FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / Nay to Prey: Challenging the View of Horses as a “Prey...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2025; 15(5); 641; doi: 10.3390/ani15050641

Nay to Prey: Challenging the View of Horses as a “Prey” Species.

Abstract: This paper challenges the prevalent characterization of domesticated horses as prey species that inherently view humans as predators. Drawing on evolutionary, ethological, and cognitive evidence, we propose the "mutualistic coevolution hypothesis", which posits that horses and humans have evolved a partnership marked by cooperation rather than fear. We critically assess the "prey hypothesis", emphasizing a predator-prey model, which dominates equine training and the literature, and we argue that it inadequately explains horses' morphology, behaviors, and cognitive capacities. Comparative studies on horses' socio-cognitive skills suggest that domestication has fostered emotional, behavioral, and cognitive adaptations supporting a human-horse bond. This review examines evidence from archaeological findings and experimental research on horses' responsiveness to human gestures, emotions, and social cues, underscoring their complex cognition and capacity for collaboration. Furthermore, morphological and behavioral analyses reveal inconsistencies in using orbital orientation or predation-related traits as evidence for categorizing horses as prey species. By emphasizing the coevolutionary dynamics underlying human-horse interactions, we advocate for replacing traditional training models centered on fear and submission with approaches that leverage horses' mutualistic and social nature. This perspective offers insights for enhancing horse welfare and improving human-equine relationships.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-02-22 PubMed ID: 40075924PubMed Central: PMC11898186DOI: 10.3390/ani15050641Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Review

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research paper disputes the widespread view that domesticated horses inherently see humans as predators, instead proposing that horses and humans have developed an evolutionary partnership based on cooperation, not fear.

Overview of the Research

This paper puts forth a new viewpoint that challenges the traditional “prey hypothesis” that perceives equines as prey animals that naturally see humans as predators. Challenging this assumption, the researchers propose a “mutualistic coevolution hypothesis”, pointing towards a long evolutionary relationship between horses and humans based on cooperation rather than fear.

Issues with the Prey Hypothesis

  • The authors argue that the prey hypothesis, which favors a predator-prey model, has been the dominant thought in equine training and scholarly literature. However, it inadequately explains important aspects of horses such as their morphology, behaviors, and cognitive abilities.
  • By taking into account archaeological findings and experimental research on horses’ reactions to human gestures, emotions, and social signals, the authors highlight inconsistencies in current understanding. They argue that horses possess complex cognition and a capacity for collaboration that is overlooked or unaccounted for by the prey hypothesis.

Arguments for the Mutualistic Coevolution Hypothesis

  • Comparative studies reveal that over time, domestication has led to evolution of emotional, behavioral, and cognitive traits in horses that support a bond with humans, as opposed to a fear-based relationship.
  • Further, morphological and behavioral analyses suggest that the use of certain traits, like orbital orientation or other predation-related characteristics, as evidence for categorizing horses as prey species, is inconsistent and lacks strong backing.

Impact on Horse Training and Welfare

  • Leading on from the mutualistic coevolution hypothesis, the researchers argue for a shift from prevalent training models that rely on fear and submission, towards methods that leverages mutualistic and social aspects of horses’ nature.
  • The implications of this new perspective can have promising outcomes for improving horse welfare, as well as enhancing the quality of human-equine relationships.

Cite This Article

APA
Steklis NG, Peñaherrera-Aguirre M, Steklis HD. (2025). Nay to Prey: Challenging the View of Horses as a “Prey” Species. Animals (Basel), 15(5), 641. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15050641

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 15
Issue: 5
PII: 641

Researcher Affiliations

Steklis, Netzin G
  • Human-Animal Interaction Research Initiative, School of Animal and Comparative Biomedical Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
Peñaherrera-Aguirre, Mateo
  • Human-Animal Interaction Research Initiative, School of Animal and Comparative Biomedical Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
Steklis, Horst Dieter
  • Human-Animal Interaction Research Initiative, School of Animal and Comparative Biomedical Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 64 references
  1. Taylor RJ. Predation. 1984.
  2. Birke L. Talking about horses: Control and freedom in the world of “natural horsemanship”. Soc. Anim. 2008;16:107–126.
    doi: 10.1163/156853008X291417google scholar: lookup
  3. Miller RM. The revolution in horsemanship. JAVMA 2000;216:1232–1233.
    doi: 10.1016/S0737-0806(97)80277-8pubmed: 10767957google scholar: lookup
  4. Goodwin D. Horse behaviour: Evolution, domestication and feralization. 2002.
  5. Dalla Costa E, Minero M, Lebelt D, Stucke D, Canali E, Leach MC. Development of the Horse Grimace Scale (HGS) as a Pain Assessment Tool in Horses Undergoing Routine Castration. PLoS ONE 2014;9:e92281.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092281pmc: PMC3960217pubmed: 24647606google scholar: lookup
  6. Parelli P. Natural Horse-Manship. 1993.
  7. Parelli P. Horses and Humans Have Mutual Responsibilities. 2024.
  8. Johnson E. Horse Behavior and Psychology (Part 2). 2017.
  9. McGreevy P, Oddie C, Burton FL, McLean AN. The horse–human dyad: Can we align horse training and handling activities with the equid social ethogram?. Vet. J. 2009;181:12–18.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.03.005pubmed: 19375965google scholar: lookup
  10. Waran N, McGreevy P, Casey RA. The Welfare of Horses. Volume 1. 2007.
    doi: 10.1007/978-0-306-48215-1_7google scholar: lookup
  11. Timney B, Keil K. Local and global stereopsis in the horse. Vis. Res. 1999;39:1861–1867.
    doi: 10.1016/S0042-6989(98)00276-4pubmed: 10343877google scholar: lookup
  12. Heesy CP. Ecomorphology of orbit orientation and the adaptive significance of binocular vision in primates and other mammals. Brain Behav. Evol. 2007;71:54–67.
    doi: 10.1159/000108621pubmed: 17878718google scholar: lookup
  13. Casares-Hidalgo C, Pérez-Ramos A, Forner-Gumbau M, Pastor FJ, Figueirido B. Taking a look into the orbit of mammalian carnivorans. J. Anat. 2019;234:622–636.
    doi: 10.1111/joa.12953pmc: PMC6481418pubmed: 30861123google scholar: lookup
  14. Heesy CP. The eVolution of Orbit Orientation in Mammals and the Function of the Primate Postorbital Bar. 2003.
  15. Ross CF. Allometric and functional influences on primate orbit orientation and the origins of the Anthropoidea. J. Hum. Evol. 1995;29:201–227.
    doi: 10.1006/jhev.1995.1057google scholar: lookup
  16. Orme D, Freckleton R, Thomas G, Petzoldt T, Fritz S, Isaac N, Pearse W. The Caper Package: Comparative Analysis of Phylogenetics and Evolution in R. 2013;Volume 5:1–36.
  17. Hebel R. Distribution of retinal ganglion cells in five mammalian species (pig, sheep, ox, horse, dog). Anat. Embryol. 1976;150:45–51.
    doi: 10.1007/BF00346285pubmed: 1015629google scholar: lookup
  18. Banks MS, Sprague WW, Schmoll J, Parnell JA, Love GD. Why do animal eyes have pupils of different shapes?. Sci. Adv. 2015;1:e1500391.
    doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1500391pmc: PMC4643806pubmed: 26601232google scholar: lookup
  19. DeCasien AR, Williams SA, Higham JP. Primate brain size is predicted by diet but not sociality. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017;1:0112.
    doi: 10.1038/s41559-017-0112pubmed: 28812699google scholar: lookup
  20. Barton RA. Binocularity and brain evolution in primates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004;101:10113–10115.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.0401955101pmc: PMC454173pubmed: 15199183google scholar: lookup
  21. Denion E, Hitier M, Guyader V, Dugué AE, Mouriaux F. Unique human orbital morphology compared with that of apes. Sci. Rep. 2015;5:11528.
    doi: 10.1038/srep11528pmc: PMC4480145pubmed: 26111067google scholar: lookup
  22. Read JC. Binocular vision and stereopsis across the animal kingdom. Annu. Rev. Vis. Sci. 2021;7:389–415.
    doi: 10.1146/annurev-vision-093019-113212pubmed: 34283925google scholar: lookup
  23. Janczarek I, Stachurska A, Kędzierski W, Wiśniewska A, Ryżak M, Kozioł A. The intensity of physiological and behavioral responses of horses to predator vocalizations. BMC Vet. Res. 2020;16:431.
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-020-02643-6pmc: PMC7653799pubmed: 33167961google scholar: lookup
  24. Christensen JW, Rundgren M. Predator odour per se does not frighten domestic horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008;112:136–145.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.08.003google scholar: lookup
  25. Outram AK, Stear NA, Bendrey R, Olsen S, Kasparov A, Zaibert V, Thorpe N, Evershed RP. The earliest horse harnessing and milking. Science 2009;323:1332–1335.
    doi: 10.1126/science.1168594pubmed: 19265018google scholar: lookup
  26. Wilkin S, Ventresca Miller A, Fernandes R, Spengler R, Taylor WTT, Brown DR, Reich D, Kennett DJ, Culleton BJ, Kunz L. Dairying enabled early bronze age Yamnaya steppe expansions. Nature 2021;598:629–633.
    doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03798-4pmc: PMC8550948pubmed: 34526723google scholar: lookup
  27. Anthony DW. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. 2009.
  28. Hausberger M, Roche H, Henry S, Visser EK. A review of the human-horse relationship. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008;109:1–24.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.015google scholar: lookup
  29. Fureix C, Jego P, Sankey C, Hausberger M. How horses (Equus caballus) see the world: Humans as significant “objects”. Anim. Cogn. 2009;12:643–654.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0223-2pubmed: 19381698google scholar: lookup
  30. Sankey C, Richard-Yris MA, Leroy H, Henry S, Hausberger M. Positive interactions lead to lasting positive memories in horses, Equus caballus. Anim. Behav. 2010;79:869–875.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.12.037google scholar: lookup
  31. Proops L, McComb K. Attributing attention: The use of human-given cues by domestic horses (Equus caballus). Anim. Cogn. 2010;13:197–205.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0257-5pubmed: 19588176google scholar: lookup
  32. Proops L, Rayner J, Taylor AM, McComb K. The responses of young domestic horses to human-given cues. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e67000.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067000pmc: PMC3686775pubmed: 23840572google scholar: lookup
  33. Maros K, Gácsi M, Miklósi Á. Comprehension of human pointing gestures in horses (Equus caballus). Anim. Cogn. 2008;11:457–466.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-008-0136-5pubmed: 18247069google scholar: lookup
  34. Trösch M, Ringhofer M, Yamamoto S, Lemarchand J, Parias C, Lormant F, Lansade L. Horses prefer to solicit a person who previously observed a food-hiding process to access this food: A possible indication of attentional state attribution. Behav. Process. 2019;166:103906.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2019.103906pubmed: 31301426google scholar: lookup
  35. Proops L, McComb K, Reby D. Cross-modal individual recognition in domestic horses (Equus caballus). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009;106:947–951.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809127105pmc: PMC2630083pubmed: 19075246google scholar: lookup
  36. Lansade L, Colson V, Parias C, Reigner F, Bertin A, Calandreau L. Human face recognition in horses: Data in favor of a holistic process. Front. Psychol. 2020;11:575808.
    doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.575808pmc: PMC7522352pubmed: 33041946google scholar: lookup
  37. Smith AV, Proops L, Grounds K, Wathan J, McComb K. Functionally relevant responses to human facial expressions of emotion in the domestic horse (Equus caballus). Biol. Lett. 2016;12:20150907.
    doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0907pmc: PMC4780548pubmed: 26864784google scholar: lookup
  38. Liehrmann O, Cosnard C, Riihonen V, Viitanen A, Alander E, Jardat P, Koski SE, Lummaa V, Lansade L. What drives horse success at following human-given cues? An investigation of handler familiarity and living conditions. Anim. Cogn. 2023;26:1283–1294.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-023-01775-0pmc: PMC10113126pubmed: 37072511google scholar: lookup
  39. Górecka-Bruzda A, Jaworski Z, Suwała M, Boroń M, Ogłuszka M, Earley B, Sobczyńska M. Longitudinal study on human-related behaviour in horses—Can horses (Equus caballus) be de-domesticated?. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017;195:50–59.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2017.05.020google scholar: lookup
  40. Blumstein DT, Buckner J, Shah S, Patel S, Alfaro ME, Natterson-Horowitz B. The evolution of capture myopathy in hooved mammals: A model for human stress cardiomyopathy?. Evol. Med. Public Health 2015;2015:195–203.
    doi: 10.1093/emph/eov015pmc: PMC4538952pubmed: 26198189google scholar: lookup
  41. Steklis NG, Peñaherrera-Aguirre M, Steklis HD, Herrera I. Why Were Zebras Not Domesticated? A Review of Domesticability Traits and Tests of Their Role in Ungulate Domestications with Macroevolutionary Models. Animals 2024;14:2355.
    doi: 10.3390/ani14162355pmc: PMC11350691pubmed: 39199888google scholar: lookup
  42. Boyce PN, McLoughlin PD. Ecological interactions involving feral horses and predators: Review with implications for biodiversity conservation. J. Wildl. Manag. 2021;85:1091–1103.
    doi: 10.1002/jwmg.21995google scholar: lookup
  43. Brubaker AS, Coss RG. Evolutionary constraints on equid domestication: Comparison of flight initiation distances of wild horses (Equus caballus ferus) and plains zebras (Equus quagga). J. Comp. Psychol. 2015;129:366.
    doi: 10.1037/a0039677pubmed: 26348970google scholar: lookup
  44. Stankowich T, Haverkamp PJ, Caro T. Ecological drivers of antipredator defenses in carnivores. Evolution 2014;68:1415–1425.
    doi: 10.1111/evo.12356pubmed: 24433406google scholar: lookup
  45. Beauchamp G, Li Z, Yu C, Bednekoff PA, Blumstein DT. A meta-analysis of the group-size effect on vigilance in mammals. Behav. Ecol. 2021;32:919–925.
    doi: 10.1093/beheco/arab048google scholar: lookup
  46. Butler JR, Linnell JD, Morrant D, Athreya V, Lescureux N, McKeown A. Free-Ranging Dogs and Wildlife Conservation. 2014.
  47. Dagg AI. Animal Friendships. 2011.
  48. Menchetti L, Calipari S, Mariti C, Gazzano A, Diverio S. Cats and dogs: Best friends or deadly enemies? What the owners of cats and dogs living in the same household think about their relationship with people and other pets. PLoS ONE 2020;15:e0237822.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237822pmc: PMC7449504pubmed: 32845923google scholar: lookup
  49. Shamir MH, Leisner S, Klement E, Gonen E, Johnston DE. Dog bite wounds in dogs and cats: A retrospective study of 196 cases. J. Vet. Med. Ser. A 2002;49:107–112.
    doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0442.2002.jv416.xpubmed: 11958467google scholar: lookup
  50. Palestrini C, Previde EP, Spiezio C, Verga M. Heart rate and behavioural responses of dogs in the Ainsworth’s Strange Situation: A pilot study. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005;94:75–88.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.02.005google scholar: lookup
  51. Spotte S. Societies of Wolves and Free-Ranging Dogs. 2012.
  52. Gómez JM, Verdú M, González-Megías A. Killing conspecific adults in mammals. Proc. R. Soc. B 2021;288:20211080.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2021.1080pmc: PMC8292775pubmed: 34284635google scholar: lookup
  53. Jardat P, Lansade L. Cognition and the human–animal relationship: A review of the sociocognitive skills of domestic mammals toward humans. Anim. Cogn. 2022;25:369–384.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-021-01557-6pubmed: 34476652google scholar: lookup
  54. Ferreira VHB, Lansade L, Calandreau L, Cunha F, Jensen P. Are domesticated animals dumber than their wild relatives? A comprehensive review on the domestication effects on animal cognitive performance. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2023;154:105407.
    doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105407pubmed: 37769929google scholar: lookup
  55. Figueredo AJ, Peñaherrera-Aguirre M, Salmon C, Steklis NG. The relation of clade-specific biophilia to the construct of animality. Evol. Psychol. Sci. 2023;9:317–327.
    doi: 10.1007/s40806-023-00360-5google scholar: lookup
  56. Peñaherrera-Aguirre M, Steklis NG, Salmon C, Steklis HD, Figueredo AJ. Dimensions of Animality: Expanding nomological breadth and controlling phenotypic similarity. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2024;223:112612.
    doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2024.112612google scholar: lookup
  57. Miklósi Á, Soproni K. A comparative analysis of animals’ understanding of the human pointing gesture. Anim. Cogn. 2006;9:81–93.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-005-0008-1pubmed: 16235075google scholar: lookup
  58. Heleski C, McLean A, Swanson J, Grandin T. Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach. 2009.
  59. Bonsi M, Anderson NE, Carder G. The Socioeconomic Impact of Diseases of Working Equids in Low and Middle-Income Countries: A Critical Review. Animals 2023;13:3865.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13243865pmc: PMC10741040pubmed: 38136902google scholar: lookup
  60. Haddy E, Burden F, Raw Z, Rodrigues JB, Zappi Bello JH, Brown J, Kaminski J, Proops L. Belief in Animal Sentience and Affective Owner Attitudes are linked to Positive Working Equid Welfare across Six Countries. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2023;28:116–134.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2023.2228029pubmed: 37381695google scholar: lookup
  61. Alberta Equine Welfare Group. Alberta Horse Welfare Report. 2008.
  62. Choi Y, Joo S, Chun MS. A Legal Ban on Dog Meat Production: Political Decision-Making for an Ethical Community. Animals 2024;14:2269.
    doi: 10.3390/ani14152269pmc: PMC11311075pubmed: 39123796google scholar: lookup
  63. Li PJ, Sun J, Yu D. Dog “meat” consumption in China: A survey of the controversial eating habit in two cities. Soc. Anim. 2017;25:513–532.
    doi: 10.1163/15685306-12341471google scholar: lookup
  64. Ho LST, Ane C, Lachlan R, Tarpinian K, Feldman R, Yu Q, van der Bijl W, Maspons J, Vos R, Bastide P. Package ‘Phylolm’. 2016.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.