Does a working knowledge of learning theory relate to improved horse welfare and rider safety?

Training and riding directly effects horse welfare, highlighting the potential for training methods to improve both horse welfare and human safety. Learning theory is considered the most appropriate scientific foundation for horse training methods, yet equestrians’ knowledge of learning theory is reportedly low. The relationship between equestrians’ knowledge of learning theory terminology (LT) and horse welfare and rider safety was investigated to determine if rider knowledge of LT contributes to improved horse welfare and human safety. A sample of 394 Australian recreational and sport horse riders completed an online survey. Ridden horse welfare was assessed using validated husbandry and behavioral indicators. Rider safety was assessed by asking participants about ridden accidents and injuries. Rider knowledge of LT was assessed by asking participants to correctly identify scenarios that depicted three key operant conditioning terms: negative and positive reinforcement, and punishment. Only 24.6% of the sample correctly identified all three terms (the criteria for having a basic knowledge of LT), suggesting knowledge of LT has increased among equestrians but remains low. However, rider knowledge of LT was not significantly related to improved horse welfare or rider safety. It is uncertain why knowledge of LT remains so low among equestrians and why rider knowledge of LT did not translate to welfare and safety benefits as predicted. In facilitating the development of workable solutions to address the dual issues of poor horse welfare and human safety, we explore several possibilities, including a proposed new horse training framework that may enable learning theory to be leveraged more fully and deliver expected benefits

How equestrians conceptualise horse welfare: Does it facilitate or hinder change?

More than ever the welfare of horses in equestrian sport is in the spotlight. In response to this scrutiny, one peak body, the Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI) has created an Equine Ethics and Wellbeing Commission to protect their sport’s longevity. However, for welfare-based strategies to be successful, the conceptualisation of horse welfare must align across various stakeholders, including the general public. The value-laden nature of welfare makes agreement on its definition, even among scientists, difficult. Given little is known about how equestrians conceptualise horse welfare, we interviewed 19 Australian amateur equestrians using a semi-structured format. Systems thinking and the Five Domains Model provided the theoretical framework and informed our methods. Using reflexive thematic analysis, three themes were identified: (1) good horse welfare is tangible; (2) owners misinterpret unwanted horse behaviour; and (3) equestrians publicly minimise horse welfare issues but are privately concerned. Our results highlight participants’ conceptualisations of horse welfare do not align with the Five Domains Model; participants’ ideal of prioritising horse welfare does not align with their practice; and there is inconsistency between what participants share publicly and what they think privately about horse welfare. These findings can inform the development of programmes to improve ridden horse welfare throughout the horse industry. As a starting point, programmes that provide a safe space for equestrians to explore their private horse welfare concerns, and programmes that build a partnership mindset to facilitate knowledge exchange between all stakeholders are needed