the line between NH and not-NH ?

[mayS]

Just curious where the line is drawn between "natural horsemanship" and other methods?

I didn't "get" parelli, so I haven't tried it yet with Chester. Tomorrow I am going to a "7 games" type groundwork lesson though, so I am willing to give it another try. So... are all Parelli methods based on NH?

In the meantime I've gotten excellent results with clicker training. Because clicker training doesn't rely on negative reinforcement (i.e. pain, terror) would it fall into the NH catagory? (By the way, I LOVE clicker training. If anyone wants to chat about it, let me know. It's wonderful!)

And where do you draw the line for some trainers? I've watched a number of different celebrity trainers, most of which claim to use at least some NH techniques. Not many people today brag they saddlebreak horses by beating them into submission... "gentle" is a big selling point. But they do use whips and other devices to annoy, tap, or gently pressure (without lots of pain) to get their results. How much discomfort can a trainer give before they're not NH? And if a trainer isn't following NH at all but doesn't beat or terrorize to get their results, what catagory would he/she be in?

Is the TTouch method considered NH? Or something else entirely?

Just curious your thoughts on this. :)

It came up today when I was trying to teach my horse to load on my new trailer, and he wasn't having any of it. I searched the web for some ideas and came up with a HUGE spectrum of methods to get results, and some methods totally contradict others.

Thanks!
--May

[Bay Mare]

Because clicker training doesn't rely on negative reinforcement (i.e. pain, terror) would it fall into the NH catagory?

:eek: Negative reinforcement ISN'T about pain or terror which most certainly wouldn't be NH.

Negative reinforcement is when you remove something which becomes the reward. To make it clearer .... you put the leg aid on for them to walk faster, for example, they walk faster so you relax your leg, the relaxation is the reward. You release the pressure on the pressure halter when they stop pulling, the release is the reward.

Positive reinforcement is when you 'add' something as a reward (scratch, pat, treat) which encourages the action to be repeated. Saff now 'curtseys' when she wants treating :rolleyes:

Conditioned reinforcement is when nothing is added or taken away. Examples of this are the 'click' in clicker training or simply saying 'good boy'. You aren't physically adding anything or taking anything away.

[SkyLady]

Negative reinforcement should not involve pain or terror. The negative in this context means that something is the removal of stimulus, the reinforcement in this case means to increase a desired behaviour. So negative reinforcement in the case of horses should only ever involve the removal of pressure to increase a desired behaviour, the horse shouldn't be scared or in pain.

If you have ever had the chance to observe a herd of horses, you will see them using negative reinforcement eg. a dominant horse wants to graze a patch of grass a less dominant horse is eating, the dominant horse will create pressure on the other horse by first moving into the other horse's space, then is might progress to the dominant horse flattening their ears and threatening to bite or kick, and if the less dominant horse doesn't move, the dominant horse might actually go ahead and bite or kick. By moving the less dominant horse removes the pressure put on it by the dominant horse.

As for where the line is drawn between where NH and other methods, that can be a matter of perspective. People will probably disagree with me on this but for me the line is drawn where you stop taking the time it takes and begin to use gadgets eg control halters, anti-rearing bits that cause pain etc or trying to scare the horse into what you want them to do.

[SkyLady]

you beat me to it Baymare, those are great definitions. :)

[mayS]

> "Negative reinforcement ISN'T about pain or terror which most certainly wouldn't be NH."

I don't think I worded that right. :) I didn't mean to imply NH used pain.

> " Negative reinforcement is when you remove something which becomes the reward. To make it clearer .... you put the leg aid on for them to walk faster, for example, they walk faster so you relax your leg, the relaxation is the reward. You release the pressure on the pressure halter when they stop pulling, the release is the reward."

But negative reinforcement is also hitting a horse hard when he threatens to nip you. Clearly beating a horse for not walking on command isn't NH... but many things are in a grey area. My original question is where is the line between NH and not?

> "Positive reinforcement is when you 'add' something as a reward (scratch, pat, treat) which encourages the action to be repeated. Saff now 'curtseys' when she wants treating "

This is clicker training. The click is the reward. It starts out as a click+treat or click+rubs or click+other reward. Eventually with or without the treat, the horse feels rewarded/pleased/happy when he gets the click. I think there are sometimes some misconceptions on how clicker training really works for horses.

When I first heard about it, it sounded like something used to teach circus tricks but that's not it. It's more about being able to finally say "great job" in a way the animal understand no matter the task. And there's alot more to it than just click-and-reward. For the system to work it's important to know when and how often to reward, how to reward, and there is thing called "targeting" which sets the horse up to learn the overall idea that clicking = "i did the task right!"

"Conditioned reinforcement is when nothing is added or taken away. Examples of this are the 'click' in clicker training or simply saying 'good boy'. You aren't physically adding anything or taking anything away."

The clicker is a conditioned reinforcer. But that isn't a method of training unto itself. It's still in the catagory of Positive Reinforcement.

I think you've cleared up one thing I was confused about: NH doesn't use positive reinforcement, clicker training does, so the two are in two totally different catagories.

So how do you know if a trainer who says they're a NH trainer really is?

And if they're not, do all the others fall into a big lumped catagory of "traditional training"? Where would you put someone like John Lyons?

> "If you have ever had the chance to observe a herd of horses, you will see them using negative reinforcement "

But horses do use pain and fear, especially when they're first joining into a new herd. It's totally natural for a horse to kick another one (and kicks do hurt! lol) if the other horse doesn't yield. Terror is something a stallion can bring to another horse if he wants, so terror/intimidation is also natural to them. One thing I think is being said about NH is --- "motivating a horse with pain isn't natural", "NH is alll about using the natural way of interacting", "therefore pain doesn't have a place in NH" -- but that doesn't seem totally true.

So what really is NH? (more confused than ever)

[cvb]

I think you've cleared up one thing I was confused about: NH doesn't use positive reinforcement, clicker training does, so the two are in two totally different catagories.

You're assuming any method can only ever fall into one "category". or have one "attribute" or characteristic ?

so if I use NH principles to teach western riding, what's that. same principles to teach driving - completely different outcome - what's that ?

You can use positive reinforcement in NH. Its also used in clicker training.

[Yann]

NH can and does include positive reinforcement as well as negative, the head rub for example.

What NH isn't necessarily, despite people's common perception, is kind or soft on the horse, some practitoners can be very hard indeed and you'd have trouble distinguishing them from a tough traditional type other than the labels they use for what they are doing.

I think the main difference would be that punishment (in the training sense) isn't used as much by someone professing to be NH. That said you could probably find 'traditional' trainers who were kinder and gentler than some NH types, there's a whole world of misleading labels out there:D

[Esther.D]

Just wanted to add that it certainly is not a case of NH methods being gentle and nice and non-NH methods being nasty and cruel. There are good trainers in NH and non-NH and a lot of similarities.......oh and incidentally..if any of mine nip me they do get a hard slap on the neck..not to hurt, but to shock into not doing it again...and yet I use Parelli and various other NH methods and do not 'terrorise' my horses..but I do not tolerate nipping, just as another horse would not tolerate it either. You are right there is a grey area but I think that is because there are only a certain number of ways to train a horse..so there are bound to be overlaps in any methods :) Almost all methods use a mix of positive and negative reinforcement....just as you do in teaching children and all sorts of other things in life - can you imagine a school where a child could walk up and hit a teacher without the negative reinforcement of getting into trouble? So negative reinforcement is as important as positive but both need to be used sensibly and sensitively.

cross posted with Yann :)

[Tootsie4U]

NH is simply a way of communicating with your horse in a similar manner to how he communicates with other horses. Its the human adapting a 'horse' role in the relationship.

Horses can and very much are quite forceful with each other if and when they need to get their point across.

So in that, I'd say *never* using force (in all its varying degrees) would be contradictory to NH.

[Bay Mare]

But negative reinforcement is also hitting a horse hard when he threatens to nip you. Clearly beating a horse for not walking on command isn't NH... but many things are in a grey area. My original question is where is the line between NH and not?

I can't answer your original question as to where the line is because it's different from everyone's individual perspective. To me NH is a 'cover all' term for the 'kinder' methods which can include positive, negative and conditioned reinforcement and is also about seeing things from the horse's perspective and working with them rather than just saying that a horse is being naughty or bad. As others have said though it's not about being soft, there still has to be discipline. We can never forget that we're dealing with half a ton of animal who by it's very nature can be unpredictable.

Natural to some people means that you shouldn't use treed saddles or bits and your horse should be shoeless. This can even be extended to horses being turned out 24/7 and not rugged even in the wettest weather and on the coldest nights. Some people will tell you that you shouldn't clip your horse even if you're working really hard and competing at the top level. There are people that believe that if you put a rug on a horse then you're not using NH. I'm not speaking from my point of view here as riding horses isn't NH in itself if you take it to it's logical conclusion, I'm just trying to point out that NH means different things to different people and the views cover a HUGE spectrum.

Strictly speaking hitting a horse isn't negative reinforcement as you're not removing anything. There is a term for it which includes the word negative but I can't remember what it is!!! (I'm not being sarcastic btw, there really is a term for it which is negative ??????? ).

[KarinUS]

Just wanted to add that it certainly is not a case of NH methods being gentle and nice and non-NH methods being nasty and cruel.
Good Point Esther! I recently attended a seminar and the lecturer asked who all used NH. Ray and I were the only people that didn't raise their hands. We felt like evil outcasts :o :D
Truth is we use whatever works best for our horses. We don't follow any specific track just because it's NH...

[Bay Mare]

I think that it could be called 'Negative Punishment' but am not sure ....

Negative Punishment (or whatever the word is) follows unwanted behaviour (a slap that follows a bite for example). I wish that I could remember!

Following on also from your post. Yes, Clicker training in the early stages (click and TREAT) uses positive reinforcement but so does IH (scratch on the forehead when they back up when you ask or whatever) and other 'NH' methods.

I don't think that any particular method can be categorised as just using one category of reinforcement as very often some or all are used at some point in the training.

I'm going to shut up before I start confusing myself ......

[Tootsie4U]

Here ya go, a well written response to 'what is negative reinforcement' that I think will clear alot of it up.

Previous NR Thread on the Topic (http://www.newrider.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47709&highlight=negative)

Pay particular attention to Harry Hobbes reply near the bottom of the first page.

[mayS]

Oh gosh now I am even more confused :p

It seems like most trainers are trying to claim they or their methods are NH when perhaps they clearly are not. It's appears to me training as kind as possible is the in-thing, some trainers know it, so they push themselves as being NH since it comes across as kinder/gentler/better (and therefore sells more DVDs or clinic seats)

I am becoming suspicious of the popular version of NH for two reasons:
1) so many different trainers are using such different methods, and yet they call themselves NH (especially in an audience looking for newer, better methods)... the term is just being thrown about to where it's losing its meaning

2) the methods differ so much; how can these people all be getting inside the horse's mind and coming up with such diametrically opposed theories on what the horse thinks? Either people in general don't really know what horses are thinking ... or a few trainers are clueless and maybe shouldnt be giving advice ?

My goal-- I'd like to be able to watch a trainer for awhile and know for sure if they really understand & believe the NH precepts ... or if they're full of horseypoo and not worth my time.

Thanks everyone for trying to help me out. I'll get this figured out soon. :cool:

[Yann]

Most of the different flavours I've come across do operate in the same basic way and and use the same triggers. The differences are in the approach and how those behavioural triggers are used.

[cvb]

somewhere I saw a "family tree" of people relating back to the folk who tend to be recognised as NH e.g. the Dorrance Brothers. So you can tie back - Leslie Desmond, Pat Parelli, Ray Hunt, Mark Rashid - and probably some I missed - to the same "root". Then you get the next generation - like Trish Wren in Scotland who spent 2 years with Mark R (Trish is about to move to NZ !). But Trish doesn't really say she's NH (and neither does Mark).

I guess you need to remove the NH tag and look a bit deeper.

[Yann]

Quite a few trainers avoid the NH tag, Kelly Marks doesn't use it to my knowledge, nor do Richard Maxwell or Mike Peace.

[Crystal Fire]

I don't know how we work it out. Just go see the trainers whatever the label and decide if we'd like to learn from them on an individual basis probably.
I consider myself to be a natural horseman (or woman or person!!). It sometimes gives me a different angle on a problem, maybe a sort of alternative interpretation of what is going on. I've given some useful advice recently on another board for what has seemed to be "normal" problems. It's helped. It was based on what I learnt from "NH" trainers, but it was just applying my personal experience to the problem, whatever the source. So, maybe all we need is Common Sense Horsemanship? :D

[katefarmer]

It's a really interesting question.

The first thing my NH mentor ever said to me (after the "hello, nice to meet you" bit) was "To really use what I am going to show you, you will have to learn to let go of your anthropomorphism". i.e. I had to learn to stop trying to interpret equine behaviour in human terms, wipe that side of my brain, and start learning to see equine behaviour in horse terms. At first it was really difficult. So much of what they do LOOKS like human behaviour - naughty, stubborn, evasive etc. - and it's so easy to treat a horse like an unruly child and come at the whole thing with a human mind-set. (Sometimes this will work - but only by coincidence!)

However, I stuck at it, and eventually did manage to start re-writing my horse-handling circuits into "horse". The more I did, the easier it became, until now it is often so glaringly obvious to me what a horse is saying, I am amazed everyone else can't see it. Sometimes the problems are really complex and hard to get to the bottom of - but the vast majority are very simple and have very simple solutions. You just have to solve them in "horse time" which does not have a clock - it takes the time it takes!

There are loads of people who call themselves NH out there, and some who probably are but don't use the label. All of them say they come from the horse's point of view. Some of them do, some don't. Some of them take a series of exercises and say "do this, and that will happen". Some use exercises that are meaningful for the horse, but give totally human explanations for them and for the horse's behaviour. For some it's all about the equipment - it's OK to whack your horse with a fibreglass rod, but not a whip; you're only "natural" if your horse is barefoot and you ride in a halter etc. etc. For me, this is the "fake" NH - or rather, it's missing the point of what understanding the horse is really about. However, they're all using the label - so perhaps the angle that I (and all the rest who have made the mental jump to the horse's side of the fence) come from needs a different label! :D Any ideas, anyone? :)

So, what makes me think that I understand horses better than most? It's all those "Oh - NOW I get it!" moments from both horses and people - many of which have already done quite a lot of commerically successful NH programmes before. I mention no names, because it may not be the programme that's at fault. It's all about communication - people to people, people to horses, and horses to people. If any bit of this isn't working, there'll be a flaw in the whole thing. There are also some truly great natural horsemen out there who are fantastic with horses but pretty useless at communicating with people! I guess they are the original "whisperers" - the horses hear it loud and clear, but the people don't get it! :D

I think you're also spot on mayS in saying there's a lot of hype, marketing and fashion out there too that has very little to do with understanding horses!

Does that help? No, probably not - but an interesting discussion point and fun to reply to!

Kate
www.harmony-project.net

[cvb]

so are there any opinions on the "equine ethology" description/classification as an alternative ?

[katefarmer]

"Equine Ethology" sounds great - but when you Google it - it comes up with Parelli all over it. Nothing against Parelli per se - but it's a "brand" and what we're talking about is a way of thinking of which Parelli may be one commercially successful exponent, but the Parelli brand is certainly not definitive of ??? whatever it is! :D

Kate
www.harmony-project.net

[cvb]

wonder what White Horse Equine Ethology think about it all - they seem to be the main other source quoted... and are "internationally renowned"....

I guess I'd seen "Equine Ethology" as the context, with Parelli as the brand.

Like office apps - and Microsoft as the brand. yes Microsoft are dominant, but they are not the only player ?

[Kate F.]

:D Like the Microsoft analogy! Does that mean Pat Parelli is the Bill Gates of the NH world? ;)

Kate

[Crystal Fire]

Oooh dear what a thought! It's quite interesting really because Bill Gates managed to persuade the world that Microsoft=Software, even when his product wasn't the best out there... So, if so many people think Parell=Natural Horsemanship... even if... :D
Personally I want the line between NH and not NH to blur until people realise that natural isn't about some bunch of evangelical horse-hippies. Applied well, NH should just be about applying knowledge and experience of horse behaviour to any situation, discipline or whatever.
Anyway, won't talk long tonight as am half way down a bottle of red. I'm rattling away at my Silversand clinics newsletter, which should have been out last month :o
Anyone want a copy give me a yell.