Here:
In post 35.
In my opinion (worth what y’all paid for it), any degree is worth far far less to me as a horse owner than experience and innate horse sense. Some of the best trainers and problem solvers in my life never even graduated high school.
My very first post in this thread contains a direct quote of your claim of only “one person doing equine behavior research”.
An exercise physiologist is not the same thing as a physiologist. I’d have to go back and pull the CVs of all the authors of all those papers to separate them all out into separate specialties. I do not have time for that, which is why I collectively referred to them as equine scientists when I posted the list.
Most of us who have actual research experience have covered more than a single siloed subject in our careers. I’m a nutritionist, but projects I’ve worked on could more accurately be called exercise physiology, reproductive physiology, plant science, microbiology, and more depending on which part of the data is being referenced. None of those experiences make me anything other than a nutritionist, however.
Your sentence: …“only one person” is doing equine behavior research
My sentence: …we need more than just one person doing equine behavior research
Those two sentences are NOT the same, and it is your sentence, not mine, that says only one person is doing equine behavior research — the second time you’ve attacked something I didn’t say (the first being that only vets and behaviorists do behavior research), so maybe it is YOUR reading comprehension that needs improvement, especially when you consider the context of my sentence (followed by “Donating to New Bolton will fund their research, but donating to a funding organization will fund more than just one person”). I was responding to someone who suggested the best way to fund equine behavior research was to donate to New Bolton. I pointed out that doing so would fund only one person doing equine behavior research.
Something you might consider is just asking questions. If you just asked “Are you saying that only one person is doing equine behavior research?”, instead of putting words in my mouth so that you could attack me for something I didn’t say, this interaction could have been a lot more friendly. Instead, we’re back to the need to read carefully enough to understand what’s actually being said.
I’m not going to get into a physiologist not being a physiologist or how many different disciplines can be shoehorned into one field, because those things really aren’t pertinent to a discussion of defining behaviorist vs trainer, which is what this discussion morphed into somewhere along the way. You introduced the topic of how many people are doing equine behavior research, and I’m not really interested in that topic — although I wish all of them had more funding. However many we have, it isn’t enough.
My point exactly. Trainers are trainers, so they don’t need postgraduate degrees. Behaviorists by definition (at least credentialled ones) have to have postgraduate degrees. It’s a difference that shouldn’t be that hard to understand.
Man. For claiming to be an expert on the topic you are pretty out of touch.
I was not the only one who read your sentence that way. If you’re going to come onto any public discussion group and claim expertise in an area, then you need to be clear and accurate in your language. COTH is particularly demanding in that respect. For example, a general physiologist and an exercise physiologist or reproductive physiologist are very, very different in their skill sets and training. I’m not sure why you can’t grasp that particular point, but it’s the simple truth.
I’m simply trying to help you understand that research, especially in equine science, where funding is extremely limited, is not something that fits neatly into single-discipline silos. Between the language in the survey you linked and your behavior on this thread, it is abundantly clear that you have little to no experience in the equine research process. (That isn’t a dig, by the way - most people on this board fall into that category.)
I would think that any “degreed” equine behavior specialist who knows their way around would LOVE to learn something from Warwick Schiller.
Note who is learning from who… 
Coming back to add that I think a lot of us here are unclear about your objective/argument. It seems that you believe horse owners should refer to equine behaviorists for training and behavior resources, and that you define a behaviorist as someone with a graduate degree in that specific discipline.
If that is the case, could you please list the top equine behavior graduate programs in the country? I am only familiar with three current researchers specializing in equine behavior (which, as I’ve established above, is not the same as performing some research in the area of equine behavior). One is a post-doc. One is a lecturer. For those unfamiliar with academic slang, that means that only 1 of those 3 people is currently mentoring graduate students. Given funding limitations, any single graduate program turns out very few students at a time. I just don’t see a huge pool of equine behaviorists available for even those horse owners who might seek out their input.
Seriously think that “behaviorists” are just trainers with a fancy name. Training = changing behaviors.
Good trainers already take the view that one must address pain or physiological issues first. Good trainers already understand behavior mod theory. Good trainers already understand that changing the mind of the horse comes before changing the behavior of the horse.
Trainers, as far as I can tell, become good through
experience
mentoring and training by better trainers (including reading, clinics, etc)
intelligent patience
listening listening listening to what the horse is telling them
Degrees, titles, and specialities have nothing to do with it.
I run into a problem comparing a horse to a child, the problem horse or the horse with a problem can be disposed of legally, the child you have to deal with it
<If you’re going to come onto any public discussion group and claim expertise in an area, then you need to be clear and accurate in your language.>
I thought I was pretty clear in context: “Also, we need more than just one person doing equine behavior research. Donating to New Bolton will fund their research, but donating to a funding organization will fund more than just one person.” Even without the context, though, “we need more than one person” is not the same as “there is only one person.” For example, without context it could mean we don’t have any and need way more or we have several but all but one are leaving. There seems to be a lot of commenting on this forum that ignores context. If you haven’t followed the whole thread, you don’t have complete context, but if you don’t even bother to consider how two adjacent sentences fit together, there’s going to be a lot of times you don’t understand what someone is saying. It would be nice to give someone the benefit of the doubt and ask before attacking, but unfortunately, it seems to be human nature to attack first.
<For example, a general physiologist and an exercise physiologist or reproductive physiologist are very, very different in their skill sets and training. I’m not sure why you can’t grasp that particular point, but it’s the simple truth.>
What makes you think I don’t understand? General PHYSIOLOGIST, exercise PHYSIOLOGIST, reproductive PHYSIOLOGIST — sure, they study different kinds of physiology (and there are more than just those three kinds), but to say a physiologist isn’t a physiologist makes no sense (and is actually insulting, imo). Why are they called physiologists if they aren’t physiologists? Could it be that you’re defining physiology differently from everyone else? What would you call them if they aren’t physiologists?
<I’m simply trying to help you understand that research, especially in equine science, where funding is extremely limited, is not something that fits neatly into single-discipline silos. Between the language in the survey you linked and your behavior on this thread, it is abundantly clear that you have little to no experience in the equine research process. (That isn’t a dig, by the way - most people on this board fall into that category.)>
I don’t do equine behavior research, but I fund it (which was how the New Bolton discussion started), I know people in the field, and I certainly read it. So, I know who’s applying for funding and what fields they come from (and most are animal welfare scientists or behavioral scientists). What you think of my level of experience in the equine research process depends on what part of the process you’re considering, but I don’t think “little to no” is accurate.
<Coming back to add that I think a lot of us here are unclear about your objective/argument. It seems that you believe horse owners should refer to equine behaviorists for training and behavior resources, and that you define a behaviorist as someone with a graduate degree in that specific discipline.>
My original objective was to encourage people to take a survey that is meant to help determine how best to disseminate equitation science principles. It’s a survey by a behaviorist, so I was also interested in determining how to increase the market in the US for behaviorists. The discussion then devolved into one of trainers vs behaviorists because a lot of people don’t understand the distinction. I believe that horse owners should use equine behaviorists for treating horses with behavioral problems that are serious mental problems, as opposed to just minor training problems, because it takes a lot of specialized study to be qualified to treat such problems appropriately, especially if drugs are indicated.
<If that is the case, could you please list the top equine behavior graduate programs in the country? I am only familiar with three current researchers specializing in equine behavior (which, as I’ve established above, is not the same as performing some research in the area of equine behavior). One is a post-doc. One is a lecturer. For those unfamiliar with academic slang, that means that only 1 of those 3 people is currently mentoring graduate students. Given funding limitations, any single graduate program turns out very few students at a time. I just don’t see a huge pool of equine behaviorists available for even those horse owners who might seek out their input.>
There is not a huge pool of behaviorists, which is exactly the problem. There is no pool because there is no market. If horse owners won’t seek them out, then there’s no point in going into the specialty. It’s a vicious circle that won’t be broken until horse people understand when they should be consulting a behaviorist.
In the US, there are only a handful of them. The best known are Dr. Houpt at Cornell (a vet) and Dr. McDonnell at New Bolton (a non-vet certified behaviorist who works with vets), both of whom accept grad students (but Dr. Houpt really wants to retire). There is a much bigger pool of behaviorists who don’t specialize in equines. Most behaviorists specialize in dogs, because that is where the market is. Most of what I’m saying in this post, I’ve said in previous posts, so I won’t go into further detail here. I am getting tired of repeating myself.
Right now, the top equine behavior graduate programs are all overseas. The University of Edinburgh has an MSc in Applied Animal Behaviour and Animal Welfare that is one of the best. The US is far behind other countries in producing equine behavior/welfare scientists.
However, there doesn’t need to be a huge pool of equine behaviorists for people to be able to seek out their input. With today’s technology, a horse owner in the US can easily consult with an equine behaviorist in the UK. It may not be ideal, but it’s better than nothing. A US horse owner who wants the help of a vet behaviorist can also go to a regular vet who can consult with a vet behaviorist or refer the owner directly to the behaviorist (although the local vet would need to continue to be involved because vets can’t practice in states where they’re not licensed).
Although there are more vet behaviorists specializing in dogs, there aren’t a lot of them, either. What they’re doing currently is consulting with local vets on the medical needs and trying to find good local trainers (e.g. good clicker trainers) to do the behavioral modification. Just as family doctors refer clients with mental problems, I suspect vets will always be referring clients with problem horses, but some vet techs are now getting trained in behav mod so vets would not have to depend on having a good local trainer. I suspect there are already cases out there where horses are getting needed care through good trainers with connections to knowledgeable vets who consult with behavioral specialists, but every horse should have that kind of care available. Given how many people in this discussion don’t even seem to be able to understand the difference between a trainer and a behaviorist, I’m less optimistic than I was, but in the end, it’s still just a matter of educating people. Hopefully, one way or another, we will get it done.
Then perhaps not coming onto a board filled with predominantly highly experienced horse people and telling them all they don’t know what they’re talking about was a bad idea.
It is clear you don’t want to hear anything but your own perspective parroted back at you.
If you still can’t understand the interrelationship between physiology, welfare, and behavior, I don’t know how else to try to explain it. I entered this thread to help you understand that limiting your search to “behaviorists” is cutting out the largest population of scientists who actually do research in the area that seems to interest you. It is very clear that you don’t want help.
I will wade in here briefly as someone who has consulted a behaviorist regarding a problem that could be either veterinary or behavioral (sleep deprivation). I found out about Dr Sue McDonnell at New Bolton from a local vet and sent her 24 hours of video of my horse. Another local vet said that Dr McDonnell had successfully identified the cause of another horse’s sleep deprivation as being wildlife walking past at night–which frankly shouldn’t require a vet or behaviorist or trainer, if the bear is literally caught on camera, but I imagine it was a helpful piece of information to that owner and I wish that were my horse’s issue!
Anyway, Dr McDonnell sent me an email detailing her observations of my horse. Ultimately it was not super helpful in pinpointing the cause of the problem, but it made me feel like I was using all resources available to me. One interesting thing is that she noted signs of right front discomfort, and he had violently pulled that shoe a couple of days before the video was taken (violently meaning he hooked the back of the shoe on a lip in his stall and pulled backwards until it ripped off, which must have made him a bit sore). I was impressed that she was able to pick up on that even while it wasn’t bothering him enough to cause visible lameness.
Reflecting on my experience, I think it is difficult to consult a behaviorist remotely because the human has to do such a good job selecting and presenting the information, whether that is their own observations or in video form. I struggled with which 24 hours of video to capture because I didn’t want to introduce any weird variables or deviations from the routine, but even so I guess I failed because he had just pulled that shoe. Did that affect the value of the evaluation? I don’t know.
I think people do understand the difference (practical knowledge vs a degree), but are in disagreement about the strengths/weaknesses and relative value of trainers vs behaviorists. And in the end it really comes down to the expertise of the individual, because as others have pointed out there are amazing horse trainers with no real credentials and there are lots of educated people in all fields who spent a lot of time and money on their book knowledge but have zero ability to apply that knowledge practically
Slight detour coming …
That is because she would have been taught to observe lameness/discomfort in a number of ways that horse people are not used to. We are all taught to assess most lamenesses by observing ambulation.
I worked in the dairy industry for years and boy oh boy were my eyes opened because lameness is judged by looking at cattle just standing there doing nothing or returning to standing from recumbancy probably 90% of the time. By the time I’d spent a few years watching cows stand around, I could have made money if someone had been foolish enough to bet against me on hoof trimming days, “This one will have a solar abscess RH medial claw, heel area. That one will have white line RF. Her over there? She’s got a LOT going on in both hinds lateral claws - one toe, one heel. Probably throw in a dash of strawberry foot in RF and both hinds too.”
All that to say - observation of how a horse is standing and even making tiny movements around their stall can tell an enormous tale once you’re tuned into all the little stuff.
So Equitation Science is kind of Andrew MacCleans buzzword and the name of his organization but you blanked on his name when I first mentioned it? I know there are behaviorists now who want to go past his work, but he’s also the main person who got this started and works internationally.
I could see the clear difference between “trainer mind” and “behaviorist mind” at his clinic. It was very interesting to watch. I agree that many maybe most trainers do not think in behaviorist terms. And most of the time that works out fine. It’s when they have a problem they can’t solve that they might try a behaviorist.
It’s a survey by a behaviorist, so I was also interested in determining how to increase the market in the US for behaviorists. The discussion then devolved into one of trainers vs behaviorists because a lot of people don’t understand the distinction. I believe that horse owners should use equine behaviorists for treating horses with behavioral problems that are serious mental problems, as opposed to just minor training problems, because it takes a lot of specialized study to be qualified to treat such problems appropriately, especially if drugs are indicated.
Given how many people in this discussion don’t even seem to be able to understand the difference between a trainer and a behaviorist
Speaking for myself here: you’re claiming many “don’t even seem to be able to understand the difference” but I counterargue that you posit a solution that is in search of a problem. Good trainers (and my caveat here is that I am talking legitimately good trainers - not the local yahoo types or the wannabe gurus) are not one-trick ponies who only know their stuff in the saddle. They do have a diversified, comprehensive equestrian acumen.
I do not dispute that areas of specialization can be useful and are often necessary: look at the fields of nutrition, of saddle fitting, body work, et cetera. However, I contest that the examples you’ve used could very well be addressed with a good trainer with comprehensive knowledge, to avoid being repetitious @fledermaus above has a succinct commentary on this.
I also think this is a solution in search of a problem.
Also, upthread there was a lot of focus on cribbing and weaving type behaviors, and then a lot of comparing horses to schizophrenic children. Then, this:
Exactly how many horses are out there with “serious mental problems”? My guess is very close to zero. Most horses that might be described that way ultimately have a physical issue, and the rest were created by poor training and management . Aka, vet issues and trainer/owner issues.
Horses have very small brains - while I don’t deny that some of the behaviors we see are not well understood, they are also not on par with things like schizophrenia. That comparison seems odd to me, as well as the idea that horses could have “mental problems” that would require extensive schooling and drugs that your regular vet hasn’t already done and is able to administer.
(Edited to fix quote. Mobile had it posted under the wrong person)
Behaviorism doesn’t help with severe mental problems in animals or people.
Where it can be really useful in horses is when people are mistaking the root causes of behavior and thus finding it hard to effectively change it.
Some horses rush fences because they are hot and excited, some rush because they are anxious or in pain, some from bad training or lack of strength.
Some horses nibble and are mouthy and nippy because they are anxious, some because they are defensive, some because they think they will get food rewards, some because their owners think it’s cute.
If you define the problem wrong you end up with the wrong solution, like punishing anxious horse which makes the problem worse.
Getting new eyes on the problem from a good behaviorist can really help.
But it doesn’t work on psychosis, or on neurological issues.
I agree that new eyes and a new perspective can be SO helpful. But there is a reason the market doesn’t currently support a ton of equine behaviorists - you can get fresh eyes and a lot of the same knowledge from plenty of other sources than Behaviorists.
Market research being part of OP’s questions, I think part of the answer is there just aren’t enough truly baffling horses outside the scope of a GOOD trainer/vet team to support a larger population of specifically equine behaviorists.
Yes. Also unless the problem is severe, you can often fix it without totally diagnosing the cause.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
