Abstract: The long-held belief that human dominance and equine submission are key to successful training and that the horse must be taught to [`]respect' the trainer infers that force is often used during training. Many horses respond by trialling unwelcome evasions, resistances and flight responses, which readily become established. When unable to cope with problem behaviours, some handlers in the past might have been encouraged to use harsh methods or devices while others may have called in a so-called [`]good horseman' or [`]horse whisperer' to remediate the horse. Frequently, the approaches such practitioners offer could not be applied by the horse's owner or trainer because of their lack of understanding or inability to apply the techniques. Often it seemed that these [`]horse-people' had magical ways with horses (e.g., they only had to whisper to them) that achieved impressive results although they had little motivation to divulge their techniques. As we begin to appreciate how to communicate with horses sensitively and consistently, misunderstandings and misinterpretations by horse and trainer should become less common. Recent studies have begun to reveal what comprises the simplest, most humane and most effective mechanisms in horse training and these advances are being matched by greater sharing of knowledge among practitioners. Indeed, various practitioners of what is referred to here as [`]natural horsemanship' now use techniques similar to the [`]whisperers' of old, but they are more open about their methods. Reputable horse trainers using natural horsemanship approaches are talented observers of horse behaviour and respond consistently and swiftly to the horse's subtle cues during training. For example, in the roundpen these trainers apply an aversive stimulus to prompt a flight response and then, when the horse slows down, moves toward them, or offers space-reducing affiliative signals, the trainer immediately modifies his/her agonistic signals, thus negatively reinforcing the desired response. Learning theory and equine ethology, the fundamentals of the emerging discipline of equitation science, can be used to explain almost all the behaviour modification that goes on in these contexts and in conventional horsemanship. By measuring and evaluating what works and what does not, equitation science has the potential to have a unifying effect on traditional practices and developing branches of equitation.

Abstract: Increasing saliva flow to buffer the stomach has been hypothesized as a basis for crib-biting in horses. Saliva amounts in seven cribbing and seven noncribbing (control) horses were compared either pre- and post-cribbing or at pre- and post-5-minute intervals for controls. A pre-weighed cellulose sponge was used to collect saliva at the exit of the submandibular gland for 30 seconds, then reweighed. Data were analyzed as repeated measures. Mean saliva weight overall was similar between cribbing and control horses (1.2 and 1.5 g, respectively, SE = 0.2). However, mean saliva weight for pre- and post-samples (1.5 and 1.2 g, respectively, SE = 0.06) for all horses was significantly lower (P < .05) in the post-sample, indicating a drying effect of the sponge. Because of a strong tendency (P < .06) for a treatment-by-sampling time interaction, data were analyzed by sampling time and cribbing status. Mean saliva weights in the pre-sample were 0.43 g higher (P < .03) in control than cribbing horses. Control horses showed a 0.38 g decrease (P < .01) in saliva weight between pre- and post-samples, which was not evident in cribbing horses. To determine whether cribbing offset the saliva decrease seen in control horses, nine cribbing horses were sampled as before but prevented from cribbing between samples. A similar reduction (0.39 g, P < .01) in saliva weights between samples with cribbing allowed versus cribbing prevented was seen in these horses as was seen in control horses in the initial study. Because cribbing does produce saliva, gastrointestinal irritation could be a motivating cause for cribbing.

Abstract: In two experiments cats acquired a stimulus-controlled approach or avoidance response by observational or conventional shaping procedures. Observer cats acquired the avoidance response (hurdle jumping in response to a buzzer stimulus) significantly faster and made fewer errors than cats that were conventionally trained. Observer cats acquired the approach response (lever pressing for food in response to a light stimulus) with significantly fewer errors than cats that were conventionally trained. In some cases, observer cats committed one or no errors while reaching criterion.