"The Horse In The Forest"

That sounds like a fun book. I will have to look and see if I can find it. I have never felt a need for “unnecessary” rules. I have always joked that mules don’t tolerate unecessary rules well! Of course what is necessary is very much in the eye of the beholder (beholder – one who holds the rope). My personal space from horses and mules would appear very relaxed and casual to many folks, but it is very clear to me and my animals where our boundaries are. Eating in harness can be a huge problem. Not much can be done about nibbling a branch in front of the face, but for me putting a head down to eat grass in harness is something I hate to see.

Side note: two Amish horses ( with a forecart) showed up in front of my barn today! My wife felt the young boys must be around some where, but nope; this team had left them in the wood lot across the street and run up my drive way and stopped at the barn. Lucky for all concerned.

Interestingly, I have been challenged greatly this last month with a 2 1/2 y/o mule. I do try and do some “training” as I put a new comer to work. I value using work as training because the animals do respond so well to our initiative and involving them in something beyond themselves. But you still need a few safe, logical baby steps to put the young animal to work. Pete, who you didn’t meet at the Field Days; is right at the cusp where this takes place. It is fun, interesting and frustrating all at the same time.

About a month ago he was pulling a pair of small poles around. I should have moved him to something a little bigger and heavier, but before I did he started taking these poles back to the barn on his own. Since then I have been trying different things to get back where I was with him. In some sense the problem I have had in the last month is lost initiative. Fortunately I am the kind of person that is not overly disappointed by this. I am learning from him, and trying different things each time we get together.

To make long story short, he is reminding me of the value of work in training.

Hey Donn, I forgot to put quotes around the “train”, because I was trying to point out what I see as a misconception about the transition of training to working.

I was also primarily thinking of it from the example Jared used of “Do not teach a horse unnecessary things such as standing in his stall when the door is open….If a horse turns the head and wants some hay when you are coming in with it, let the horse have a bite” ….

This smacks to me of the training exercise looking for an excuse for purpose. I have a slightly different understanding of training than most, and to some degree I think it translates into some difficulty or limitations for people working animals.

Your latest comments seem to ring to this as well. I never train an animal to “do” anything. Like standing for example. My horses stand whenever I ask them to, not because it is something I trained them to do, but because they understand what I am telling them to do at the time. It is not because I have conditioned them to stand stock still every time I make a certain gesture, but because they read my body language, and they keep checking in with me to make sure we are on the same page.

I have a tendency to let my horses out of the pasture by opening the gate and allowing them to go into the barn on their own, into stalls where food awaits. But, I can also go into the pasture, or anywhere they are, halter them and lead them in handfuls to where they stand and wait for me to unhalter, or tie off, depending. This apparent inconsistency is facilitated not by perpetuating conditioned response, which would be broken down by the inconsistency of the two different approaches, but because they have been “trained” to follow my lead, and they have been “trained” to the communication I used.

I think that the underlying principle behind the comment from the book is that there is a difference between training conditioned response, and training communication. To many people, the training exercise appears to be a list of actions and activities that these animals should be able to accomplish when asked…. and that is fine, I am not trying to dismiss that, it’s just that I see those exercises as integrating components of communication that is often overlooked in favor of the desired response.

I know from having this conversation with many folks, that it can be very hard to refine what I am trying to describe. I see the exercise of getting the horse to stand still, not as my interest to have the horse stand still, but to calibrate the language that I need to use in order for me to get that response. When I see the horse give me the desired response, it shows me not that they are following my command, but that they understand the cues I am giving them. Then I can reuse those cues over and over in many differing situations pertaining to work.

Having a horse stand and wait until released seems to me more of an exercise of dominance than communication, and that is how I interpret the comment from the book. “Don’t wast your time on conditioned response that demonstrates your dominance, but focus of those aspects of your relationship that bolster your communication”….

And I see limitations in working situations where teamsters are almost expecting a horse to do a particular thing because they have given the appropriate command. “push the right button, and this should occur” I see many folks not expanding their communication skills because they tend to look for mechanical responses to specific actions.

I am struggling with how to work through this, because I realize there are more than one way to skin a cat, and there are other schools of thought, but I also find that the conventional wisdom is heavily oriented toward the conditioned response camp. I tried to have this discussion with Doc Hammel, who just looked at me blankly. I tried to tell him that what I see in watching a horse follow his training is a horse watching for cues that they can count on to reinforce their chosen behavior. What he sees is a horse that has become used to the situation, desensitized, and conditioned to respond a certain way.

I have tried to describe that even the oldtimers who tried to force horses into submission were actually, unknowingly, taking advantage of the fact that the horse finally sees the human relax when they do the expected action. Horses are always trying to communicate with us, but there is a human tendency to break up our communication into actionable commands, turning our attention to something else in between. Like sound bites. Steps on a ladder.

I see it as more fluid, perpetual. When I have setbacks, I don’t try to rebuild something, because I don’t see anything being lost. The setback is a clarifier, for me, and for the horses, because I see the communication as being stretched and expanded.

I don’t think that people should give up their training programs, that is not my point. I just want to have a discussion of moving from basic training into working. Some review of the actual outcome of a particular exercise in terms of what that brings to the future working relationship. And potentially some exploration of the difference between conditioned response and the expression of fluid communication in application to varying and complicated situations.

Carl

I agree Will, but it can be tricky to teach; just as Carl eludes to. it is based a lot less on rules, and a lot more on our power of observation, and our ability to respond to what we see and hear from the animals we are working with.

I love the analogy of young children and use it often even though it is occasionally pointed out that I have never in fact had any kids of my own! For me the power of that analogy is in both describing who I think they are (horses and mules are like 6 y/o children) and how I would hope to interact with them. Simple, direct, caring, leadership.

Had a great day with Pete today, as I was finally able to untye myself from some preconceived notions and find a few things that worked for him. Part of what worked was thinking not about Pete, but in teaching Gillian and Mark (two folks working with me today) about what I was doing. This took a little focus off of Pete, and gave him moments to relax. I was teaching Gillian how to use her body position and body language to move the mule, and we did this today with just our hands and feet, then a rope halter and rope, and finally with a bridle and bit. But the point of it all was that even when we moved up to the bridle and bit we where still aware of how our body position and language could move the animal. At first the lines didn’t go through any hames rings.

At 4 pm I drove him on a very long walk all over the farm and woods.

Hi Will, That is a great question, and I think related to the topic above. My horses and mules have always been handled by many, many people; both beginners and other teamsters. even in training a youngster (horse or mule) I will let someone try as long as I think I can control their safety. I think this works for me in part because I focus on what Carl would call communication versus commands. In this way my horses and mules just need to hear me coming to step into the communication / trust / relationship we have. I know many folks have felt this lost through sharing their animals with other people. It just hasn’t worked out that way for me. My “rules” in a barn are so simple that it would be almost impossible for someone else to come in there and mess them up for me. But then I may have to remind folks that if you stick your fingers in their mouths they might bite you; and don’t be afraid to ask horses or mules to move, don’t walk around them. etc.

training other peoples horses certainly falls in another category.

Most of the other folks driving my horses are there to learn so of course they are learning my ideas about pressure, contact, and communication through the lines; but this is not always true. At the field days, as well as being driven by many beginners, my horses were also driven by Jay, Daniel, Michael, Tommy, and at least one Amishmen. With an experienced teamster; they don’t pick up a set of lines with a preconceived notion that the lines must be tight or loose. They ask the team to go and then give them the pressure and guidance they need (communicate) to go where and when the teamster hoped to go. They won’t hurt your horses if they know what they are doing, and if they don’t, teach!

• This reply was modified 9 years ago by Donn Hewes.