04/11/2025
Can horses give “consent”?
I’ve seen a few posts lately discussing this topic and wanted to throw my thoughts in.
I’m using the word “consent” here deliberately, not because I think it simplifies the concept, but because it’s the word at the center of this discussion. It’s the term being questioned, and I think it deserves a clear, science-based discussion.
In animal welfare, the word “consent” aligns closely with what research calls agency, assent, or choice, the animal’s ability to voluntarily participate or withdraw, and to influence what happens to them. The term is debated in welfare science because it’s often associated with human legal or moral frameworks, but I personally use it intentionally because it bridges science and empathy, and the research behind it remains the same: animals benefit when they have control, predictability, and a voice in their own care.
But when we talk about “consent” in animal care, we’re not talking about legal or informed consent. We’re talking about behavioural consent, the observable ways a horse communicates willingness, hesitation, or refusal.
Those two concepts, legal consent and behavioural consent, aren’t the same. And blending them together only shuts down meaningful discussion.
Legal or informed consent is a human concept. It requires comprehension, capacity, and verbal or written agreement. It’s about understanding risks and benefits before making a decision. Horses, of course, can’t give that kind of consent.
What I call behavioural or applied consent is different. In the scientific literature, similar concepts are often described as voluntary participation, agency, assent, or choice and control, all referring to an animal’s ability to opt in, pause, or opt out of an interaction.
It describes an individual’s voluntary participation or withdrawal, their ability to communicate “yes,” “not yet,” or “no” through behaviour. This concept is supported in welfare science through research on agency, choice, and voluntary participation, all measurable and observable indicators of an animal’s willingness or hesitation.
Even without training:
They express “no” through pinned ears, tension, avoidance, or stillness.
They express “yes” through approach, softening, and engagement.
In cooperative care, we simply create quiet, structured ways for them to say what they’ve always been saying:
A target touch (or start button) that means:
✔️ “I’m ready.” / “yes”
A pause that means:
⚠️”Not yet.”
An opt-out or step away that means:
🚫”No.”
Research in animal welfare and behavioural science consistently shows that giving animals control and predictability, the ability to choose when and how something happens, lowers stress and improves trust.
Agency is only real when contingencies are reversible, when the animal can both initiate and withdraw, and their actions change outcomes in both directions. Without that, we’re not creating agency. We’re conditioning compliance.
Cooperative care isn’t about pretending horses can give legal consent. It’s about recognizing that horses have the ability to communicate their needs, and giving those signals meaning.
So, can horses give consent?
Not in the legal sense, and maybe that’s the wrong question to begin with.
What matters is giving horses AGENCY, the ability to make meaningful choices, to communicate; “yes” or “no,” and to have those answers respected.
Cooperative care isn’t about making horses human, it’s about making their voices matter.
Everyone I’ve seen in this conversation is here to do right by horses and to advocate fiercely for them, and I love to see that passion, care and discussions ❤️
