Different models for keeping horses

At a scientific kitchen table conference, I got the book Hidden Horses by Mark Hanson put in my hands. It is an interesting read about the shared history of horse and man, how we worked together over the years and how horses have improved our lives. In his book Mark urges us, now when the horses in our part of the world no longer is the difference between life and death, to really make an effort to give our horses a "horsey life" during the hours we do not use them.

Mark presents four models of horse keeping that defines our relationship to horses, there are no solid walls between them. We can in various degrees be influenced by them and I do think that we can recognize ourselves (and others!) in them.

The Utility model:
The model is based on tradition, history and the culture in which horses were made “useful”. They could play a part in warfare, in agriculture, in industry. In our Western culture the horse was a kept for a reason and few individuals were kept just for pleasure.

Horses played a significant role in the military and that affects the key ingredients for utility model, that is control (via the reins, bits, proper seat), dominance and discipline. Dressage competitions are traces of that era in which horse and rider's performance is assessed based on predetermined ideals of obedience and control through gaites and turnes in geometric patterns. Western riding also falls into the utility model: the horse was expected to do a job on the ranch.

Professions such as veterinarians, farriers, trainers, agronomists are often trained with the utility model as a basis for their education.

A brief summary of the utility model:
* Horse is defined by what it is to be used for, everything that falls out of this definition is irrelevant (unless it would increase the horse's performance)
* the model is simple, straightforward, practical and effective, based on "things that work" even though it may be a question of beliefs rather than knowledge in certain situations
* the model is created by men for men, it is rigid and difficult to change
* The horse has nothing to say in this model and many horses fall-out early

The Anthropomorphic model:
Anthropomorphism is a term coined during 1700 to describe how people look for human characteristics in animals, plants, and phenomena such as storms. The model is interpreting the horse's behavior in terms of human behavior.

According to Mark, this model is the most dangerous threat to horses and people in the world today, even though it is based on human qualities as benevolence and kindness.

In this model there are four rules.
1, Anthropomorphism is alway rewardig for the human
2, the more like the human environment we can make the horse's environment, the more we feel like we take care of it
3, because it is rewarding to the human in itself the feedback for humans is strong in the model
4, despite the best intentions the model may often have the opposite effect on the horse.

Significant features of this model are shopping (treats, compound feed, blankets and other equipment), an overly protective attitude that prevents the horse from being in the paddock with other horses, being out in rough weather, and forces it to be covered for long periods of the year. The horse is completely dependent on the owner's personal beliefs about what is best for the horse, often based more on others' perceptions and sometimes pure misunderstandings than facts.

For the horse does this model include increased risk of obesity, laminitis, stress and various behavioral disorders.

The Horsemanship model:
This model Mark sees as a step forward in keeping and training horses. The model focuses on communication rather than control of the horse, something the previous models are based on.

The disadvantage of this model is that it is a system which, like other systems (utilitylmodel), do not adapt to the individual. The downside is that the horse learns “compliance" instead of wanting to be a active part of the training. Mark points out that horses are trained by this method easily learns to look for "the easy way out/the minimum effort" to get the release from the pressure that the trainer uses.

The origin of this model comes from how horses behave towards each other, where the threat and submissiveness is an important part in the daily life of the heard. What distinguishes the horses' use of these method is that when the high ranked horse has presented her threat and the low ranked horse has yielded there is all there is to it.

When we are training the horse by this method we will continue our threat during the time we train and we do not stop when the horse "yields" the first time but instead progress to the next exercise. One obvious danger with this model is that the trainer can easily create a horse that turns off.

The Natural Horse Keeping model:
The last model is the one that Mark advocates. In that model, he wants the horse to be in paddocks that stimulates the horse to walk and eat and to be part of a heard. The feeding is based on the fact that the horse digest food through microbiotic fermentation. It should be covered as late as possible and the blanked should be removed as soon as possible. The equipment must be suited for the job the horse will do and with no auxilliary reins.

The training of the horse is done through 'positive reinforcement, clicker training, where the horse learns to actively seek to do what leads to the reward (Mark stresses that the goal is that the horse will learn to work for the click and the sweet becomes secondary).

I have taken myself to the horsemanshipmodellen and I find it interesting to read about what Mark describes as the next level in the relationship horse-human. I can agree with what he writes about how we can improve the horse's environment.There is plenty of room for improvement for many horses in Sweden today.

Clicker training as opposed to horsemanship then? My own experience comes from horsemanship, I have not myself tried clicker training. However, I have seen good and bad effects of both kinds. When it comes to training models, I believe in what he says about system in general - namely, that they can leave the individual behind and that goes for both man and horse.

I personally believe that we could become more "means where by" focused in our training of the horse (and ourselves), be aware of our desired goals and humbled by the journey. If we manage that I think we can work together as two happy individuals.

PST!
In response to post about BT-circumference, here is a link to a page that gives more information.

"There really is a hidden horse in our horses, it is sometimes a little strange anf always rather wonderful and it is waiting for you to discover it."
Mark Hanson