How a Flawed Study of Captive Wolves Changed the Horse World

Free-roaming bands are families, not dominance hierarchies

The idea that horse herds have a dominance hierarchy with a single dominant leader at the top sounds so plausible, it seems almost self-evident. But it is not based on facts. Wild horse herds are family units that survive through cooperation, not competition. They have no dominant leader; leadership is shared. Anyone can go anywhere, anytime; following is optional. Rank tends to correlate to age. It doesn't typically change, and does not necessarily translate to a linear hierarchy. They have no “best resources” to create conflict; when grazing is sparse, they spread out. There is little to fight about; most interactions are quiet and friendly. Aggression, however, gets attention because it is more obvious and exciting. Some behaviors are falsely labeled as aggression, such as mock fights between stallion friends (which do involve strong body contact), or a stallion chasing a youngster away from perceived danger. Domestic horses in contrast often live under conditions that create conflict: confined spaces, introduced food, families and friends separated, poorly socialized and traumatized individuals thrown together in groups not of their own choosing. A “dominant” horse who claims prime access to resources may be perceived by humans as a leader. More likely he is stressed and defensive. Other horses defer to him in order to minimize conflict, not because they respect or trust him. (This article explains the structure of a free-roaming herd in contrast to a domestic herd. Pasture Politics, Social Skills, and Wild Horses ) With these facts well-documented by decades of research, how did the myth of dominant leadership become so pervasive? More important, why does it persist in the face of overwhelming evidence against it? Here’s the story... with many thanks to the people who graciously reviewed this article for accuracy and clarity.

The Rise and Fall of Dominance Theory in the Scientific World Dominance Theory started about 100 years ago when a researcher observed that chickens had a pecking order. Next came studies of captive wolves. They consistently showed a hierarchy that determined who owned personal space, who prevailed in confrontations, and who had prime access to resources such as food and mates. Other species showed similar behaviors. The concept of dominance hierarchies was readily accepted, perhaps because it is familiar to humans. Hierarchies are common when unrelated humans work together. Military ranks are overtly defined, with higher rank conferring privilege and authority. Businesses have bosses, managers, and seniority among workers. Most social organizations have some type of hierarchical structure even if it is not overtly stated. Modern society commonly defines success as “moving up”: more money, authority, status, and/or influence. Thus, it was logical to people that animals would want to “move up” in their hierarchies to acquire privileges. The flaw in this assumption became glaringly apparent after wolf researcher Dr. David Mech documented the behavior of wild wolf packs. They do not have dominance hierarchies; they are family units. Captive wolves showed abnormal behavior caused by loss of their natural living conditions and their family-centered social structure. Many other species, including horses, also failed to show dominance hierarchies when studied in their natural habitats. Ironically, Dr. Mech’s book "The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species" (published 1970) had previously been influential in promoting Dominance Theory. He asked his publisher to take it off the market due to the inaccuracies in it. By this time, however, the horse and dog worlds had embraced Dominance Theory and were applying it to training and relationships.

Best Friends Jerry and Merlot

Dominance Theory and the Dog World Being an “alpha leader” was described as humane and understandable to dogs because it was based on their “natural” behavior. Dog owners were advised by such credible sounding sources as the Monks of New Skete that behavior problems, especially aggression, were largely caused by dogs trying to be dominant over their people. Techniques were outlined for people to establish themselves as “alpha”, including the “alpha roll”, meant to impress upon your puppy that you outrank him. (This technique has been demonstrated to cause aggression, not prevent it.) Some dog owners resisted; others became disillusioned. Who wants to dominate their Best Friend, always on guard for signs that he is trying to usurp your role as pack leader? Trainers and behaviorists saw the problems created by dominance-based interactions. Many trainers demonstrated the success of positive training techniques as alternatives. Notable among these were veterinarian and behaviorist Ian Dunbar, founder of Sirius Dog Training and the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT); veterinary behaviorist Nicholas Dodman; and trainer Pat Miller, author of numerous books and practical, commonsense articles on dog training. Positive training techniques were adopted not only by pet owners, but by trainers of working dogs with critical jobs, such as law enforcement and personal assistance. It looked like the dog world was moving in a solidly positive direction. And then came the “Dog Whisperer”, demonstrating his purported success in dealing with dog problems by establishing himself as dominant over the dog. Each episode is accompanied by a warning not to try these techniques yourself. Multiple lawsuits claim aggressive attacks by his own dogs on both people and on other dogs, and injuries to other people’s dogs in his care. His continuing popularity demonstrates the power that drama and marketing have over science and common sense.

A Bond Based on Trust, Not Dominance

Dominance Theory and the Horse World Dominance Theory was sold to the horse world on the following premises. Each premise is flawed, as demonstrated by trainers, equine behaviorists, ethologists, veterinarians, and scientific research.
1. “Dominance Theory is based on horses’ natural behavior.” Wrong. Horses do not seek or follow dominant leaders.
2. “Establishing themselves as ‘alpha’ or dominant helps people bond and develop better relationships with their horses.” Wrong again. Techniques used to establish dominance over a horse interfere with bonding.
3. “Problem behaviors are commonly caused by horses’ attempts to become dominant over the people handling them.” Not so. Problem behaviors are most often caused by anxiety, confusion, pain, or lack of training. Treating them as dominance-related prevents identifying and addressing the real causes, while creating unnecessary anxiety.
4. “Dominance-based training is more humane than traditional training methods.” This implies there was only one method of horse training previously. In fact, there have been many different methods of horse training all over the world for many centuries, ranging from humane to abusive, with infinite variations depending on how individuals applied them. Dominance-based training is often cited as a source of physical and emotional abuse and trauma.
5. “Round pen demonstrations prove that moving a horse’s feet establishes the trainer as leader because the horse ultimately follows the trainer.” No. Pressure from the trainer triggers the horse’s flight reflex. The horse discovers that the pressure stops when he stays behind the trainer, or otherwise complies with the trainer’s directions as best he can decipher them. This frequently looks successful because horses’ default response is to comply in order to avoid conflict.

Why the Dominance Myth persists How does such a flawed concept maintain its hold on the horse world? The answer lies in marketing. Horsemanship that is focused on horse welfare and supported by science is quiet, patient, and mostly boring to watch. Hence the saying, "Good horsemanship is as exciting as watching grass grow." Horsemanship based on dominance is a marketer’s dream. A dominant human can ensure action by using pressure to make a horse move at whatever speed or direction he chooses just by adjusting the degree and angle of pressure. The compliance offered by most horses is described as proof that the horse has accepted the human as leader. Trainers demonstrating this technique are typically “cowboys” or at least dress the part. The cowboy image created by media in our country is someone who is honest, hard-working, and a skilled horseman, thus providing instant credibility. Dominance Theory is closely tied to “Natural Horsemanship”, a term that implies that any other style of horsemanship is “unnatural” and therefore less humane or effective. Whole training systems are based on the premise of dominant leadership. (People who define their approach as “Natural Horsemanship” without using dominant techniques are not included in this discussion.) Natural Horsemanship is marketed aggressively through demonstrations, training programs, camps, testimonials, videos, and photographs. Trainers attempt to “brand” their personal techniques and equipment, implying that their method works for all horses. High profile trainers “certify” other people in their methods. Structured programs imply that minimal horse experience is required to apply them. Common claims include the ability to train horses in “a fraction” of the time, resolve problems easily, and build good partnerships with horses. These claims do not hold up to science or experience. Fast training does not translate to long term reliability; problem behaviors often increase or are actually created; and the techniques used typically interfere with the bonds that owners want. The concept of a dominance hierarchy implies simple solutions compared to the complexities of understanding how horses think, feel, learn, behave, communicate with their body language, and interpret our body language. Unwanted horse behavior is commonly blamed on horses being “disrespectful” or attempting to dominate the human. The ability to move the horse is said to establish the human as leader and “teach the horse respect”, thus resolving behavior problems. This simplistic approach requires only enough skill to make a horse move; not the skills to teach alternatives to unwanted behaviors, or to evaluate whether unwanted behaviors are caused by fear, pain, confusion, or lack of training. The behavior of humans acting dominant easily causes horses additional anxiety or confusion, thus increasing unwanted behavior, and an owner’s belief that she needs more assistance from her trainer to gain safe control over her horse. If a horse’s behavior problems continue to increase, an owner may be told that she is not applying the techniques correctly or that there is something wrong with her horse. She may be advised to sell her horse or even euthanize him. A whole generation of people have now been raised on the assumption that horses have dominance hierarchies, that they must be more dominant than their horses, and that the ensuing problems and disappointments have nothing to do with these assumptions being false. Highly respected trainers Tom and Bill Dorrance have been claimed as the “fathers of Natural Horsemanship”. However, Tom’s book “True Unity” never mentions dominance. Bill’s book “True Horsemanship Through Feel” specifically states, “…there’s no place for this idea [dominance] if you’re speaking about horses.” (p. 311) How is it that dominance-based Natural Horsemanship claims as its founders two esteemed trainers who clearly believed dominance has no place in horsemanship? It’s past time for the horse world to challenge this and all the other fallacies associated with the Dominance Myth. Horses are innately cooperative social animals. Training and handling are far more reliable and humane when based on horses’ true nature, on how they really think, feel, learn, and behave. That is the True Horsemanship that creates True Unity.

Brandy's training promoted Trust, Confidence, and Reliability

What’s the Alternative to Dominance-based Horsemanship? The logical alternative would be based on horses’ natural social order, intelligence, and cooperative nature:
1. A relationship based on trust, which the human must earn because it cannot be “taught” or demanded
2. The use of learning modes and communication that engage a horse’s innate intelligence, including Positive Reinforcement, Investigative Behavior, and Social Learning
3. Success measured by a horse’s trust and confident cooperation This article explains (resources included). Alternatives to Dominance Based Horsemanship

References: Robin Foster, “When the Herd Moves, Who Leads and Who Follows?”, The Horse, July 20, 2017
https://thehorse.com/110684/when-the-herd-moves-who-leads-and-who-follows/

Expanding Beyond Dominance Theory and Horse Hierarchies by Sarah Schlote
https://equusoma.com/expanding-beyond-dominance-theory-and-horse-hierarchies/

Konstanze Krueger, Birgit Flauger, Kate Farmer, Charlotte Hemelrijk, “Movement initiation in groups of feral horses”, Behavioural Processes Volume 103, March 2014
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376635713002222

Lea Briard, Camille Dorn, Odile Petit, “Personality and Affinities Play a Key Role in the Organization of Collective Movements in a Group of Domestic Horses”, Ethology: International journal of behavioural biology, June 16, 2015.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eth.12402/abstract

F. Heitor, M. do Mar Oom, L. Vicente, “Social relationships in a herd of Sorraia horses Part I. Correlates of social dominance and contexts of aggression”, Behavior Processes, Sept 2006.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16815645?dopt=Abstract

Rikako Kimura, “Mutual grooming and preferred associate relationships in a band of free-ranging horses”, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Sept 1998.
http://www.appliedanimalbehaviour.com/article/S0168-1591(97)00129-9/abstract

S. M. McDonnell, J.C.S. Haviland, “Agonistic ethogram of the equid bachelor band,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43 (1995) 147-188
http://research.vet.upenn.edu/Portals/49/95Agonis.pdf)

Horses in Company by Lucy Rees

From Frustration to Fury: The Rage System with Rachel Bedingfield
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eou1-UsF-_E

Wolf News and Information by David Mech “The concept of the alpha wolf is well ingrained in the popular wolf literature, at least partly because of my book "The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species," written in 1968, published in 1970, republished in paperback in 1981, and in print until 2022.”
https://davemech.org/wolf-news-and-information/

Dominance and Dog Training by The Association of Pet Dog Trainers
https://apdt.com/resource-center/dominance-and-dog-training/

The Association of Pet Dog Trainers
https://apdt.com/

Critics Challenge 'Dog Whisperer' Methods By Lynne Peeples
https://www.livescience.com/5846-critics-challenge-dog-whisperer-methods.html

The Anti-Cesar Millan / Ian Dunbar's been succeeding for 25 years with lure-reward dog training; how come he's been usurped by the flashy, aggressive TV host? By Louise Rafkin
https://www.sfgate.com/magazine/article/The-Anti-Cesar-Millan-Ian-Dunbar-s-been-2550043.php

ISES position statement on the use/misuse of leadership and dominance concepts in horse training “Dominance hierarchies, alpha positions or leadership in social groups of horses are manmade concepts that should not form the basis of human-horse interactions.”
https://s3.amazonaws.com/kajabi-storefronts-production/file-uploads/sites/2147549522/themes/2149559392/downloads/435ea3c-4752-0412-2b01-ecccff1c674d_ISES_Position_Statement_Leadership.pdf

Don’t be so dominant during training By Christa Lesté-Lasserre, MA
https://thehorse.com/155489/dont-dominant-training/

“Learning to Speak Horse”: The Culture of “Natural Horsemanship” by Lynda Birke
https://web.archive.org/web/20150414080653/http://www.animalsandsociety.net/assets/library/734_s1.pdf

Monty Roberts website
https://montyroberts.com

Cathrynne Henshall, Paul D. McGreevy, “The role of ethology in round pen horse training – A review”, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, June 2014, pages 1-11.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159114000811

Dominance in Human-Horse Relationships by Robin Foster, PhD, Cert. Applied Animal Behaviorist (CAAB), Cert. Horse Behavior Consultant
https://thehorse.com/132977/dominance-human-horse-relationships/

Natural horsemanship versus traditional methods – is the animosity finally dissolving? By Rose M Scofield
https://blog.cabi.org/2020/09/24/natural-horsemanship-versus-traditional-methods-is-the-animosity-finally-dissolving/

Natural vs Traditional by Horse Journal Admin
“Natural horsemanship is just a term. It’s meaning holds no guarantee that the methods promoted are humane, natural, or in the horse’s best interest. Having the word natural in it would also seem to imply that any other method of training is unnatural, or goes against the nature of the horse. This isn’t to say that there aren’t people who “do natural horsemanship” in a manner that is humane and in the horse’s best interest, because there are... But there are also people who identify with the label, and use and promote inhumane methods to train horses, whether they realize it or not.”
https://www.horsejournals.com/natural-horsemanship-or-traditional-horsemanship-and-why

Exploring the Dominance Theory in Horse Training
By Antonia J.Z. Henderson
https://horse-canada.com/magazine/behaviour/exploring-dominance-theory-horse-training/

Dominance and Leadership: Useful Concepts in Human–Horse Interactions? By Elke Hartmann, Janne W. Christensen, Paul D. McGreevy “Knowledge of horses' natural behavior and learning capacities are more reliable in explaining training outcomes than the application of dominance and leadership concepts.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0737080617300059

True Unity by Tom Dorrance

True Horsemanship Through Feel by Bill Dorrance and Leslie Desmond