Abstract: The ideals of equestrian technique combine art and science. Therefore students of equitation
encounter measurable variables such as rhythm, tempo and impulsion alongside more ethereal ones
such as outline and harmony. This mixture accounts for many of the idiosyncrasies of equestrianism
including the subjective scoring of performance in dressage tests, the elusiveness of perfection even at
an elite level of competition and the difficulty of expressing equestrian technique in empirical terms
(Roberts, 1992).
This chapter will describe and offer examples of the unwelcome behavioural responses horses
produce under saddle. Two broad sections are then proposed to allow the reader to consider
unwelcome behavioural responses caused directly by humans as distinct from those attributable more
to the horse than the rider. Ultimately the responsibility for problems in the ridden horse lies with
humans since we have undertaken the domestication and exploitation of equids. Therefore it is
accepted that the dichotomy is not absolute. The chapter closes with a

Abstract: In many of the studies reviewed in this book, eavesdropping takes the
following form: a subject has the opportunity to monitor, or eavesdrop upon, an
interaction between two other animals,Aand B. The subject then uses the information
obtained through these observations to assess A`s and B`s relative dominance
or attractiveness as a mate (e.g. Mennill et al., 2002; Ch. 2). For example, Oliveira
et al. (1998) found that male fighting fish Betta splendens that had witnessed two
other males involved in an aggressive interaction subsequently responded more
strongly to the loser of that interaction than the winner. Subjects-behaviour could
not have been influenced by any inherent differences between the two males, because
subjects responded equally strongly to the winner and the loser of competitive
interactions they had not observed. Similarly, Peake et al. (2001) presented
male great tits Parus major with the opportunity to monitor an apparent competitive
interaction between two strangers by simulating a singing contest using two
loudspeakers. The relative timing of the singing bouts (as measured by the degree
of overlap between the two songs) provided information about each “contestants”
relative status. Following the singing interaction, one of the “contestants” was
introduced into the male`s territory. Males responded significantly less strongly
to singers that had apparently just “lost” the interaction (see also McGregor &
Dabelsteen, 1996; Naguib et al., 1999; Ch. 2).
What information does an individual acquire when it eavesdrops on others?
In theory, an eavesdropper could acquire information of many different sorts:
about A, about B, about the relationship between A and B, or about the place of
Animal Communication Networks, ed. Peter K. McGregor. Published by Cambridge University Press.
c.
Cambridge University Press 2005.
583
P1: JZZ/... P2: JZZ/...
0521823617c25.xml CU1917B/McGregor 0 521 582361 7 October 7, 2004 22:31
584 D. L. Cheney & R. M. Seyfarth
A`s and B`s relationship in a larger social framework. The exact information acquired
will probably reflect the particular species social structure. For example,
songbirds like great tits live in communities in which six or seven neighbours
surround each territory-holding male. Males appear to benefit from the knowledge
that certain individuals occupy specific areas (e.g. Brooks & Falls, 1975), that
competitive interactions between two different neighbours have particular outcomes,
and that these outcomes are stable over time. We would, therefore, expect
an eavesdropping great tit not only to learn that neighbour A was dominant to
neighbour B, for example, but also to form the expectation that A was likely to
defeat B in all future encounters. More speculatively, because the outcome of territorial
interactions are often site specific (reviewed by Bradbury & Vehrencamp,
1998), we would expect eavesdropping tits to learn further that A dominates B
in some areas but B dominates A in others. In contrast, the information gained
from monitoring neighbours interactions would unlikely be sufficient to allow
the eavesdropper to rank all of its neighbours in a linear dominance hierarchy,
because not all neighbouring males would come into contact with one another.
Such information would be difficult if not impossible to acquire; it might also be
of little functional value.
In contrast, species that live in large, permanent social groups have a much
greater opportunity to monitor the social interactions of many different individuals
simultaneously. Monkey species such as baboons Papio cynocephalus, for
example, typically live in groups of 80 or more individuals, which include several
matrilineal families arranged in a stable, linear dominance rank order (Silk et al.,
1999). Offspring assume ranks similar to those of their mothers, and females maintain
close bonds with their matrilineal kin throughout their lives. Cutting across
these stable long-term relationships based on rank and kinship are more transient
bonds: for example, the temporary associations formed between unrelated
females whose infants are of similar ages, and the “friendships” formed between
adult males and lactating females as an apparent adaptation against infanticide
(Palombit et al., 1997, 2001). In order to compete successfully within such groups, it
would seem advantageous for individuals to recognize who outranks whom, who
is closely bonded to whom, and who is likely to be allied to whom (Harcourt, 1988,
1992; Cheney & Seyfarth, 1990; see below). The ability to adopt a third party`s perspective
and discriminate among the social relationships that exist among others
would seem to be of great selective benefit.
In this chapter, we review evidence for eavesdropping in selected primate
species and we consider what sort of information is acquired when one individual
observes or listens in on the interactions of others. We then compare eavesdropping
by primates with eavesdropping in other animal species, focusing on both
potential differences and directions for further research

Abstract: Animal flight behaviour in response to aircraft could have a profound influence
on the accuracy and precision of aerial estimates of population size but is rarely
investigated. Using independent observers on the ground and in the air we
recorded the presence and behaviour of 17 groups, including 136 individually
marked horses, during a helicopter count in New Zealand’s Kaimanawa
Mountains. We also compared the helicopter count with ground-based
estimates using mark-resight and line-transect methods in areas ranging from
20.5 to 176 km2. Helicopter counts were from 16% smaller to 54% larger than
ground-based estimates. The helicopter induced a flight response in all horse
groups monitored. During flight, horse groups traveled from 0.1 up to 2.75 km
before leaving the ground observer’s view and temporarily changed in size and
composition. A tenth of the horses were not counted and a quarter counted
twice. A further 23 (17%) may have been counted twice but only two of the
three observers’ records concurred. Thus, the helicopter count over-estimated
the marked sub-population by at least 15% and possibly by up to 32%. The net
over-estimate of the marked sub-population corresponded to the 17% and 13%
difference between helicopter counts and ground-based estimates in the central
study area and for the largest area sampled, respectively. Feral horse flight
behaviour should be considered when designing methods for population
monitoring using aircraft. We identify the characteristics of the helicopter
count that motivated horse flight behaviour. We compared our own recent
estimate of population growth from measures of fecundity and mortality (λ =
1.096 with an earlier-published one (λ = 1.182, where r = 0.167) that had been
derived by interpolating between the available history of single counts. Our
model of population growth, standardised aerial counts, and historical estimates
of annual reproduction suggest that the historical sequence of counts since
1979 probably over-estimated growth because count techniques improved and
greater effort was expended in successive counts. We used line-transect, markresight
and dung density sampling methods for population monitoring and
discuss their advantages and limitations over helicopter counts.

Abstract: Background
Feral horses (Equus caballus) can cause significant environmental damage and losses to
rural industries. Although considered pests, feral horses are also a resource, providing
products such as pet meat for the domestic market and meat for human consumption
for the export market. Control methods include trapping, mustering exclusion fencing,
ground shooting and shooting from helicopters.
Feral horses are mustered by helicopter, motorbike or on horseback, sometimes with the
assistance of coacher horses. Once mustered into yards, net traps or fenced paddocks, the
horses are usually sold to abattoirs for slaughter which can offset the costs of capture and
handling. Less commonly, they are sold as riding horses or relocated to reserves or horse
sanctuaries. Where there is no market for them or where removal may be too costly or
impractical e.g. in conservation areas or remote areas without access to transportation,
horses are sometimes destroyed by shooting in the yards.
This standard operating procedure (SOP) is a guide only; it does not replace or
override the legislation that applies in the relevant State or Territory jurisdiction.
The SOP should only be used subject to the applicable legal requirements (including
OH&S) operating in the relevant jurisdiction.