The Dominance Model and Horsemanship by Equine Ethology Are Dead
27. Jul, 2009 
21 Comments
Didn’t the major natural horsemanship names notice?
Way back in 2008, the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior wrote a position paper outlining its reasons for eschewing any kind of dominance-based training. Based on the most recent research, their paper is as enlightening to the mindful horse owner as it should be eye-opening to the devotees of such hugely popular pet celebrities as Cesar Millan and other natural horsemanship trainers who may or may not remain nameless as this post progresses.
When you read the quotes below, mentally substitute the word, “horse” when you read “animal,” or “dog.” You’ll be surprised at how this applies.
AVSAB is concerned with the recent reemergence of dominance theory and forcing dogs and other animals into submission as a means of preventing and correcting behavior problems. For decades, some traditional animal training has relied on dominance theory and has assumed that animals misbehave primarily because they are striving for higher rank. This idea often leads trainers to believe that force or coercion must be used to modify these undesirable behaviors.
In the last several decades, our understanding of dominance theory and of the behavior of domesticated animals and their wild counterparts has grown considerably, leading to updated views. To understand how and whether to apply dominance theory to behavior in animals, it’s imperative that one first has a basic understanding of the principles.
The reemergence of dominance theory (whether equine, canine or aardvark) has been well-cloaked. It’s now dressed in tight-fitting jeans covering a cute behind, touted by gleaming white teeth in a smiling, animal-loving face. It is couched in terms such as, “make the right thing easy and the wrong thing hard,” and “be the pack leader.” It’s easy for someone who’s not listening critically to get sucked in. When I first saw Cesar Millan on TV, I fell in love with him. It took a while for me to get it. Same with Clinton Anderson. Mindful horsemanship demands critical examination of the underlying premise of any movement, practiced by any trainer, no matter how appealing.
Critical examination of the underlying concepts of dominance training requires first that you know the definition of dominance as it pertains to animal interaction. After all, if you are going to play “animal” with a half ton horse, you’d better get it right.
Dominance is defined as a relationship between individual animals that is established by force/aggression and submission, to determine who has priority access to multiple resources such as food, preferred resting spots, and mates (Bernstein 1981; Drews 1993). A dominance-submissive relationship does not exist until one individual consistently submits or defers. In such relationships, priority access exists primarily when the more dominant individual is present to guard the resource.
Between a horse and his (traditional) trainer, the issues of dominance to be worked out have NOTHING to do with guarding resources. No one is trying to beat the other to a mate, to food or water, or to new territory. It’s about rank. Pure and simple.
In our relationship with our pets, priority access to resources is not the major concern. The majority of behaviors owners want to modify … are not related to valued resources and may not even involve aggression.
Humans don’t want to scare off horses so we can get better access to mares or grass. We want to modify their behavior in our own arena. They know we are not horses, and we should know we can’t fool them. To assume that we can is just plain disrespectful. As I’ve said before, to assume that unwanted behaviors result from aggression is a mirror of our own aggression.
These behaviors in horses result from our own clumsy reward structure (or, actually, the lack thereof), and the fact that we are inconsistent and fail to gain the trust of our horses. We keep trying for dominance, when what we really need is leadership.
Basing a “natural” method on part of the story (dominance) and leaving the rest (the fact that the endgame doesn’t exist for both parties) is basic error in thinking. Pros may have better luck at applying dominance theory to human-animal interactions by mimicking horses, but ordinary folk like me can get into trouble quickly. It is dangerous in the short and long term. How?
• It can cause humans to resort to punishment (suppressed aggression), which, according to the AVSAB can result in the animals’ fear and anxiety, all the while not addressing the underlying cause of the undesirable behavior. (AVSAB 2007).
• When you use dominance theory, you fail to recognize that in wild animals, dominant-submissive relationships are established and reinforced through breed-specific warning postures and displays which most humans will never be able to replicate correctly or recognize. This is dangerous. This may also increase the amount of aggression necessary to maintain the dominant position. This often means physical force, or at least more force than strictly necessary for cooperation. This may result in submissive behavior, but we all know that the fearful, downtrodden horse will take every opportunity to kick you when your guard is down, and the aggressive owner will deserve it.
• These dominant-submissive relationships are constantly renegotiated in the wild. They are NOT static. Jostling for rank never ends. In contrast, a calm, secure state of loving cooperation can be maintained indefinitely, so long as the human does nothing to destroy it.
Equine-ethology-based horsemanship methods which rely on the establishment and enforcement of a two-creature hierarchy lead to antagonistic relationships.
Now, would somebody please get me off my soapbox? I’ve been up here for days. My feet are getting soggy.
© 2009 – 2012, enlightenedhorsemanship. All rights reserved.
blogposts
LOL about the soggy feet!
Nice post – I have taken a couple of natural horsemanship clinics and realized pretty fast that I didn’t click with the dominance thing.
We worked with someone for a specific problem with our pony once and she so “got” him and helped us learn to partner with him differently, and very effectively.
Yet when I tried to do some work with her and my horse, she didn’t at all understand him. He is kind and well-trained, but he has been owned by three adoring women (I’m the last one) in his 20 years and he works for you if you treat him well. Plus he’s incredibly verbal. Take something nebulous (to him) like “he needs to give to pressure” and contrive a pointless exercise to “teach” him this and he just stands there.
Ask him to move over b/c he’s in your space and he steps right over.
It was clear pretty quickly that he didn’t subscribe to what she thought was a given in her work with horses, and once I realized she was trying to make him fit her mold, we ended the work. She said his instinct had been trained out of him. I said he had never lived wild and never needed that kind of instinct, but was smart enough to adapt to what worked well for him in his well-cared for life – women like to talk. He learned our language.
i’m glad you’re on your soapbox! another great post on an important topic.
in fact, you’ve done it again – this post got my brain working a little (it’s been pretty rusted shut lately
and i wrote another out of control long comment i couldn’t fit here. mind if i post a link here again?
billie also sent me a great article (thanks again!) that i haven’t even begun to sort out in my head yet
there just aren’t enough hours in a day for all of my equestrian obsessions :-\
billie
I love it!
The thing I find interesting about adherents to n.h. is that they honestly believe that they can impose their methods to all horses without modification to fit the horse. As if they were universal “units” to be processed.
It doesn’t work that way. Especially when you contrive exercises to be practiced over and over.
I will never forget the bored and irritated expression on my brilliant mare Millie’s face when asked to go through the basic ground exercises (move forward, move backward, move left, right, cross over in front, cross over behind, turn on forehand, turn from behind). She honestly let me know that it was pointless and that I was insulting her intelligence, her very “horseness.”
Yet in the hunt field, she was a MASTER at any of these maneuvers, in a hurry when necessary.
Little credit is gien to the intellect of horses when they are asked to repeat things, and when they are assumed to need this stuff ad nauseum, or to SUBMIT to us. In my case, there was no need for Millie to submit to me on the ground, as she was more experienced in ground work than I! She taught me.
jme
soapboxes can get tiresome–to read and to write, so I’m almost finished. Hooray!
Please, link away or whatever you feel like doing. I look forward to reading what you have to day. You take a concept and run with it in such an educated way that I often feel chastened by my lack of practical knowledge on the subject.
I can’t wait to read it.
I like your soapbox and your soggy feet too. Very funny.
Like always I agree with billie and jacquie and have little to add. I feel if you want the respect of an animal you must earn that respect . Not by one animal dominating another. Our horses aren’t competing with us for food or mares etc. as you say. they are there for us to form a relationship with as partners. As far as dominance is concerned, we don’t operate that way around our horses and have never had a problem earning their respect.
On another note my mare Dusty sounds like your Millie, she gets bored easily and will not be pigeon holed by doing the same thing over and over endlessly,(unless she thinks it’s her idea!). Oh, and by the way she thinks she’s smarter than me and always tries to anticipate what’s coming next.
I love runaway comments, here or in others’ blogs. As far as blogging funks, I understand them. I’ve just recovered from one.
ghm,
Dusty sounds great! I’ll bet she isn’t a draft horse, though, and accused of being stupid. Most people look at her attitude and chalk it up to the cold-blooded dullness they are unfortunately known for.
There were many times when Millie outsmarted me and even saved my life with her intelligence. I’ll bet Dusty’s smarts have done the same for you.
Dusty is a quarter horse and she’s a really smart little gal. I had a Dutch Warmblood for 15 years who was ‘my boy’. I can’t tell you how many times people said he was stupid, ignorant or should be pulling a cart. He was smart enough, just not motivated to work much. I really think they’re all a lot smarter than people give them credit for.
Hi Kim!
I just wanted to say that I have read your latest posts with great interest, and wanted to thank you for your well formulated thoughts.
I totally agree with your comments, and was very happy to also read the scientific backing to what feels right in heart.
I have commented some over at jme’s blog, but it really is comments relating to both blogs.
I will be following!
Hello Horse of Course! I am delighted to see you here!
I am grateful for your attention and look forward to seeing you here more. I have been to your blog a few times, and hope we get to exchange ideas more.
I’m enjoying your series of posts very much – came over here from HorseOfCourse. I’ve been learning from Mark Rashid for a number of years and everything you’re saying is consistent with his approach, which I agree with. Thanks for taking the time and effort to do this series of posts!
Hello Kate!
Welcome. What I really appreciate about Mark Rashid is his very precise yet heartfelt way of explaining both his approach and what he feels the horse feels. It elucidates for me what many trainers who do really good work sometimes fail to clarify.
I initially got into him because he takes everything that my mentor, Linda Tellington-Jones, takes for granted on an intuitive basis, and puts it into words.
I kind of worship him.
Thank you, Kim, for publishing the SVSAB statement & calling attention to its stated position on the use of Dominance Theory (is it really a proper noun?) in training (across a number of species).
As I am disinclined to look to the veterinary profession–& certainly its professional associations, for wisdom, I would not have sought out its position on the subject of so-called “natural” horsemanship” or “natural” dogmanship.”
But, yes, Cesar Milan, & his head-jerking leash techniques do come to mind & I am thrilled to learn that at least one veterinary professional association/society finally sees fit to comment on Masters Cesar’s, Clinton’s (Anderson), Craig’s (Cameron), et al. use of dominance to obtain what they have the temerity to term “partnership.”
In the end, however, even someone as brutal as Clinton Anderson (at the national level) or Tony Eyler (at a regional level) will demur to the use of the term “dominance” to describe/name what is at the source of what they do.
As you no doubt know from your study of & familiarity with such Bronze-age texts as the Bible, the act or invocation of “naming” is what some designate as a term with “surplus meaning,” one that invokes a kind of symbolic power that in the Bronze-age texts signified calling something into creation.
So Mr Anderson & his disciples, wannabees, & legions of followers will invoke naming to inscribe what they would insist is a differentiated practice, one that does not correspond to what the AVSAB characterizes as “dominance.” In this way–& because of the “results” they obtain (terrorizing a horse into obsequiousness), they will likely persist in their practices & remain “popular.”
And I would suggest that there is little difference between them & so-called “natural” horsemen’s use of “dominance theory” & what Nicole Uphoff, Any van Grunsven, Isabel Werth & all the other practitoners of “Modern Dressage” do when they use such techniques as hyperflexion/Rollkur, auxiliary reins run to the bits, spurs, Dexter ring bits, & all the other horrible dominance-based pain-inflicting devices they use to render their horses “obedient,” “yielding,” “soft,” & “supple.”
See the German Federation’s response to Philippe Karl’s letter of complaint & petition.
It like every other instance of power structure & hierarchy (R.I.P. Michel Foucault): Nothing really ever changes at the structural level in terms of power relations.
Shoshin
It would be unwise to ascribe proper noun status to the term dominance theory. ;/
Do you have a link to the German Federation’s response to Philippe Karl’s letter of complaint & petition?
You really nail this one on the head. Your erudite postscript to my post stands alone.
Many thanks for the thoughtful commentary.
Yes, Kim, Mr. Karl’s letter & the response by the German Federation were published in a magazine I adore (& to which I subscribe), “Horses for Life.”
Here is the URL:
http://www.myvirtualpaper.com/doc/Horses-For-Life/Volume44/2009072701/15.html
Blah, blah, blah…
This is one of the reasons why I join Alexander Nevzorov in condemning ALL equine competition–at any level, of any kind–at any time.
Shoshin
Thank you so much for the link. I’m interested to check it out.
On the subject of Philippe Karl: I must tell you about a most unexpected delight.
I recently acquired his majestic 4-DVD set entitled “Classical Dressage: Legerete–the Philosophy of Ease.”
I cannot begin to tell you of the glorious ease, beauty, & enjoyment one (I) experiences watching Mr. Karl work with–especially speak to, horses. Were he an American, he would likely be cursed with the title or recognition of “horse whisperer.” Listening to him chirp, cluck, & soothingly speak in 4 languages (French, English, German, & Italian) to his horses is like waking up next to a gently babbling brookk on top of Mount Tamalpais in late spring.
I have rarely been so uplifted & infused with gentle joy as I am when I listen to Mr Karl communicate with horses.
Now I have seen (in person & on film) & listened to a good many horseman–”natural” & otherwise, including Monty Roberts, Buck Brannaman, Klaus Balkenhol, Major Lindgren, John Lyons, Craig Cameron, Mark Rashid, Frank Bell, William Micklem, Ray Hunt, Anna Twinney, Fritz Stahlecker, Walter Zettl, John O’Leary, Tom Dorrance–among others, and…
I can tell you that there is nothing I have ever seen or listened to from these (abve-referenced) horsemen/horsepeople that compares to listening to & watching Mr. Karl at work or simply being with horses.
There’s a really touching–compelling & war, moment on the first DVD, which is entitled “The School of Aids.” Mr. Karl is shown presenting, briefly, in front of a white board depicting the physical forces/biomechanics at work when a horse is on a circle doing , I believe, renvers.
The frame/take shows Mr Karl standing to the left of the white board in a room just outside a stall with an extraordinarily impish pony, who has his head thrust out in incurable curiosity watching & earnestly listening to Mr. Karl as as speaks about doing renvers.
At one point, Mr. Karl turns to the pony–who for some reason reminds me of a character out of “Peanuts,” & reaches toward the muzzle of the incurably curious & impish pony as if he is going to squeeze the muzzle of the pony as one would squeeze the big red nose of a clown–with sound effects (sounds like a combination between a duck’s quack & a kazoo).
Perhaps it sounds uninteresting & stupid but to watch & listen to this precious moment between this great horseman & the impish pony is…unforgettable.
It reveals Mr. Karl in all of his magnanimous warmth, mirth, & appreciation of individual horse personality.
I hope you get a chance some day to see this moment–& all of these remarkable DVDs.
thanks! i hate to disappoint, but it’s not much of a post. just ramblings that would have taken up too much space here. but thanks for getting me out of my blogging funk, even if i’m only posting run-away comments!
Shoshin
Thanks so much for this description. Now you really have me needing to see that. Your description brought a smile to my face on what is otherwise a very stressful day preparing for the arrival of a hurricane. Rest assured I will track it down.
If you ever get the opportunity to watch Manolo Mendez in person, you really should do it. He is amazing. It requires a lot of concentration to understand what he is doing with the horse (he lays not a finger upon them), but you learn a lot, it is entertaining from many standpoints, and he is just a darling. He understands the hearts of horses in the way you describe Mr. Karl. He is one of my heroes.