training shelter dogs at a facility for mentally ill youths RETHINKING DOMINANCE

e q u i n e Rethinking Dominance

In this first of a two-part series, Dorothy Heffernan compares the human and equine perspective of the concept of dominance in horses and explains how, by rethinking it, we can build a better bond with our horses

In 21st century horse keeping, we require a range of behaviors from our horses. Some of these involve the horse staying near us and not leaving, such as grooming, tacking up, leading, waiting to have a head collar, halter or bridle put on, not moving away when we climb on their backs, walking next to us when led, not moving away when we ask them to lift their feet, when we use clippers, give injections, and administer medications. At the same time, we have a whole range of behaviors where we expect the horse to move away from us and stay away. These include lunging, loose schooling and not crowding us when we’re in their stable or paddock. We also expect horses to follow us in certain situations, e.g. walking into an enclosure like a pen, a stable or a trailer/float/truck, walking through gates and gaps, or walking past other horses. Although we may think we are, we Human conclusions about equine behavior may not necessarily match with the science that describes how animals behave in herds and why horses behave the way they do © Can Stock Photo/ Zuzule are not necessarily always completely methodical when we train these behaviors. For example, we train leading, but are often surprised when a This makes systematic training much less necessary. In such a case, all horse tries to move away from us when asked to walk with us through we have to do is become the horse’s leader, the one who moves their more challenging environments. We train a horse to stay close and not feet, i.e. the “dominant” or “alpha” herd member. Once that happens, move away when we clean his hooves and groom him, but then we may all the behaviors we find desirable will automatically happen without be displeased when he stays close and won’t move away during lunging. the need for training. Or will they?

We may also tend to attach labels to our horses’ failure to perform To continue the analogy, we may then consider the failure to peras we expect they should, without necessarily having the insight to label form any of the behaviors listed above either as an attempt by the horse it “poor training.” Instead, we might make it an attribute of the horse to “dominate” us or to “disrespect” our perceived authority. If she fails herself, e.g. “she is disrespectful,” “she is bargy or baulky,” “she is domiin a “proximity” behavior – for example, moving away from the mountnant,” etc. This is a very human trait – undesirable things done by others ing block, pulling hooves away when being shod or trimmed, running are often attributed to something inherent in them, but when we do away when we approach with a halter, attempting to bite when the the same thing ourselves, it’s a completely different situation. girth is done up, refusing to load or pulling away from us during leading

A common argument is that if a horse “respects” us, acknowledges – we might say she is testing us to discover whether she is more “domius as their ”leader,” or is properly “submissive,” he will automatically nant” or that she has no respect for our authority. defer to us in the way that we believe he would defer to another horse. Again, if a horse fails in a “distance” behavior, such as running at us

In 21st century horse keeping, we require a range of behaviors from our horses. Some of these involve the horse staying near us and not leaving, such as grooming, tacking up, leading, waiting to have a head collar, halter or bridle put on, not moving away when we climb on their backs, walking next to us when led, not moving away when we ask them to lift their feet, when we use clippers, give injections, and administer medications. At the same time, we have a whole range of behaviors where we expect the horse to move away from us and stay away.

We...tend to attach labels to our horses’ failure to perform as we expect they should, without necessarily having the insight to label it “poor training.” Instead, we might make it an attribute of the horse herself, e.g. “she is disrespectful,” “she is bargy or baulky,” “she is dominant,” etc. This is a very human trait.

when we are loose schooling him, falling in on the lunge, bucking and kicking out at us when we’re in his paddock, crowding us in his stable, we may say he is testing us, lacking in respect, or trying to dominate us.

Expectations

In the modern world of horse keeping, many of us have an additional class of behavior requirements in that we want our horse to like, love or care for us. We may attribute soulful properties to him along the lines of him being able to sense our emotions or thoughts and/or unite with us in a spiritual sense. Yet again, however, if he fails to demonstrate these attachment behaviors in a way that is desirable to us, we may see it as a way of testing our leadership, or simply treating us as the submissive partner in the relationship. We may say things like, “He only has to work an hour a day,” “He’s stubborn,” or “He’s so ungrateful,” etc.

We may also take our expectations and beliefs and look for evidence of them when we watch our horses. For example, if we see a horse chase another horse, we may say the one chasing is dominant. If we see a horse take food from another horse, we may say she’s dominant. If we see a horse kick out or strike out at another horse, we say he’s dominant. We observe that other horses tend to stay a safe distance from the kickers and chasers, and not try to take their food, and so we think this means the other horses respect them. It’s a short jump for us to conclude that the kickers, chasers and biters are the leaders. They are the bosses of the other horses, and bosses are leaders, because bosses decide what everybody else should do and they insist on prompt obedience to requests, backed up with threats and followed up with aggressive action.

The problem with these types of conclusions is that they only provide a snapshot of horse behavior. This often occurs in situations where the horses are not members of a family group and are not in a natural environment. Add to that the fact that, as observers, we have a tendency to see what confirms our beliefs and to either miss things that don’t agree, or explain them away using sometimes contradictory statements, aka confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998). In fact, then, our conclusions, while seeming accurate to us, don’t actually match with the science that describes how animals behave in herds and why horses behave the way they do. The conclusions of science are based on the study of many thousands of horses in different settings and over decades, taking into account all the behavior rather than choosing behaviors that support what the observer wants to believe. n

Reference

Nickerson, R.S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 2: 175–220

Resources

Bourjade, M., Thierry, B., Hausberger, M., & Petit, O. (2015). Is leadership a reliable concept in animals? An empirical study in the horse. PLoS ONE 10:e0126344 Briard, L., Dorn, C., & Petit, O. (2015). Personality and affinities play a key role in the organisation of collective movements in a group of domestic horses. Ethology 121: 888–902 Cameron, E.Z., Setsaas, T.H., & Linklater, W.L. (2009). Social bonds between unrelated females increase reproductive success in feral horses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 13850-13853 Fureix, C., Bourjade, M., Henry, C., Sankey, C., & Hausberger, M. (2012). Exploring aggression regulation in managed groups of horses Equus caballus. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 138: 3-4 216–228 Krueger, K., Flauger, B., Farmer, K., & Hemelrijk, C. (2013). Movement initiation in groups of feral horses. Behavioural Processes (103) 91–101

Dorothy Heffernan is a Scotland, U.K.-based psychologist who applies her knowledge of learning, cognition and neuroscience to help horse owners improve their horses’ lives through a changed approach to management, training and environment. She uses a force-free approach to training and enjoys making science fun and relatable. Since 2013, she has written the blog Horses Under Our Skin to help people understand why their horses behave the way they do. She is an endorsed trainer of the World Bitless Association and helps horse owners transition to bitless riding using positive reinforcement techniques. In addition, she works with horse, pony and donkey guardians using an evidence-based approach to resolve behavior issues from handling, riding, transporting and husbandry problems. She has been a chartered member of the British Psychological Society for nearly 20 years.

BARKS from the Guild

BARKS from the Guild is the 64-page bi-monthly pet industry trade magazine published by the Pet Professional Guild, available internationally to Pet Professional Guild members, supporters and the general public via a free lifetime digital subscription.

Widely read by pet industry professionals and pet guardians alike, BARKS covers a vast range of topics encompassing animal behavior, pet care, training, education, industry trends, business AND MUCH MORE!

If you would like to reach your target audience, BARKS is the perfect vehicle to achieve that goal.

To contribute an article, please contact the editor, Susan Nilson: barkseditor@petprofessionalguild.com

barksfromtheguild.com

To advertise, please contact Kelly Fahey: Kelly@petprofessionalguild.com