Comments on the following please. I tried to copy the text but he's got some kind of protection thingy on there. I'm particularly interested in views on his comment that he "sees +R as a form of pressure".

http://www.bewithyourhorse.com/page11.html

He does ask for comments and there's an email too, so get going!

Thanks for putting the link up here, I've seen this site before Diane

I won't write what I think of what he has written here, but I'm sure that you can guess.

The first huge thing that put me off him even before he started waffling on about 'what your horse wants' was the link '5 minute psychology lesson'...well what can I say!

Mx

Sorry couldn't resist having another quicky look, I don't understand why if your horse wants a pressure free environment you would want to use pressure and release to train it....maybe I'm, just not getting it!

Nope, still failing to see how pressure and release create a pressure-free environment!

But seriously, while most of this site makes me chuckle (is EVERY RA going to write a book?!), I do think he makes a very good point about the mis-use of +R leading to problems. It does lead to problems if people don't understand how to use it properly. I agree that IH etc has done a fantastic job of getting people to want to be nice to their horses but this has gone too far the other way in some cases leading to a complete break down in communication. People like the idea of using +R but want to do it using "feel" INSTEAD of the science (of course, all scientists just sit in labs, wearing safety specs and white lab coats, torturing rats right?!). I really don't see how +R training can work unless you understand the science AS WELL AS the feel. That way you don't get the confusion over who is training who and what is being trained. I also suspect that many of these cases of supposed +R problems that he mentions are actually bribery gone wrong rather than proper +R training, or perhaps -R training with a treat tacked on the end.

The argument that horses don't use clicks and sweets has been done to death - you only have to look at time budget studies to see that +R in the form of companionship, mutual grooming, guarding etc etc is used considerably more than aggression. -R is also used as a two way thing between horses. Unlike the methods based on -R which don't allow the horse to -R the trainer so it's not exactly "natural". Training isn't natural!

I had a lengthy "discussion" with Tom on the IHDG (thread called IH Forum) and others from here joined in. It got a bit tedious and repetitive but anyone who's interested in seeing more of what I thought of him can see it there....

About seeing +R as a form of pressure - hmm, I really don't understand what he means by this. If you give the horse the choice of working and receiving a reward or not working and buggering off to graze then most horses are happy with whatever they choose - not pressured! By definition +R is not pressure and saying otherwise is just confusing the issue

But it is true that it can be painful to watch your beloved horse struggling to work out what to do in order to get its reward. They can get a bit frustrated when they don't understand what it is they need to do. That may be due to the trainer not breaking the task down enough or it may just be that the horse has not started to think properly. A horse that has got used to being told what to do every step of the way needs to learn how to think through problems if you are going to switch to using +R and this can be hard to start with, especially if the horse is still fearing the consequences of getting the wrong answer. Different horses find different exercises harder than others which is why there's no order in which to train them - start with whatever the horse can do confidently.

This comes down to what you want out of your horse.(i) A free-thinking horse who can offer behaviour with no fear of consequences. But sometimes when given the choice doesn't necessarily choose what you might like and sometimes you may have to watch it struggle for the answer when it would be much easier to give it a quick shove in the right direction (that doesn't enable it to think but to become more dependant on being told the answers). Or (ii) a perfectly well-behaved horse who always does as requested but stands like a zombie if not cued to do something (in which case refer back to the learnt helplessness discussion!). Hmmmmm........

Tom poses the question "What is the real value of positive
reinforcement to horses?" (I had to type that text in myself
because the whole page is an image!) He then goes on to
answer the question by saying that horses don't use it.

So what on earth is a horse doing when it learns where the
sweetest forage is to be found? Or when a foal, guided at
first by instinct, learns to suckle from its dam? Or when a
stallion learns how to cover a mare? Or when a stabled horse
discovers that playing with the bolt on the door leads to
freedom?

As an aside...

It could be argued that in each case there is something
unpleasant (e.g. hunger) which is being relieved, and therefore
the above are all examples of negative reinforcement (-R). In
other words, both -R and +R work via reward, because stopping
feeling hungry/frustrated/couped up is rewarding. One can
debate whether something is being added or taken away. However,
as I understand the terminology, -R usually involves escape
from or avoidance of an external aversive stimulus.

Anyway, on the web page, Tom seems to be objecting more to
treats than to reward in general.

Food is not at all unnatural to horses. Indeed, if eating was
not rewarding they would soon become extinct! What =is=
unnatural is a horse being given food by another horse, or
some other creature - in contrast, say, to some birds. But in
my opinion that does not rule it out as a valid and valuable
technique in training.

Can it be overused? I think it is much harder to traumatize
a horse with +R than it is with -R. On the other hand, it is
certainly possible to train inappropriate behaviours with +R,
just as it is with -R.

I can understand why some people feel that intensive +R using
food rewards "goes against the grain" (no pun intended), but
I am quite certain that in most cases an approach emphasizing
rewards will be less pressuring, both by definition and in
overall effect.

I'd like to see an example of where Tom sees horses experiencing
positive reinforcement (or a regime of +R) as pressuring.

Francis