Resource allocation =\\= static hierarchy determined by dominance

I’ll grab sources when I’m home but basically, when people say there’s no such thing as herd hierarchy, they’re referencing the misconception that there is an order established by dominance for the sole purpose of having a “leader” or boss

When in reality, the herd hierarchy is a fluid concept that will fluctuate when resources are scarce, or in situations where horses may have different comfort zones. For example, in my herd, Milo resource guards the most because he was starved. This is often mistaken as

Him trying to establish dominance as the leader when really, he’s happy to share when resources are plentiful and will trade off the perceived leadership role to any of the other horses when he’s nervous of something and they’re not.

What we see and equate as dominance is usually just resource guarding and it is never done with the purpose of being a boss but with the intent to ensure they have access to X resource

And this is what experts have found when studying herd dynamic and why the dominance theory has been thrown out for dogs and horses.

Dominance is a far easier descriptor for it and I understand that but the problem with perpetuating that rhetoric is that it’s too commonly used by people as a justification for beating up their horses because “horses kick each other to dominate” when really 80% or higher

Of agonistic behaviours are literally just warnings and do not end up in contact in a herd setting. People take this out of context and confound the reality surrounding it and while most riders won’t be absurdly rough, the normalization of it gives license to those who are