emotional struggle that efforts to escape are futile?
Hmmm. Think about that for a minute. Like, really try to envision the learning process in the horse. Now, close your eyes and imagine that you are tied to a pole by your head. You are confused, possibly frightened, and definitely having a panic attack.
I did this exercise recently, and you know what I thought?
Fuck that shit.
Then I wanted to find the idiot who tied me up and kick ’em in the arse. Or head. Whichever was closest.
While it is possible for all training methods to be done in a way that is harmful to the horse, not all training methods are fair to the animal, let alone effective or humane.
Animal Welfare Science Can Help Us Keep Enjoying Horses
Leveraging scientific research for the improved welfare of domestic horses is the goal of animal welfare science. If we want to continue to enjoy the company of horses, their recreational benefits, and even their commercial value, we must evaluate all methods of shaping behavior–whether those methods are old ones or new ones–from the perspective of the horse, who is an animal. We are not “training horses”, we are shaping the behavior of an ungulate-a hoofed mammal. When we remember that the horse is something more than the label we have given it, a certain measure of respect and consideration seems to take priority in our work with them.
Exonerative Beliefs
Exonerative beliefs are part of a belief system that people develop in order to absolve themselves of blame (Cornish et al., 2018), particularly to overcome the cognitive dissonance associated with the inhumane treatment of animals (Serpell, 2005).
A common phrase we hear that is a classic example of an exonerative belief is: “All bits have the potential to be harmful, it all depends on the skill of the rider.” This is often heard in response to concern about the use of painful bits.
Or this one:
“All training methods have the potential to be injurious to the horse. It all depends on the education of the trainer.” This justification is typically heard from people who have little experience with or knowledge of the scientific application of positive reinforcement.
To anthropomorphize animals is not necessarily bad. In fact, it is what enables empathy in us. Or, perhaps it is the other way around: our empathy leads to anthropomorphizing. Either way, when we empathize with an animal’s feelings when they are treated inhumanely or even just stressed out, our internal acknowledgement of the horse’s reality leads to cognitive dissonance – that uncomfortable feeling we get when we do something that contradicts something we inherently believe is ethical. Cognitive dissonance is so ingrained that we rarely recognize it when it is happening.
When you, or someone you know, tries to downplay positive reinforcement, be on the lookout for cognitive dissonance. Do the statements about R+ reflect inner conflict, or ignorance? Or both?
Is Positive Reinforcement More Dangerous Than Other Training Methods?
There is no debate about skill level and training methods. It is common knowledge that inexperience in any endeavor increases risk of failure or injury. This does not, however, exempt certain training methods from being more inherently dangerous than others. Positive reinforcement (aka clicker training), for example, is less dangerous than restrictive training methods because it engages a different part of the horse’s brain.
Intense or chronic pressure, whether physical or psychological, triggers the horse’s Sympathetic Adrenal Medullary system (SAM). This is an unpredictable physiological loop that can result in explosive behavior or the learned helplessness and exhaustion that accompanies “flooding”. In fact, the term flooding refers to the hormonal overload that happens as part of the horse’s SAM response.
When a horse is so over their emotional threshold, the parasympathetic nervous system has no choice but to shut everything down in order to prevent death. If this is the training method one chooses to use, they do so because they either do not understand how this part of the horse’s nervous system works, or because they have developed strong exonerative beliefs (justification) for its use.
As horse trainers, it is important for us to reflect upon our own belief systems and try to identify what things we cling to, especially if those things help us to feel more in control of the process, relevant, knowledgeable, comfortable, or safe. I am not immune from having exonerative beliefs. Most people have them. This part of the human psyche has been functioning for hundreds of thousands of years, with research and literature supporting the existence of exonerative beliefs surrounding animals hunted for food going all the way back to the Paleolithic era (Serpell, 2005).
Happy Horses are Easier to Teach
Challenges in clicker training are surmountable even with just a little education. Sometimes, clicker training difficulties require creativity more than knowledge. The principles of operant conditioning are static, so once you understand the principles, clicker training becomes far less dangerous than methods that engage the horse’s SAM (fight or flight) system.
And remember, horses crave predictability. Routine, habits, and repetition in their learning isn’t just an ethical approach to teaching them, predictability also releases hormones that create a positive affective state in the animal (puts ’em in a good mood). Happy horses are much easier to teach and train. Hard stop.
Transition, Not Change
To eliminate all traditional methods of training horses is not the goal of animal welfare science. It is unrealistic and impractical to do away with traditional training methods. Instead, we can slowly and methodically replace the most stressful methods with kinder ones. Thankfully, we now have scientific methods and data to help us figure out which ones are which. – HH
————–
References:
Cornish, M., Woodyatt, L., Morris, G., Conroy, A., Townsdin, J. (2018) Self-forgiveness, self-exoneration, and self-condemnation: Individual differences associated with three patterns of responding to interpersonal offenses. Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 129, 2018, Pages 43-53, ISSN 0191-8869, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.003.
Serpell, J.A. 2005. Animals and religion: Towards a unifying theory. In: de Jong, F. & van den Bos, R. (Eds.) The Human-Animal Relationship, pp. 9-22. Assen, Netherlands: Royal Van Gorcum.
