Well I would say the concept depends on the ability of the human interacting with the horse…today my husband rode my new horse… there were some people moving and talking outside of our indoor arena in an area usually very empty and quiet. You can’t really see a lot and the people are on a higher level because the indoor is on a lower level…
My horse obviously immediately sensed that something was different. My husband turned him towards the people and let him stand for a while. Then he started walking again and the horse was not interested in the whole thing anymore and they moved on. There was another horse in the ring which spooked at the same situation. The horses of this rider always spook…. So my horse consented to my husband that those people outside were ok and nothing to worry about…. I believe the other rider probably never asked his horse for consent, he simply pushed it along and punished it when it spooked…
… and it has always been like this, a good rider knows to listen to the horse and what the horse is saying and work with that, the less adept one just pushes thru, not understanding why horse is resisting/warning/acting up.
Starting colts and feral horses it was standard to let them look and figure the situation out all along, before they were sufficiently alarmed to plant feet and look for an out.
Situational awareness in training is very important and becomes instinctive.
We figure quickly to not overwhelm/overface and cause resistances.
Same with dogs, by the way, like with much barking, where dogs are alarming and never feel heard if the handler is not paying attention and it becomes a bad habit of over-warning, snowballing from that.
I don’t think century old proper training techniques need a new set of words today, but if it fits someone’s context better, why not?
Teach in as many ways as there are students that need a new way to understand better.
I don’t quite see what you describe your husband doing as consent training. I’d just call that common sense. One fair show I was at years ago with my mare when she was young, there was a horse pull going on in the ring next to the one I was showing in, and there was a hay wagon with a tarp covered frame for the announcer etc between us and the pulling teams. I spent the first 15 or so of the warm up time we had before the classes started standing my mare facing the wagon chatting with a fellow competitor while we let our horses get used to that big blue thing and the noises coming from the other side. After about 5 minutes or so, they started looking around at other things like it didn’t exist. Beating a horse for spooking isn’t common sense.
Agreed. What is the need (again) to introduce the concept of “consent?”
If the other horse had not spooked this wouldn’t be an example of anything. Letting your horse process a new stimulus is one reasonable choice.
Asking it to work harder so that it has to focus on the rider and not the other stimulus is another reasonable choice.
In theory the rider should have some idea of which is better for that horse, that day. Neither is really about consent but good riding. A school master that has been in that arena daily for years probably does not need to stop to listen to people talking. A new horse? Sure.
Definite shoe horn needed to get the idea of “consent” into this situation. Why is it necessary to force your reasonable, humane, commonly used for many years training methods into the newfangled ideas of horse training?
There are “consent based” trainers on Facebook/Instagram etc. Lockie Phillips is one – I assume there are many others.
It looks like he refers to it as Emotional Horsemanship. I think he may have been on the Warwick Schiller podcast, the name sounds familiar but I wasn’t following him anywhere.
I’m not endorsing this, exactly. I’m still a bit of a skeptic (although we can all (possibly) be a bit more “mindful” when handling our horses.) Just stating that there are programs out there that have something definite in mind.
Except that’s not actually how horses think. They do not correlate focus and working hard. Those 2 actions operate in the different sides of the brain.
Equitation Science would explain it that the horse is following your direction but the ‘flight’ side of the brain is STILL fully aware that there is something that could be a problem.
The better thing to do is to halt the horse and let it look out of its right eye but keep the feet still. Allowing the feet to move away from something scary increases the idea the scary thing is something to stay far away from.
Equitation Science is a fascinating resource!
Totally get it. I posted that because that’s the first time I’ve heard that term used!
If they encountered a bear in a trail? Well yes ok. That’s a flight or fight situation.
This was people talking outside an arena. Are you really going to stop every time a horse hears a voice just to make sure it’s all good? What about in competition? Still ok?
Where do you draw the line? When do you ride where you don’t have a distraction? It’s not unreasonable to expect a trained horse to work through a mild distraction such as people talking.
My thoughts are it depends how concerned the horse is. If the horse is snorting like a dragon because it can hear but can’t figure out the noise, personally I’d let him have a few moments to sort through it instead of pushing through it.
If the horse is flicking an ear and mildly concerned, I’d keep going and see if the horse settles with the option to clock things back if needed. What we consider mild, may not always translate the same way to the horse.
It’s a fine line to walk and not one someone who is inexperienced is going to be able to do successfully unless they are really lucky. It is likely why many of the social media people on the bandwagons make monsters out of their horses and injuries happen.
Yes I agree. Does that mean we are asking for “consent” though? Or is it just good training?
It’s not a 1 and done thing.
Each time it occurs (as a green horse in training), you allow the horse to stand and process it is ‘voices outside the ring’ (inert issue here), each time it becomes less of an issue until it is NOT an issue any longer. May take 3 times, may take 50. It’s known as operant conditioning. A good trainer will let the horse take as long as it takes.
Expecting a trained horse to react in any way OTHER than as a horse is anthropomorphizing, but operant conditioning correctly will definitely create a more positive outcome according to your (human) expectations.
You do you
But “learning theory” (training) already has a name = Operant conditioning. It has existed long before anyone added the word “consent” to the mix and most certainly does not require consent or a positive experience for the subject.
Operant conditioning just means that learning occurs when a consequences follow behavior. It has nothing to do with “creating positive outcomes” unless by that you mean that the subject learns. It includes all 4 quadrants of training theory, not just R+. You can use punishment to obtain outcomes in operant theory training too.**
If by “consent based” you mean that the trainer allows the horse to process what they have learned before moving on - of course I believe in this. But I don’t believe that the word “consent” is appropriate. It’s not their “consent” that is being attained, but their understanding and (over time) trust in you as their rider. And, of course, it has stages of application – a green horse that is new to an environment should be afforded more time to process a new sight/sound. A schoolmaster who has been around the world does not need to be allowed to stand and process voices outside the ring. Somewhere in between - the trainer/rider makes the decision to push them through distraction, and often without the “consent” of the horse.
**just adding this comment – this is one of my biggest pet peeves about dog training, where R+ is commonly called “operant conditioning.” It seems to be used by people who have never taken a psychology class, let alone a class on learning theory.
In my opinion no.
Here’s definition of consent. In this discussion it probably makes sense to revisit that: Consent is the voluntary, informed, and explicit agreement to participate in an activity or decision. It must be given freely, without coercion, manipulation, or pressure, and can be revoked at any time. In legal and ethical contexts, consent is often required for activities such as medical procedures, contracts, and personal interactions, including sexual activity. Valid consent requires that the individual has the capacity to understand and make the decision.
The only close to real example I can think of with the horses is when my guy gets impatient for me to get on and self parks at the mounting block. But to me, he is volunteering that behavior. Some could maybe argue he is consenting, but you can’t really “inform” the horse in a way they understand for them to “consent”. I don’t particularly like the word at all in the context of training, it doesn’t fit.
To be fair, I don’t think anyone HERE is using it in the way some people in the facebooks groups do in terms of a movement. For them it’s black and white and is why someone will stand in the stall for an hour waiting for their horse to come stick their head voluntarily in the halter.
I think this all ties into the bareback bridleless magical relationship riding which is again, very problematic particularly for inexperienced horse people.
I agree.
I am related to someone who is an ethical vegan and calls the rest of us “species-ists” as in we think humans are better than other species. He has cats that are allowed to do anything they please (such as sit on the table while you eat and sleep in your bed even if you don’t approve) because it’s their house too, and who are we to make the rules?
It’s probably good he doesn’t own a horse. It would be living in the house.
My dream home has a “pony windows” into the house where Charlie could stick his head in to visit 
I cannot imagine the lives of people that used the consent-based thing with their kids…TOTALLY get it in the context of being able to say no if someone (even a family member) wants to hug and kiss, but applying consent to something like a kid not wanting to go to school or doing a chore…c’mon. Be it kids or horses, there are (or should be) some non-negotiables. That doesn’t mean you have to get there in a negative way.
I don’t know if twisting things to fit someones own version of a definition or ideal is a newer phenomenon or not but people get weird! I lurk on a Liberty group on Facebook and many there are over the top militant and of course extremely nit-picky about EVERYthing anyone posts. It got to the point the mods had to add some new rules.
As @S1969 stated, consent based training and operant conditioning are two different things. Also, how one trains are horse is different for the horse. For example, I had found with the ex-racehorses I was training, trotting a figure 8 (about 20M circles, not the entire ring) was the best way to get them to refocus from a spooky situation. They liked keeping their feet moving and the figure 8 kept them under control. This way they could burn that nervous energy but still listen to me and if they didn’t want to do a figure 8? Well tough, they had to - that was part of the lesson - that they couldn’t just do whatever they wanted.
My friend’s young horse? When his 4 YO self gets worried, we stop. He stops with almost purely word command and it calms him down.
An example of the difference between operant conditioning and consent based training (as I understand consent based training):
Operant Conditioning - teach a horse to walk on a lead:
Horse walks next to you - praise/treats (positive reinforcement)
Horse gets ahead of you - pull on lead rope and verbal correction (postivie punishment)
Horse goes back to next to you - relax lead rope (negative reinforcement) and praise (positive reinforcement)
Horse gets to far behind you - pull on lead rope/tap with whip (positive punishment)
Horse goes back to walking next to you - relax lead rope (negative reinforcement) and praise (positive reinforcement)
Consent based training:
Teaching horse to bow
Show horse treat, say “bow” move treat to horse’s leg while repeating “bow”
Wait for horse to decide to (or not to) take treat
Repeat until horse bows how you want (to some people this is just nose to/between legs but some horses will stretch their leg out and bow like the King of England is standing there).
Walking on the lead - 99% of the horses I work with - whether that’s training or just leading to/from places or whatever will learn to walk next me properly. (some quicker than others)
Bowing - um…50% that I tried? One got it in one go and I had to stop as he KEPT BOWING -like now, you need to go back to your stall now! Others just look at me like “yeah, treat not enticing enough”.
There is a time and place for “consent based training” but properly trained horses (and all animals, along with children) have been taught manners via operant conditioning. Don’t get the willingness to please confused with consent - one child may learn to eat with utensils much more quickly than another because of a desire to please or a strong distaste for dirty hands. That doesn’t mean operant conditioning WASN’T used, it was just used differently.
Who remembers that Parelli phase where Linda had an arena with several riders with loose reins, letting their dogs amble around aimlessly, wherever they wanted, not as a few minutes release, but whole classes of “just going with it”.
Seems that their groundwork and for riding, that is all those students could do, didn’t understand picking a horse up and helping it move on balanced for any one task or gait over a slow walk.
Maybe today that would be considered consent based training?
Seemed purposeful aimless non-training, since horses really don’t understand training itself.
