Time is short for puting your name forward against the use of hyperflexion. In the following letter, Philippe Karl invites you to make a difference by signing a petition to be submitted in a week’s time at an FEI meeting in Switzerland.
Although science is to be considered at the FEI meeting, the types of tests that are undertaken are difficult morally, difficult to undertake, and the past methodologies have at times been sub-standard, which is why I think that, in addition to the science, ‘common-sense’ should be used and erring on the side of caution is advisable. The petition Mr Karl mentions is one way to add your voice, and I encourage you to do the same.
Dear Madam, Dear Sir,
On 9 February 2010, more than 20 experts will attend an FEI meeting in Switzerland to discuss once again whether the so-called hyperflexion (“Rollkur”) is an adequate method of training a horse. In order to support the opponents of this method and offer them further arguments, a petition has been initiated at www.no-rollkur.com. We’d like to invite you to support this action against hyperflexion – time is short!
You were so kind as to sign our own petition calling for reforms of the FN rules, which was initiated in May 2009. This obviously bore fruit: The German FN eventually invited Philippe Karl for a meeting in Warendorf, Germany. They now have to find an appropriate date. We will of course keep you informed about the outcome of this meeting.
Thank you very much again for your support!
Cordially,
Philippe Karl & his team
Here’s the link again: www.no-rollkur.com
Thanks for your time and happy riding…
Negative reinforcement gets a bad rap – after all, why would someone want to beat a horse? Why indeed! When asked about if they use negative reinforcement in their training, riders frequently assure one that they do not… ‘no, I only use positive reinforcement’ comes the earnest reply.
But in fact, negative reinforcement is indeed the trainer’s friend, and has nothing to do with beating horses or performing any other dodgy activities.
But what does negative reinforcement actually mean?
Unlike the common misconception that it is something ‘bad’ – as humans, we tend to associate the word ‘negative’ to averse consequences, for example a sarcastic remark is ‘negative’, a fight is ‘negative’; but negative reinforcement in animal training is simply the removal of something that results in improved responding rates.
While this terminology originates in behavioural psychology, the meaning can be found in the Concise Oxford Dictionary [negative n. 2. negative quality, absence of something, negative v.t. neutralize (effect)].
To understand this negative reinforcement, we also probably need to know what ‘reinforcement’ means… the Concise says that to reinforce something means ‘to strengthen or support’, including in quantity, size, importance – so this suggests an impression of an increase in force or magnitude.
But The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, written by Arthur and Emily Reber recognises use of the term also elicits confusion among psychologists. Is it any wonder we are confused?! The Rebers – after a useful diatribe exploring ‘reinforcement’ finally come up with
any event, stimulus, act, response or information when made contingent upon the response that preceded it, serves to increase the relative frequency or likelihood of occurrence of that response.
Simply put, negative involves removal or absence, and a reinforcer increases responses – Simple!
What does it mean to a horse-rider? No matter what anyone says, people ride using negative reinforcement. The stimulis (aids) are applied using a bridle, bit, halter, string around the neck and the legs on the horse’s sides. The removal of the bit pressure or the leg pressure removes discomfort and signals to the horse that his response was correct. The horse has no way of determining that his response is ‘correct’ if he is not rewarded by a removal of the stimulus when the response occurs.
All good horsemen (yes, women too) know this. The Dorrance brothers knew this, Philippe Karl knows this, Andrew McLean knows this, Steffen Peters knows this. The old masters knew this ‘leg without hand, hand without leg’. Gas pedal and brakes do not go on together.
Repeat after me…
‘correct use of negative reinforcement is a good thing’!
At the most subtle level (blink and you will miss it) the best proponents of the German system may recognise this, but that system is terrible at expressing it or teaching riders to ride using correct negative reinforcement, with confusion produced by statements such as ‘the horse must be through’, and be ridden ‘with the forward-driving aids into the hand’, undoubtedly leading to some of the abominations seen at all levels of the sport with horses suffering from relentless pressure.
Another day, we will explore positive reinforcement – also a good thing!
Over on Twitter, TrotonTV (John Bethell) wanted my thoughts on Anky van Grunsven’s reply about her student Patrik Kittel’s ‘Blue Tongue’ video recording, now being investigated by FEI. (I also wrote about it here).
140 tweet characters does not allow a particularly thorough reply!
So John, here you go…
Example of unknown dressage horse ridden in Rollkur (hyperflexion)
We must use a degree of caution, knowing that the link is a translation (for those of us who don’t read Dutch!) With anything translated, there is always a danger of the old problem of ‘meaning lost in translation’.
For the benefit of our discussion here, I am talking about the translation made by Google today, 15 November 2009.
- Anky appears to suggest that the horse’s tongue was over the bit. The question arises: ”is it OK for the horse to go with the tongue over the bit at all?; but also why would he want to put his tongue over the bit?
- Assuming Anky is right, and that the tongue was over the bit, the answer is: because of pressure on his tongue that he is trying to escape. A horse trying to escape tongue pressure retracts his tongue in his mouth, and can then get it ‘over the bit’.
- My thoughts are that if the tongue is blue: (a) it probably not simply over the bit, but is either trapped between the two bits, or under both bits, but with sufficient pressure to limit oxygenated blood supply to the tongue, making it appear blue (unoxygenated), OR (b) [and this is a very unqualified statement on my part, as I don't know of any studies that have addressed this] perhaps it possible that blue tongue is merely a symptom of lack of oxygenated blood to the horse’s whole head caused by overbent neck limiting oxygenated blood supply.
- I am not sure what ‘losrijterrein’ means. It is possible this means hyperflexion or Rollkur, but I do not know. If this does mean hyperflexion, I am not sure if she is saying that audiences either (a) are used to seeing hyperflexion, (b) regularly complain about it, or (c) are used to seeing it enough to think it normal.
- The translated reply says that horses ‘can put their tongues over the bit for any reason and that it need not be negative’ – perhaps something here is confused in translation, or maybe not. I don’t accept that a horse going with tongue over the bit is acceptable, one wonders why this wasn’t this pointed out to the rider by officials.
- Anky recognises that the FEI has to uphold equine welfare, but thinks that the problem has been blown out of proportion and that they need to support riders also.
Personally, I am relieved this is getting attention at the FEI.
Somewhere I have read that Anky says the science does not show that hyperflexion is detrimental to the horse. She is right in this comment – studies of Rollkur have been inconclusive, they are not easy undertaken, and indeed the science does not as yet point firmly in one direction. A recent report to the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality noted studies contained flaws in methodology, limited numbers, or unhelpful parameters were used and that
This leads us to conclude there is insufficient scientific evidence to confirm unequivocally whether or not there are welfare issues involved in training techniques using hyperflexion’.
The case of hyperflexion and the blue tongue is perhaps a situation where rather than relying solely on the current scientific evidence, common sense should enable us to utilise our knowledge of biology, pain, biomechanics (and physics – e.g. the lever action of the curb), which is what I believe many educated people are trying to do.
You will see on the FEI website, their rules governing Abuse of Horses (Article 142, page 35) – specifically notes that no person may use actions ”causing pain or unnecessary discomfort to a horse’. Given what has been observed of recent times, these actions have not been held to account for years.
This raises the question: given the implications for the FEI and equestrian sport in general, is the FEI the appropriate body to conduct and impartial investigation into Patrik Kittel’s horse’s blue tongue? – or is it a case as Bidda Jones of the Australian RSPCA suggests ‘is the fox in the hen house’?
