09/12/2026
This! There are many nuances when it comes to consent based horsemanship and the details are important BUT just because they say no does not mean stop everything and never proceed forward
Exposure is necessary and informed exposure is ever more important
When we use consent based communication it is less about never pushing past the no and more about learning why the no is there and working within it to create a new relationship to the triggering stimulus or body part
The devil is in the details, always š
Can we consent our way out of training?
I believe horses should be allowed to say no. I also believe it is our responsibility to become skilful enough to understand what that a No from a horse is, what it looks like and the complexities that come with a horse expressing anything other than an easy and immediate response to our requests.
A horse might refuse because they are frightened, confused, tired, in pain or physically unable to do what we have asked. They might also be meeting ordinary difficulty, preferring the familiar, or discovering that hesitation reliably makes our question waver. These are not the same situation, and responding to all of them by simply stopping is not necessarily progress.
Sometimes stopping is exactly right. Sometimes we need to investigate pain, change the environment, improve our preparation or admit that we have asked for something the horse just doesn't want to do with us right now. At other times, good training means helping a horse remain with a manageable difficulty long enough to discover that they can do it.
Agency cannot only mean the ability to opt out. It must also include the ability to participate, attempt, recover, influence the conversation and become more capable.
This is uncomfortable territory because horse people have used words like leadership and responsibility to justify a great deal of force. But refusing to lead at all does not create an ethical space. We can dominate a horse by overriding every answer, and we can abandon a horse by offering no clarity, structure or preparation at all.
This week on the podcast, I am talking about the limits of borrowing human consent language for horse training, the difference between discomfort and harm, and the responsibility of preparing horses for a life we cannot fully anticipate.
The question is not simply whether the horse said yes or no. The deeper question is whether the horse was heard, whether the human remained fluent in their perception of the horse, and whether the conversation left the horse with more capacity than they had before.
The episode of the podcast is out now (Horse, First with Lockie Phillips) and you can find it anywhere.