What on Earth is "Consent-Based Training"?

[Alterration]

I had to think about this pretty hard, because in the way I work horses, I try really hard to always set them up for yes. If they say no, I certainly don’t correct them in a punishment sense, I assume that my ask was unclear or that I have asked something that they were not capable of. So I redirect to something they are capable of, and end there.

I hadn’t always done it this way. I was raised with “ask, tell, demand” and then I got a horse for whom asking was tricky and demanding might land you in the hospital, and another who turned into a pillar of stone the minute “tell” came into play.

So I modified my approach to be more “explain, ask, investigate, explain again/modify”.

That’s still consent or agreement or whatever terms we might want to use, but it isn’t volunteering. It’s the coolest when they volunteer, but they don’t always.

A horse halting at A in response to a rider’s aids can be in agreement that the rider stilling their seat means halt and they “feel happy” to comply, or they can be doing it because they are afraid of punishment. Those are two different approaches to training, and in the past I know I was taught the “make him” route.

The people who I think take it to extremes, like the lady who just stood in her horse’s stall door, just don’t understand equine body language at all. They have the right idea, just a really piss poor application.

I want a horse to be ok and inviting me into their space too. So I set up conditions and the relationship in ways that they do. I generally will open the stall door and wait for acknowledgement that I exist, which can be as small as an ear flick, but usually they come right to me because I’m the source of scratches and wither rubs (and sometimes cookies). I just feel like that’s polite. I don’t want anyone barging into my house without waiting for my acknowledgment either (And yes, that’s totally anthropomorphic - but I respect their right to their own space).

Same concept, far different effect.

So I think Manni is right in what she is describing as the philosophy, at least as well applied. Some of the TikTok trainers just…don’t do it well.

[S1969]

@Alterration

So I modified my approach to be more “explain, ask, investigate, explain again/modify”.

That’s still consent or agreement or whatever terms we might want to use, but it isn’t volunteering. It’s the coolest when they volunteer, but they don’t always.

I don’t think the word “consent” or “agreement” needs to be included at all though. This is just training. Some things are easy to train with R+, others with R-, and while most of us don’t use P+/- on a regular basis we do use it sometimes and it can be effective.

Consent isn’t necessary to learn, but good trainers can see when their subject doesn’t understand and modifies the training method and/or the delivery

It would be possible to teach a horse using punishment on a regular basis but we would all agree that it’s not humane, and more importantly, it’s not necessary. But “consent” is a silly term to add in the mix. The subject can be expected to learn and follow commands whether they consent or not.

[Alterration]

I think we all would agree now, but 20 years ago? Most definitely not.

Horse doesn’t stop? Pull harder. Back him up. Make him stop. Horse doesn’t jump the fence? Use the stick. We have rules about acceptable punishment in most of our disciplines because it was so widely accepted.

So while yes, I agree that it is “just good training” I think sometimes it needs to be defined so that people understand what “just good training” means as a philosophy. It is evolving.

One of the horses here came from a prominent hunter barn in my area where a heavily P+ approach was used. He was ridden in a gag, definitely told to “go” when his breathing didn’t tell him he could, and while they took very good care of him in a traditional sense, he arrived really shut down. When we started changing the way he was handled, he was very much not in agreement with being ridden. He wanted no part of the mounting block, he barged through people, and his ability to even touch the bit was not possible.

I wouldn’t call his treatment before abuse, that’s extreme, but I would call it insensitive at best. But it was the norm, for sure, 20-30 years ago and certainly hasn’t gone away.

[JB]

if you wanted to get truly dirt-simple about this, horses “consent” to domestic life. As a whole, horses generally want to please, they don’t like conflict. That’s how they were domesticated to start, it’s how they’ve remained domesticated, and we’ve selectively bred in more of it (for the most part)

The definition of consent is, basically, to agree to/to give permission to do something. It has nothing to do with liking that something. Everyone has to sign a consent form for surgeries

I don’t think a single horse likes a lubed gloved hand for a rectal but most consent to it, even if it comes with some foot stomping and teeth gnashing, attested by the fact they didn’t double barrel the person (and most don’t even need to be sedated, that sort of takes out the consent part)

So if your horse is allowing you to do things to and with him, whether he actually LIKES it or not, finds it fun or not, he’s consented. It may be a “I surrender” consent (and sometimes the person really needs to alter their approach), it may be a “I’m game!” consent. But if he’s letting you, he consented

There are definitely different contexts for a finer definition of consent when it comes to things about humans and laws, and I’m not trying to put everything on a level playing ground.

[Manni01]

I am not familiar with the websites promoting and giving this concept its name.
very possible they are never competing and simply adress a marketing segment of the riders open for this.

But @Alterration explained very well what I mean and yes I do believe that you can compete and still use this concept…. J v.B-W and her brother will tell you for sure that this is the way they train…. I don’t know if they really do it they are for sure successful riders….

So yes I do believe in the concept of consent! And no I don’t believe that in training horses you have to make a point sometimes… Remember the video by Carina Kruth (danish rider coached by A.H.) where she hit her horse really really hard? That did not achieve anything (as far as I remember she started out amazing with this mare and over the years her results went down. probably because she corrected it harsh over and over again….

And just saying I went to a clinic with my young mare a week ago and the clinician (who I have known for about 30 years) told everybody that my horses are always willing and eager to do anything I ask them ( some years ago she wanted to buy one of my horses for her daughter) so obviously my concept shows……

[Manni01]

I disagree, I never thought about it before this thread but the word consent is addressing it correctly and the rider should consider how his horse feels about it….

[Texarkana]

@Alterration

I had to think about this pretty hard, because in the way I work horses, I try really hard to always set them up for yes. If they say no, I certainly don’t correct them in a punishment sense, I assume that my ask was unclear or that I have asked something that they were not capable of. So I redirect to something they are capable of, and end there.

I hadn’t always done it this way. I was raised with “ask, tell, demand” and then I got a horse for whom asking was tricky and demanding might land you in the hospital, and another who turned into a pillar of stone the minute “tell” came into play.

So I modified my approach to be more “explain, ask, investigate, explain again/modify”.

I really agree with this. I have a similar story of growing up in the “ask, tell, demand” era, then acquiring a horse where that did not work whatsoever. So I had to change how I approached things, and in changing how I worked with that horse, I found what worked for her produced superior results with all my horses.

I agree with @JB that domestication = consent in most ways. However, I’ve also seen too many horses who are still mostly agreeable despite cruel treatment. Horses inherently want to please their “herd.” They will also give in to negative pressure much of the time. I don’t feel like choosing the lesser of evils is the same as consent.

[S1969]

@Manni01

I disagree, I never thought about it before this thread but the word consent is addressing it correctly and the rider should consider how his horse feels about it….

“How the horse feels about it” is just too simplistic.

I think most of us agree that good riding requires a “working partnership” but I disagree that training requires consent - if by “consent” you mean the horse is in agreement with the training.

I think JB’s definition is reasonable - horses “consent” to being domesticated - but that doesn’t mean they “like” everything we ask of them, at all times. They will also “consent” to unpleasant things because they are domesticated animals; so it’s not a good definition of “good” training.

Not tossing off a rider indicates consent to some level, even when being abused, like in this case:

@Manni01

So yes I do believe in the concept of consent! And no I don’t believe that in training horses you have to make a point sometimes… Remember the video by Carina Kruth (danish rider coached by A.H.) where she hit her horse really really hard? That did not achieve anything (as far as I remember she started out amazing with this mare and over the years her results went down. probably because she corrected it harsh over and over again….

No one agreed with that.

But if your horse bit you, I’ll bet your response would be extreme. Maybe not physically painful to them; P+ could mean being very loud and scary. That’s what I mean by “punishment” being used by most of us, and being effective. There are cases where P+ might be the most appropriate training tool. (And of course, “punishment” does not mean physical pain is applied. It can be that, but it can be any unpleasant/undesirable stimulus.) It’s likely that the horse wouldn’t consent to any kind of come-to-Jesus moment for biting their rider, but we don’t need their consent to learn not to do it.

[FjordBCRF]

I think it’s important to remember consent doesn’t equal enjoyment. MOST things I consent to, I don’t particularly enjoy like going to work or the gym. Doing chores. Waking up earlier than I’d like. Eating healthy. Having bloodwork done all the time. The list goes on and on!

This is why I like adding choices and as much variety to our training as possible, that helps me break through a little about what his preferences are.

One thing I’ve been doing more recently is using my percussion massage gun and posture prep on him while he’s out free in the indoor. It’s easier for him to move around and show me where he wants it, or the ability to walk away once he’s good.

[Texarkana]

@FjordBCRF

I think it’s important to remember consent doesn’t equal enjoyment. MOST things I consent to, I don’t particularly enjoy like going to work or the gym. Doing chores. Waking up earlier than I’d like. Eating healthy. The list goes on and on!

This is so true, but also the reason I hate the world “consent” for animals.

You consent to those things because you understand the trade-offs.

A horse can’t weigh the trade-offs, or at least not in the same capacity that a person can.

My metabolic horse doesn’t let me put her grazing muzzle on because she understands it’s healthier for her. She would much rather gorge on grass until she founders, and would do so if I didn’t take action. She allows me to put the muzzle on because we have a relationship where she feels safe complying with my requests in the majority of instances. She knows it’s the expectation for her to allow me to place the muzzle. Initially, I had to add some positive reinforcement (aka treats) to make the task appealing. Now I don’t need to treat her for her to drop her head and allow me to put it on… but she also makes it perfectly clear she would rather NOT be wearing it if given the choice.

So is that the equine equivalent to consent? I really don’t know.

[FjordBCRF]

@Texarkana

This is so true, but also the reason I hate the world “consent” for animals.

100% agree.

@Texarkana

So is that the equine equivalent to consent? I really don’t know.

It is truly amazing at the amount of crap and pain horses will put up with. Terms aside, I tend to look at things from maybe through a more ethical lens maybe? IE, is this fair to the horse? Everyone has different lines they will or won’t cross though, so as far as a label, Ethical Horsemanship or something like that would still be problematic.

I’m fully convinced Charlie is mostly just humoring me at this point, though there are plenty of times when I can tell he is genuinely into something. One of the most rewarding things he does is offer his head to the halter when there is hay in his stall. Those days are great because I really feel like he’s happy to see me and do something with me.

[Moss]

A lady at my barn uses “consent based training” exclusively and she is a nut job, and her horses are incredibly dangerous. Think striking, biting, kicking, and lunging at people. She wanted to keep her gelding (her second horse that she’s owned) a stud because he couldn’t “consent” to surgery. Her dogs are all in tact for this very reason.

[JB]

@Moss

She wanted to keep her gelding (her second horse that she’s owned) a stud because he couldn’t “consent” to surgery. Her dogs are all in tact for this very reason.

And I’m betting she has no business owning intact male animals.

I have an acquaintance who came here from Norway. She and her husband breed show-quality Dachsunds and Boxers, like top level winners, not just local stuff. She does sell quite a few puppies as “home quality”, with no contracts to spay/neuter, and she’s also incredibly, almost impossibly strict on the homes, so she can get away with that, but she has repeat buyers. She does not at all understand the US mentality of s/n everything you’re not breeding because where she grew up, s/n was done for medical reasons only. AND, her people grew up understanding how to manage the intact animals so to them, it’s no big deal, and their animals are (mostly) well behaved. I know other countries also typically don’t geld stallions, but they also manage them properly, unlike most “backyard” owners who impart human emotions on the whole castrating idea (horses and dogs especially)

[Bluey]

@Moss

A lady at my barn uses “consent based training” exclusively and she is a nut job, and her horses are incredibly dangerous. Think striking, biting, kicking, and lunging at people. She wanted to keep her gelding (her second horse that she’s owned) a stud because he couldn’t “consent” to surgery. Her dogs are all in tact for this very reason.

I think is sad when people use their animals for validation and emotional support by treating them as surrogate humans.
Why?
Is a shame, our animals are not humans and we disregard their own wonderful ways by trying to impose on them ours, under the guise of making them happy as if they were humans.

Any good trainer tries their best to keep their animals happy, but that doesn’t mean what some think it does, horses don’t think like that.

As others have already mentioned, we structure and train our animal’s lives in ways that makes living together the best it can be for both, that truly serves both best.

Our ranch horses line up on the fence when time to pick some to go work cattle and jump in the trailers as soon as they can, don’t want to miss going to work.
Those left behind are crestfallen they didn’t get to go.
When returning and turning them back out, the ones left behind smell them all over.
Makes us wonder if they are talking over what all they did, how their day went.
Maybe read the day’s stories in all their smells from the day.
Can’t be any more consent based than that.

[FjordBCRF]

[Ajierene]

All I know about “consent based training” is if I waited for my horse to consent to go home when we are hacking out or trail riding, we would still be out there.

We were out at Fairhill one day and she was tired enough she didn’t want to trot anymore. The trailer is in sight and what does she do? She pulls her head down and away from the trailer - this is her “I want to go this way” move. I had to be rather insistent that the trailer is where we are going, not Canada (note: Canada is about 400 miles north but she loves the cold so pretty sure that’s her end game).

Consent based training is just putting a fancy and anthropomorphic spin on the research found in BF Skinner’s Operant Conditioning; which is that there are four basic ways to change someone’s condition/behavior - positive reward, negative reward, positig punishment, and negative punishment. Skinner found that positive reward is usually the best way to change a behavior but it is not the ONLY way and yes sometimes we need to use the punishment half.

I think some of these people think “punishment” mean “beat half to death” and that’s the only way to think of punishment. Many of these people remain willfully blind to the amount of times they venture into this half - either by the simply act of kick/pulling on reins or a corrective voice.

Anyway…glad my horse doesn’t know about this forum or I may be in trouble soon.

[RedHorses]

@FjordBCRF

Terms aside, I tend to look at things from maybe through a more ethical lens maybe? IE, is this fair to the horse? Everyone has different lines they will or won’t cross though, so as far as a label, Ethical Horsemanship or something like that would still be problematic.

I’m not poking at you, FjordBCRF! I’m looking at how ethical can consent based training be if this is ignored.
Which begs the question - is it ethical to not train your horse to have good ground manners towards the human no matter what?

I expect my horses to allow me to restrain them in order to do or have someone else do something that is uncomfortable at best, and quite possibly painful. Specifically my vet’s safety is number one, mine is number two, and only then is the horse considered. I absolutely try to make things as easy on the horse as I can but sometimes (for example) that tube has to go up the nose and down the throat now whether the horse “consents” or not.

[FjordBCRF]

As stated above I use these term very loosely and find them problematic

“They” are part of my tool box, not an exclusive training method.

@RedHorses

Which begs the question - is it ethical to not train your horse to have good ground manners towards the human no matter what?

I don’t want to venture into an ethics debate, but I’ll says it’s certainly irresponsible not to.

[RedHorses]

I agree.

Years ago someone on CotH posted something along the lines of “The horse gets to express their opinion, but they don’t get a vote.”

I liked the idea. I want my horses to tell me their opinion. I may let that alter things in the moment, but ultimately I make the decisions.

[Jenerationx]

There are a bunch of dog trainers (Petsmart and others) that are “Positive Only.” It doesn’t work. You can use positive reinforcement to shape a behavior, reward a behavior, but with no P+ or any form of correction, you can’t stop a behavior. According to them, you just distract with treats and then reward when the dog is doing something you like. This creates downright dangerous dogs, or at the very least dogs with no manners.