Apr 202010
 

When considering a way to train their horse using positive reinforcement, most horse owners find themselves investigating clicker training. However, once the horse owner starts to read into clicker training, or visits a few clinics, it soon becomes apparent that different trainers use clicker training in different ways. Clicker training is not one singular technique, but a tool, applied in different ways by different trainers. The benefits and potential difficulties associated with each of these approaches to clicker training will be discussed in this article, with the aim that this will hopefully this will abate some of the confusion that can be experienced by owners new to clicker training.

Before we begin, I will quickly review the basics of clicker training theory as applied to practical horse training. Very simply clicker training is a form of positive reinforcement training. Positive reinforcement being the addition of something pleasurable to the horses environment in consequence to the horse performing a desirable behaviour. Positive reinforcement encourages the desired behaviour to reoccur in the future. Anything that the horse finds pleasurable, for example food rewards or stroking, can be used for the purposes of positive reinforcement training, although food rewards are most commonly used. During positive reinforcement the reward must be delivered immediately as the desired behaviour is performed by the horse, so that only the desired behaviour is reinforced.

The definition of positive reinforcement – An increase in the future frequency of a behaviour due to the addition of a pleasurable stimulus immediately following said behaviour.

Positive reinforcement alone is a very effective training method, however, it relies on the immediate delivery of the reward as the horse performs the desired behaviour. Clicker training makes reinforcement of behaviour at the correct moment easier, because, rather than having to deliver the reward to the horse’s mouth at the moment they perform the desire behaviour, the click noise can mark the desire behaviour and the reward can be delivered as soon as possible. The association of the click noise with food reward, transforms the click noise into a secondary reinforcer, which simply means that the click has taken on reinforcing properties and thus become rewarding. Once an association between the click and food reward has been establish, and the click has become a secondary reinforcer, the click can then be used to communicate to the horse when they have performed a desired behaviour. Marking the behaviour using the audible ‘click’ of the clicker is beneficial to any training where the trainer can’t deliver reward immediately following a correct behavioural response, e.g. when the horse is at distance or being ridden. The click of the clicker is a good sound for marking correct behavioural responses because it is short and crisp. Some trainers prefer to use a ‘cluck’ sound made by the tongue for the same purpose. Currently, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the use of a tongue ‘cluck’ is less or more effective than the use of a clicker.

The definition of a secondary reinforcer – A secondary reinforcer, also known as a conditioned reinforcer, is a stimulus (such as a click) that when consistently paired with a pleasurable stimulus (such as food) functions as a reinforcer.

The use of the click sound within clicker training has been applied in different ways by different horse trainers. The key factor, which will be discussed in this article, is how different trainers apply the clicker practically during training. To address this topic, we will consider the use of the click as a terminal bridge and as an intermediate bridge. Now the key to understanding the use of clicker in training is to understand, but not get bogged down in, the terminology. I will explain the theory, but also how the theory is practically applied in everyday horse training. The first thing that needs to be explained is that the click of the clicker is know as a bridging stimulus, this is because it bridges the gap between the desired behaviour and the arrival of the food reward. The click says to the horse ‘yes that’s the behaviour I want and your reward is coming’. However, the click can be one of two types of bridge. It can be a terminal bridge that says ‘yes, well done, finished’, or an intermediate bridge which says to the horse ‘yes, keep going your on the right track’. In practise this mean that the click sound either signals to the horse that they were performing the desired behaviour and they can stop for reward (a terminal bridge), or in the case of the intermediate bridge, the click signals to the horse that they are doing the correct behaviour and to continue until the terminal bridge, which will be a different signal.

It is most common in training to use the click sound of the clicker as a terminal bridge. In practical terms this means that the click is used to signal to the horse to stop and receive their reward. For example, if you were teaching a horse to touch a target with there muzzle, you would click the horse once they touch the target and then reinforce the behaviour with the food reward. If you wanted the targeting behaviour to last longer you would shape the behaviour by gradually leaving longer periods of time between the start of the targeting behaviour and the click. This method of clicker training is used by Alexander Kurland (2001) and Becky Holden, amongst others. There are both pros and cons to this method.

The pros of the terminal bridge clicker training method -

◦This method can be used to teach everything, from basic ground work to advanced riding exercises.

◦The horse can be easily rewarded for desired behaviour, even at a distance or whilst ridden.

◦Owners can usually pick up this method easily under instruction.

The cons of the terminal bridge clicker training method -

◦The method doesn’t include a intermediate bridge stimulus so the horse can be told to stop to be rewarded but not to keep performing the same behaviour, instead the behaviour is modified using shaping or chaining.

Now to discuss the use of the clicker as an intermediate bridge stimulus. When the click sound is used as an intermediate bridge the click says to the horse – ‘Yes, keep going you’re on the right track’. Using the targeting example given earlier, to teach a horse to touch a target using the click as an intermediate bridge, the trainer would click the horse for touching the target to encourage the horse to continue touching the target, until the terminal stimulus was given. The click, which can occur a variable amount of times before the terminal stimulus is given, encourages the horse to continue the behaviour they are currently performing. Ben Hart (2008) is the most famous trainer that uses the clicker as an intermediate bridge stimulus. Ben trains using the hand going to the reward holder as the terminal stimulus. There are also pros and cons to the intermediate bridge method of clicker training.

The pros of the intermediate bridge clicker training method -

◦This method can be used to teach all ground work activities.

◦The horse can be easily rewarded for desired behaviour, even at a distance.

◦The horse can be given guidance as to whether or not the behaviour they are performing is desirable, and be given confidence to continue the behaviour, without stopping for reward.

The cons of the intermediate bridge clicker training method -

◦Some owners find applying the clicker as an intermediate bridge stimulus more difficult, although I suspect this is because most of the literature available describes the terminal bridge method.

◦The terminal bridge stimulus of this method of clicker training often isn’t audible, and thus this method is a little more difficult to apply if the horse can’t directly see the hander, e.g. during ridden work.

Both these methods of clicker training are effective modes of communication with the horse, as such both methods have been applied with great success to training horses for many jobs. Interestingly, neither method has been scientifically shown to be more effective than the other, therefore the deciding factor when choosing how to apply clicker training with your own horses must be which method best suits your horse, your ability and your training. I highly recommend reading literature from many different clicker trainers, and ideally, also seeing the methods demonstrated, before you decide which method will be best for you and your horse.

By Emma Lethbridge (www.emmalethbridge.com)

(Enjoyed this article? Then please donate a little to The Equine Independent to keep us writing without a subscription. You can donate via paypal to mail@theequineindependent.com. Even the smallest amount is greatly appreciated. Thank you for reading from everyone at EI.)

References

Alexandra Kurland (2001). Clicker Training For Your Horse. Ring Books.

Ben Hart (2008). The Art and Science of Clicker Training for Horses: A Positive Approach to Training Equines and Understanding Them. Souvenir Press Ltd.

  10 Responses to “The Different Techniques Known as Clicker Training, By Emma Lethbridge.”

  1. Thanks Emma for a really informative article.

    I just wonder a bit about whether we should be distinguishing between these “two methods” like this. I think the differences may be a bit artificial and based too much on the human perception of what is going on. CT is a form of operant conditioning and so it is the perspective of the horse (ie the operand) that we should be considering.

    From the horse’s perspective I think there is maybe less difference between the two approaches. All treat-based CT ends with the hand going into the treat bag and a treat being offered. So I would say that from the horse’s perspective the hand going into the treat bag is always the terminal bridge, whatever the trainer calls it. All trainers will precede the hand going into the treat bag with a click and so you have another bridge (what Ben calls an intermediate bridge and what other trainers call a terminal bridge).

    I would say that the main difference between Ben’s training and that of other trainers is that prior to this last click, Ben will use (on occasion, not necessarily always, it depends on various factors) a series of treatless clicks as “keep going signals” or intermediate bridges. Treatless clicks have been criticised as “not keeping the human side of the bargain” but if, as I suggested above, most horses perceive the hand going into the treat bag as a terminal bridge, this is not an issue. Treatless clicks have as benefits, the effect of helping the horse to learn patience, not get so frustrated and not become resistant to the use of variable schedules. (Of course the need for a lot of keep going signals could also indicate insufficient shaping and so the individual horse needs to be considered).

    I feel that CT should not be taught simply as a method of changing equine behaviour but as a way of understanding the horses’ perspective. Then it becomes less about the human ego, less about who says what and much more about just tuning into the horse. (I hope it’s ok to post this but I talked more about this on a post on a discussion forum: http://www.network54.com/Forum/235380/thread/1270932373/last-1271011298/Positive+reinforcement%2C+CT%2C+relationships+and+my+current+favourite+bookk if anyone is interested).

    I can’t speak for Ben, this is just my perspective after doing various courses with Ben and seeing “his method” evolve empirically as the horses showed us what was going on. But maybe Ben disagrees with me – I’d love to hear what he thinks!

  2. Hi Emma
    Interesting article thank you, if I may throw a few thoughts and comments in the pot for consideration.

    I am worried about all this method stuff evolving around clicker training. I must be clear from the start on two points
    1) I don’t think clicker training is a form of positive reinforcement training.

    2) I never started out to create another method and I don’t consider what I do as a method, I think your comment calling it an approach is very good.

    To address number one, I think positive reinforcement as a scientific approach to modifying behaviour is what we should call positive reinforcement training. Clicker training as you say is just a tool. I believe it just enhances the delivery of a scientific element of operant conditioning. People are getting so hung up on clicker training being positive reinforcement when in fact training with food or scratches as rewards already exists and the clicker merely improves the timing of our communication during that process. It is just an add on to in not an example of it. I make this clear distinction because I believe to clicker train well you first need to understand the effects of operant conditioning then add in the timing. You can pair a click with a smack and soon you have clicker punishment training.

    Number two, I started out clicker training in the one click and reward method which was taken straight from dog training, who took it from marine animal training, who learnt it from dog and mammal training which started way back in the 1940s. Some of the cons which you have not mentioned with one click one reward are that I fund and observed in others, equines can become impatient when the trainer attempts to extend the behaviour or remove the clicker, after all we don’t want to be clicking everything forever. Some highly motivated equines can become more food orientated leading to mugging and that often on hearing the click the animal stops the behaviour, as you would expects with a terminal bridge. This can make extending behaviours more difficult and time consuming and riding behaviours potentially dangerous, sudden stops etc.

    All I did was to watch the horses, I literally noticed that all my one click one reward equines were watching the movement of the hand to the bum bag. In fact every clicker training horse I have met does the same thing and often I ask the owners to test my theory. Have a one click one reward trained horse touch a target or similar one off task and click to mark the behaviour but don’t move your hand to the bumbag or rewards at all, watch the horse, 99% will look, see no movement and then offer the behaviour again. The other 1% look, pause, nose the bum bag and then offer the behaviour again. This time the moment the behaviour occurs don’t click but move your hand straight to the rewards and watch the horse swing their head to get the reward. The hand to the bum bag or pocket is the terminal bridge for all food rewarded trained equines, it always means reward is coming and equines already know this. After all if you see a horse that is given rewards from the pocket what do they do when they see your hand go in the pocket?

    So the pros of the hand to the bum bag as a terminal bridge and the click as a intermediate bridge which you fail to mention are, in my experience no scientific proof.
    1 You can begin to remove the clicker from the first or second session for each behaviour,
    2 A more patient animal who offers more behaviour, due the variable schedule of reinforcement they are on
    3 Easier to extend duration behaviours such as picking up feet, standing and walking, so more rapid learning
    4 Easy to adapt the process to ridden work, they are very sensitive and the shift in weight will act as a terminal bridge and suits ridden work as it creates more flowing work and duration behaviours easy to extend

    There is a con you missed for the bumbag as terminal bridge and that is that it is harder for people to understand and learn if they do not understand the science of behaviour or have not developed their art or feel, for those people the click one-reward is easier to learn

    Horses are the smart ones here they are figuring out what is required and we are generally playing catch up. I am not being pedantic or defensive, but all this confusion of clicker training is why I wrote the art and science of clicker training, which you reference, so that we could get away from being so hung up on methods and concentrate more on the needs of each individual horse.

  3. Hi Catherine,

    Thanks for your comment. Just a couple of points.

    Firstly, you state that the terminal bridge is always the hand going to the reward holder. This isn’t the case with terminal bridge clicker training, the behaviour has been terminated by the click, therefore there can’t be a second terminal bridge for the same behaviour as the behaviour it would terminate has already ceased.
    However, the hand to the reward is always the last moment before reward, is this what you meant?

    Secondly, I believe that unless you know exactly what you are communicating to the horse through the click you will not be able to percieve his reactions and/or behaviour properly or in context of the training. Awareness of the method results in awareness of the horse. The difference between these two approachs can confuses owners looking into the subject and therefore needs to be addressed, so that potential new clicker trainers are not put off. The treatless clicks are also talked about, I state in the article that the clicks can be used a variable amount of times before reward. However, I believe that it is vitally important that owner understand the meaning of the intermediate bridge (treatless click) to understand their horse as it is fundamentally different from the terminal bridge. Small differences in the communicative of the click can result in huge differences in the behaviour of the horse during training, so the owner has to understand this to understand what is truely happening during their clicker training. I totally agree with you regarding listening to the horse, but I feel it is vital we know what we are saying, so that we can correctly interpret the answers we get back.

    Thanks,

    Emma

  4. From Catherine Bell -

    ‘Firstly, you state that the terminal bridge is always the hand going to the reward holder. This isn’t the case with terminal bridge clicker training the behaviour has been terminated by the click, therefore there can’t be a second terminal bridge for the same behaviour as the behaviour it would terminate has already ceased.
    However, the hand to the reward is always the last moment before reward, is this what you meant?’

    I would say that the terminal bridge means “treat is coming”. Afterall, that is why we use a click as a secondary reinforcer. I appreciate that it can also mean “end the behaviour” but I think that is a secondary thing and it doesn’t always follow (eg if your behaviour is “standing still” the horse won’t necessarily start moving when he hears the click, he waits for the reward, especially if he has been taught not to mug). So I believe that the horse will perceive *anything* we consistently do before giving the reward as a bridge, whatever our intention, and so the last thing that happens, by default, becomes the terminal bridge.

    ‘ Secondly, I believe that unless you know exactly what you are communicating to the horse through the click you will not be able to percieve his reactions and/or behaviour properly or in context of the training. Awareness of the method results in awareness of the horse. The difference between these two approaches confuses a lot of owners looking into the subject and therefore need to be addressed, so that potential new clicker trainers are not put off. The treatless clicks are also talked about, I state in the article that the clicks can be used a variable amount of times before reward. However, I believe that it is vitally important that owner understand the meaning of the intermediate bridge (treatless click) to understand their horse as it is different from the terminal bridge. Small differences in the communicative of the click can result in huge differences in the behaviour of the horse during training, so the owner has to understand this to understand what is truely happening during their clicker training. I totally agree with you regarding listening to the horse, but I feel it is vital we know what we are saying, so that we can correctly interpret the answers we get back.’

    What I’m saying is actually the opposite of this. I think that by distinguishing between methods like this we are in danger of contributing to the confusion, not resolving it. I think that by observing the horse’s behaviour, they tell us what the method was, not the other way round. And of course, it will then be different for every horse. It’s not just Alex vs Ben or whatever. I think we need to be focussing on the horse as the first step and not trying to understand the difference between methods first. As I said in my first post, I think there is a lot less difference in the methods from the horse’s perspective. We only know what we are saying by how the horses respond. It is the horses who tell us what we have said to them.

    Catherine

  5. Hi Catherine,

    I just wanted to quickly reply.

    ‘I would say that the terminal bridge means “treat is coming”. Afterall, that is why we use a click as a secondary reinforcer. I appreciate that it can also mean “end the behaviour” but I think that is a secondary thing and it doesn’t always follow (eg if your behaviour is “standing still” the horse won’t necessarily start moving when he hears the click, he waits for the reward, especially if he has been taught not to mug). So I believe that the horse will perceive *anything* we consistently do before giving the reward as a bridge, whatever our intention, and so the last thing that happens, by default, becomes the terminal bridge.’

    I have always used the definition that the terminal bridge terminates the response from the horse, and if the click is the terminal bridge the hand going to the reward holder can’t be. Obviously, the horse doesn’t have to change their behaviour at the terminal stimulus, if they are happy standing in the stay, they may stay stood. However, the response has been asked to terminate so if the horse wanted to move around they would not be ‘off task’. Here the click and the hand to the reward holder both say ‘treat coming’ but the second is not a terminal bridge if the click was. In Ben’s clicker training format, which works just as well (I am a fan of Ben’s work), but is inherently a different approach from terminal bridge clicker training,the click does not terminate the behaviour. Obviously, the click is still a secondary reinforcer because it predicts the terminal bridge which predicts reward, and thus the click is still associated with reward. The terminal bridge is not necessarily the last thing which occurs in the chain, it is the stimulus which terminates the behavioural response.

    The two uses of the clicker are intrinstically different messages for the horse and this has to be acknowledged so that we understand the horse’s reactions in training. I have communicated with many owners in regarding this subject and once they understand the message they are communicating they have a vastly better understanding of their training and their horse. I agree strongly with you that the horse needs to be your first point of reference, but if you do not understand what you are communicating in your training you perception of the horse’s reaction will be biased and thus frustration for both horse and owner can ensue.
    Having watched many different clicker trainers and used the different forms of clicker training mayself, I find that horse’s react very differently to the different techniques. Without indepth knowledge of what I was communicating to my horse, I would have been lost in interpreting the horses’ reactions to their training.

    I have to date experimented with the following forms of +ve reinforcement training/secondary reinforcement training -

    1. pure +ve
    2. Terminal bridge clicker
    3. Terminal bridge clicker with a variably reinforced click.
    4. Intermediate bridge clicker.
    5. Bridge and target training
    6. Bridge and target with a variably reinforced terminal click.

    To me these are different communication paradigms, all are incredibly interesting and useful, but all are very different in the communication you are setting up with the horse and thus all are different with regards to the communication the horse will reply with. I believe that having an indepth knowledge of the communication the approach aims to acheive is beneficial not only to the owner but to the horse. Using a clicker without a clear idea of it’s message to the horse is only going to lead to confusion in both horse and owner.

    I hope this make sense it has been typed in about 5 mins.

    All the best,

    Emma

  6. Hi Emma
    My apologies for such a delayed reply. I’ll try to explain a little differently and then maybe I should stop – I don’t want to bore people.

    You say that you (and various other humans) define the terminal bridge as ending the behaviour. Yet you also say that some horses don’t end the behaviour on hearing the click. That to me suggests that your definition of terminal bridge differs from the horse’s definition. And since the horse is the operator, we have to use the horse’s definitions if we are to use successful and ethical operant conditioning. From what Ben says above, it seems as though *horses* perceive the terminal bridge to mean “treat is coming” and to be the hand going to bumbag. I would say how *we* define it is irrelevant.

    This is just one minor example of what can happen if we decide on our definitions and set our methods in human terms, rather than rely purely on reading the horse (coupled with a good working understanding of basic behavioural theory – which I distinguish from ‘training method’). I really think that the confusion you talk of often stems in the mismatch between what we believe the method to be and what the horse believes the method to be. So again, I really think we need to start with the horse and develop “feel”.

    I too have used all the approaches to CT that you list and I am aware of many other people (some of whom I’ve taught but certainly not all) who have done likewise. Yet there has been no confusion at all when we have started with trying to see the session through the eyes of the horse rather than defining the method from the perspective of the human. I really see all of those CT approaches as the same thing, not different paradigms. The key has always been a basic working knowledge of learning theory in practice and a reasonable level of feel for the horse’s perspective.

    We probably all need some face-to-face sessions with horses to get this discussion any further. Definitely something to work on for the future!

    Catherine

  7. Hi Catherine,

    I am afraid I am going to have to strongly disagree with you here and also clarify a couple of points.

    Firstly, you say – ‘You say that you (and various other humans) define the terminal bridge as ending the behaviour. Yet you also say that some horses don’t end the behaviour on hearing the click. That to me suggests that your definition of terminal bridge differs from the horse’s definition. And since the horse is the operator, we have to use the horse’s definitions if we are to use successful and ethical operant conditioning’. However, this is a misunderstanding of my last comment. The horse doesn’t have to stop the behaviour for the terminal bridge to mean end task to the horse, the task is terminated and the horse is then not going to loose the ptential for reward by performing other behaviours. The trainer should be able to observe the horse coming off task at the terminal click even if they choose to continue in their behaviour. However, if you constantly observe the horse does not end the task when the terminal click is sounded, and this is how you intended to set up your communication with the horse then you need to work out why you and your horse are not truely understanding one another. The horses behaviour is a reaction to your training and vice versa. It needs to be a two way conversation, however, you can not have a conversation if you do not know what you are trying to communicate. It is the equivalent of trying to speak french to a french person without knowing what you are trying to say. No matter how hard you observe the other person you have no point of reference with which to understand their replies. I am afraid that stating ‘we have to use the horse’s definitions if we are to use successful and ethical operant conditioning’ is not accurate, yes you have to observe the horse accutely and without bias, and here we agree, but you need to know what you are trying to communicate as well in order to correctly decipher the horse’s definition of the training. Having an understanding of the different forms of clicker communication and what they can mean, as well as the skill of observation you cite, is the key to successful operant conditioning. Having an understanding of clicker theory and communication in absolutely no way deminishes your ability to operant condition your horse, in fact exactly the opposite.

    Secondly, understanding the basics of clicker communication when used to delivery positive reinforcement is learning theory and is entirely compatible with compassionate, ethical and astute observation and understanding of the horse.

    Lastly, I would just like to clarify that learning theory was developed on the observation of animals. The animals were in entirely artifical environments in the majority of the studies, however, when we train our horses we are putting them in an artifical environment. Therefore, although learning theory is developed for human understanding it is intrinsically and inextricably linked to the observation of animals.

    All the best,

    Emma

  8. Hi Emma
    Thanks for your reply. It seems we’re still talking at cross-purposes so I think this is one to leave for another day with some horses present. Hey ho, the internet is great but still too many limitations!

    Catherine

  9. Hi
    Great discussion on a really interesting topic. Especially interesting because I also question if it is indeed a ‘topic’.

    I do not think that separating out the different approaches is helping to lessen confusion, I would argue that it is adding to confusion. Clicker training relies on straight forward operant conditioning and it is important that the user understands this.

    Although I understand the different approaches listed I have repeatedly observed people (including myself on occasion) move between the ‘approaches’ in their interactions with horses, sometimes within the same training session, sometimes even within the training of one task! However, the horses seem to have no problem at all in working out what is required of them.

    When you also add ‘learning to learn’ into the mix the horses seeem to be remarkably flexible in communication. I would argue that this is not just because we are forcing them to be flexible by necessity, but that they find the communication clear even if not always totally consistent – because the underlying operant conditioning is the same. I think the analogy above of different languages is not so relevant – maybe more like different dialects that the horse can understand by generalising. We know that animals generalise if components of different stimuli are around 80% similar (I can dig out the reference when at home but am currently overseas).

    I worry that by going so deep into the intricacies of what we humans need to give names to we are making it more confusing. I’ve found that lots of people are really worried about doing anything practical with their horse and for me the most important thing is helping them to shape their interactions with their horses and learn together. As long as you help them set it up right to avoid frustration in the horse (including by incorporating ‘neutral’ time into training sessions where nothing is expected of the horse and he/she can do their own thing for a bit with the owner in the area but not asking anything) then a large part of me feels we should just let people get on with it.

    I think that Catherine’s point about until we all get together watching the same horse and trainer at the same time then discussion is largely futile as its such a practical issue. We need to say ‘look, see that? that’s the instant the horse stops behaviour’ and check in that we all identify the point when a horse is becoming frustrated, or confused etc. But even then, we’d kind of need to do that with the ‘sound turned off’. Ben always encourages his students to watch trainers with the sound off, so that the human interpretation of events is not tainting your observation. The challenge is to truely observe without agenda….to turn it from observing things such as ‘behaviour turning off’ and concentrate on the horse, the task and the owner.

    When I first learned about learning theory I thought it would be a tool that is like an equation – 1+2=3 etc. So if ‘input into the animal by training’ x then you get y. This hugely appealed to the scientist in me. It was frustrating at the time to understand that you can’t predict what the horse will pair with what, that context plays a massive role, and that (shock horror) horses are individuals etc etc etc and I think sometimes when our understanding of a field grows we go back to thinking we have the magic formula when really we just have one more peice of information to throw into the pot.

    If I had more time I’d promise to post some videos of working with horses doing different things but I can’t promise that. Maybe over the summer I’ll dust off the camcorder and we can resume this then… :0)

  10. Unfortunately, the training paradigms are different to not decipher between them is inaccurate. Even if they are only slightly different (dialect rather than language), if we want to be exact and clear we need to make sure we know how they are different in theory and application so that we can help the horse achieve their task. Putting them all under one title is not precise in my mind I am afraid. I like to be as precise as possible with my communications during training so that I can help the horse as much as possible.

    All the best,

    Emma

Add Comment Register