Horse owners! Can you help to develop a new and exciting equine behaviour questionnaire which will greatly advance our understanding of how training and management affect horse behaviour. This current questionnaire is a draft which will eventually turn into a final version due for wider release next March. There are already canine and feline versions of this assessment tool, designed to provide owners and professionals with standardised evaluations of temperament and behaviour, and the canine one particularly is well on its way to being recognised as the only behavioural assessment instrument of its kind to be extensively tested for reliability and validity on large samples of dogs of many breeds. This is what the E-BARQ aims to replicate for horses, and it would be great if you could help with its development at this early stage. Link to the survey below, should take about 30 minutes but you can save it and do it in stages.
The chief executive of World Horse Welfare has called for a “social licence” between the wider public and the horse industry. Gone are the days when lay people deferred to “expert” horse people as to which practices were acceptable and which were not; today the pressure from other parts of society on the treatment of horses is increasing. To establish this social licence, equestrian bodies need to be honest and transparent and they need to take decisive action to eradicate anything that harms the welfare of the horse, WHW Chief Executive Roly Owers argued.
Mr Owers highlighted the unique horse-human partnership seen in equestrian competition, and the great respect in which equestrians held their equine athlete partners. He encouraged industry stakeholders to respond to public perceptions by actively engaging with people whose lives don’t revolve around horses in the same way, and by demonstrating excellent welfare practices, pointing out that welfare rules do exist within sporting bodies’ regulations and emphasising that these must be enforced, and must run the spread of the horse’s life from foaling to death.
However in some reports of Mr Owers’ speech there could be some confusion and generalisation about the motivations of “animal rights” activists. He is quoted as saying, “This growing movement to recognise the rights of animals is often conflated with animal welfare…………..But animal welfare is about improving conditions and treatment of animals, not seeking to ban their involvement with humans. There is a big difference.”
In my research and experience I have not found that all those who campaign for animal rights seek to ban all animals’ involvement with humans (though certainly a proportion may). Rather, many who might sit in this category are concerned that animals whose lives are managed by humans, be that on farms, in zoos, on free-roaming reserves, as sporting athletes or as companions, are allowed to exercise choice and indeed agency in psychological terms, and are able to express their species-specific behaviours with the frequency and intensity that their natural activity budgets determine. That’s certainly not a call for stopping all human-animal interaction, and both those conditions are clearly articulated as desirable criteria in evaluating the “life worth living” or “good life” welfare standards called for in the Five Domains model (see link below, Mellor, D. J. (2016). Updating Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “A Life Worth Living.” Animals : An Open Access Journal from MDPI, 6(3), 21. http://doi.org/10.3390/ani603002)
To generalise all those concerned with what has come to be defined as animal rights, both popularly and as an ethical position in moral philosophy (see Peter Singer and Tom Regan), and to set this apart from a drive to improve animal welfare, may be to create an unhelpful dualism that all those who seek to improve the lot of animals might usefully consider transcending.
Who doesn’t understand the confirmation bias? I mean really. It’s so basic, all undergrad Psychology second years are just so familiar with it. See what I did there? Read on… there is so much to like in the article below (click on the link to open it). It’s interesting to think about human behaviour change in the context of the many changes taking place in our understanding of domestic horses, how they feel and function.
Information about how our management and training affects our horses’ health and physiology is still generally more persuasive than information about how our decisions affect them emotionally, even though both are from equally valid and scientific sources and indeed overlap in their effects on a companion animal that we would prefer to be in good physical and mental working order for the various activities we like to enjoy with them. So for example most horse people understand the need for trickle feeding to the extent that this is essential to minimise the risk of colic or ulcers; fewer understand the horse’s essential need for the company of its own species, and I don’t mean across an electric tape or a stable partition. But both are fundamental needs which must be met to ensure good physical and mental health. They are not desirable but essential.
Does a horse’s mental health matter if all you want to do is ride? Some people would be mortified to think they were not doing everything they possibly could to keep their horse happy; others want a physically fit animal capable of performing at the levels they require of them. These two categories are not mutually exclusive! Clients sometimes ask me why I recommend a treatment plan that emphasises pleasant experiences and avoids unpleasant, fearful or painful ones. I do this because retraining and rehabilitation by activating positive emotions has been found over and over again to be the most effective and risk-free way of changing unwanted behaviour. And this includes permament changes at neural level, right inside the animal’s brain. One of the significant risks of using other methods is the risk that the stress causes to your horse’s health, whether that’s through inflammation (skin conditions, puffy joints), immunosuppression (endocrine/metabolic dysfunction), accident or injury. A napping, rearing, bucking or aggressive horse is a risk to handler safety too of course.
So I wonder why so many horse owners still eschew their horses’ emotional wellbeing, whilst rightly paying so much attention to physical health? Could the confirmation bias be at play?
More great thoughts from this blog, it’s always highly reinforcing to see it in my inbox! If we would only listen, and understand what is being said….
I know this blog is about horses and humans – but one of the behaviours we share is something that people comment about a lot in another species altogether. Have you even seen how a cat behaves when something they’ve just tried to do has gone wrong? For example, when they’ve fallen off a narrow wall, or tried to jump up on something and missed? They will often stop, sit down, and nonchalantly start washing themselves, as though that was really what they’d intended to do all along.
Humans do it too. The classic example is waving at someone you thought you knew, only to find they’re a total stranger. It’s so easy to convert that wave into a little hair adjustment, or let on you were just fastening your coat and your hand overshot… Nobody’s fooled, least of all our own sense of dignity, but it’s actually quite difficult
View original post 1,322 more words
I recently replied to a forum question and have been asked to publish it as a blog to a wider audience. The question provided this information:
The horse had been with same caregiver for 22 years, since a foal. Described as “a dominant horse but in a good way. A kind leader. He only has to flick his ears and horses move out of his way. Always the first at the gate. And just generally in charge. Moved yards over the years and always ended up running the group.” Following the most recent move to a new yard his caregiver reported that she was surprised to find him being chased off the food she offered him, and keeping away from any threatening behaviour. The yard owner told her he was not being chased around but was definitely keeping a distance and cantering off if one of the other horses came near. She was surprised that after careful introductions he was not as much of a boss he has been, and asked what might be happening.
Your horse is very lucky to have had you as his sole caregiver since foalhood. A few points spring to mind from your post. Yes the flicking ears will keep other horses away in situations where all the horses know each other and understand the individual and group communication; however unlike chickens (it was early studies of dominance in chickens that coined the phrase “pecking order”), the social operation of groups of horses is based on affiliative and co-operative behaviour rather than dominance; their social structure is complex, nuanced and fluid, based on the value, availability and motivation to obtain available resources that are biologically and socially important to the horse. The structure is more like a complex web than a linear hierarchy, so it’s not particularly helpful to try to understand how horse groups operate from a perspective of dominance.
In evolutionary terms, it doesn’t make sense for horses always to be having arguments about access to resources, although on many yards it can seem as if that is the case. As an organism the horse needs to expend its energy moving to safe places, and finding food, water, shelter and shade to survive and reproduce the next generation. Horses haven’t evolved to have energy spare to fight all the time about who gets which choice piece of hay. That’s why you’ll find that where horses live in a settled group they have established extremely subtle communication signals like you’ve seen with your horse’s ear flick. It’s also why horses that move yards, or are turned out with different horses, often seem to have more “arguments” (resource holding contests, which can be small and low key, through to very aggressive), because the group is not settled or consistent, making it harder to learn the communication signals that each horse uses and requiring frequent re-contesting of various resources including piles of hay, and access to the gate which is often a predictor of access to a tasty bucket of food. Even when horses are stabled at night and turned out again together the next day this can create new resource holding contests once the group is back together, because it’s not natural for a group of horses to be separated, so if that happens they need to re-test who is allowed access to which resources each time the group reconvenes.
The measure of the ability of one horse to acquire and hold a specific resource, or to move another horse off a desired resource, be that hay, water, the best sun-bathing spot, the best rolling patch, is referred to as resource holding potential (RHP). RHP is understood in relation to individual resources and individual horses; different resources can take on different values at different times, for example shade isn’t very important on a cold, cloudy day.
Horses don’t have a linear hierarchy, with horse A being at the top and horse Z at the bottom. Instead it is more like a complex web, where different situations have different value for each individual horse based on their past experiences. For example, if horse A has had a history of insufficient forage they might move other horses off forage, and the other horses defer as they have learnt that that resource is less important to them than it is to horse A. However, horse B might highly value shade so will be first in line for that resource over horse A. So understanding horse behaviour in that way can help us to work out the causes of their behaviour.
You can find out more about the structure of group relationships in these articles published by the Equine Behaviour and Training Association (EBTA):
Regarding your own horse, it’s interesting that despite several yard changes he has always ended up running the group. Without more information it’s hard to say why this might be, but some of the factors that influence high or low resource holding potential are laid down at a very early age including health status, how they were weaned, the emotional and health state of the mother, very early experiences, stress levels, relationships with other horses in the group, the type of activities they do with their owner, training methods, any specific and salient learning experiences…. These factors plus the health and emotional states of the other individuals in the group, and the different environments on different yards, will all have an effect.
An individual horse’s RHP can also be affected by any recent illness or injury, resource availability and group management. In a settled herd the horses all ‘work out’ access to resources between them and do not need to routinely re-affirm those relationships. But when the herd changes there will be some contests. Perhaps the histories of the new herd-mates means that resources are more important to them than some of your horse’s previous herd mates. Part of the jigsaw is the magnanimity or otherwise of group members and that is also to do with their willingness to contest a resource. At 22 your horse is not that old but certain age related conditions could be starting that might have lowered his RHP, coupled perhaps with the anxiety that comes with attempting to establish the social structure when he is the new horse, unfamiliar with the other horses and the daily routines of the yard.
As you can appreciate without a full understanding of the history of all the horses in the new herd it is difficult to suggest a reason for the behaviour. In terms of solutions you might be looking at good management including deterring congregation around gateways where he could get injured, and if he is still very unsettled then thinking about systematically re-introducing him using the recognised practice of dividing the field and then dividing one part of it again (so you end up with three sections to the field), taking a middle ranking horse (obviously in general terms having said all of the above about how complex the social structure is!) and grazing them in the two smaller sections (one in each smaller section). Eventually over a few days you will see that they start to graze closer to each other and may even start to chat and mutually groom over the fence. When you have seen them doing this for 2 or 3 days take away the temporary fence that divides them. Keep them together but separate from the rest of the herd for a few days and then take away the final section of temporary fence so that the new pair are now integrated into the existing herd.
I hope that helps and I hope your boy is more settled now after more time in the new herd; but if you are concerned then it’s always possible to re-introduce him along the lines explained above.
Beautifully written, a psychologist’s perspective on the equine condition. Well worth reading, thoughtfully!
“The capacity to exercise control over the nature and quality of one’s life is the essence of humanness”, Albert Bandura, 2001.
Have you ever had a splinter in your finger? A horrible little pinprick, just underneath the skin. You worry at it, you suck your finger, you try to grasp it between your nails, but nothing shifts it and it seems to affect everything you do. In the end, there’s nothing for it, you have to get it out using a needle.
Now, that’s where things get interesting. The splinter under the skin, or the bit of grit in the eye – they’re under your skin, they’re in your eye. But you are starting to get the feeling that you’re going to have to ask someone else to get them out for you. You don’t often put the feelings into words, but what’s there to the fore is that nobody…
View original post 1,330 more words
Long-term observations of free-ranging #equines: compare their behaviours to those expected in captive groups of #ridden or #therapy #horses.
Welcome to our series, ‘Why Animal Studies?’ The aim of the series is to have scholars across the ideological spectrum (i.e., human-animal studies, critical animal studies, anthrozoology) reflect o…