Parelli - So how does it work? [Archive]

cvb

30th Aug 2005, 03:04 PM

and Equine Ethology is Equine ethology – the ‘natural’ behavioural repertoire of the horse, where motivations are determined by the evolutionary history of horses.

This article (http://www.horseit.com/en/riding2001/newproducts/parelli160605.htm) on trailer loading a la PNH says

The philosophy behind Equine Ethology is to work with the horse’s natural mind set not against it.

So - a supplementary question for those who take up Yann's challenge. How do we get from above definition to four phases of pressure and seven games ?

I don't know that the horse thinks in these terms. I have seen horses "escalate" their response, and move each other around. But has Parelli simply codified it for the student's sake (rather than for the horse, as the definition would imply ?)

Ooo - maybe we should do this as a proper debate with a motion, a proposer and an opposition (or whatever the counter argument is called)... any takers ?

Yann - want to turn this into a debate ? :D

LindaAd

30th Aug 2005, 04:53 PM

and Equine Ethology is

This article (http://www.horseit.com/en/riding2001/newproducts/parelli160605.htm) on trailer loading a la PNH says

So - a supplementary question for those who take up Yann's challenge. How do we get from above definition to four phases of pressure and seven games ?

I don't know that the horse thinks in these terms. I have seen horses "escalate" their response, and move each other around. But has Parelli simply codified it for the student's sake (rather than for the horse, as the definition would imply ?)

Ooo - maybe we should do this as a proper debate with a motion, a proposer and an opposition (or whatever the counter argument is called)... any takers ?

Yann - want to turn this into a debate ? :D

Noo-ooo. Not a debate, please. I'm finding this discussion really interesting, people are getting down to the nitty-gritty of how things work and why. But if it's a debate, then everyone's taking sides and only making points for one side or another, rather than extending the range of things that they all agree on ...

Linda

Jacquie

30th Aug 2005, 06:05 PM

Apparently too many people are commenting on PNH without knowing enough about it, would someone who does take the opportunity to explain how and why it works?
No offence intended here Yann, but folks have tried on a number of occassions explaining the system to you, but your response always seems to be a negative one.
You say to many people are commenting on PNH without knowing enough about it - as you have commented on it quite a lot, I'd be very interested to know how much you understand or have experience on it. :)

Naturally

30th Aug 2005, 08:10 PM

You say to many people are commenting on PNH without knowing enough about it - as you have commented on it quite a lot, I'd be very interested to know how much you understand or have experience on it.

I agree with Jacquie, please tell.

However Yann if you are genuinely interested in knowing about PNH you could and would look up their website. ;) I fail to see what the point is in discussing with you over this when you obvioulsy have such strong feelings against it. I personally don't care if you don't do PNH, nor do I care if you don't like it. So if you want to know about it, get a study pack and discover the PRINCIPLES behind the program for yourself. :D

Demson

30th Aug 2005, 08:41 PM

I gather from reading the posts on here that Yann is a frequent poster who finds negativity in PNH.

If you can't find the information required about how parelli works for you and your horse via the Parelli website and or reading PP books then in reality IMO you really come on here to stir up people rather than listen or consider their advice. Correct me if I am mistaken but that is how these threads seem to come across.

Basically IMO if someone don't like Parelli then simply don't post on a PNH thread.

Yann

30th Aug 2005, 09:35 PM

No, it is a genuine question, I'm not looking for people to put stuff up just to bat it down.

I'll be honest, I don't like what I've seen and heard of the Parelli system, I don't like the fact that it accepts and codifies high levels of force and is very dominant in its style.

Although I'm no expert and don't pretend to be, I do think I have a reasonable understanding of how 'NH' training works. However according to some of you I don't where PNH is concerned, so maybe I'm missing something, hence the question. I don't want to read the official gospel, I'd rather hear it direct.

Over to you?

Jacquie

30th Aug 2005, 09:44 PM

I don't want to read the official gospel, I'd rather hear it direct.
But you have done on many occassions Yann, hence my message above. I can't really see the purpose of re-writting what many have already posted on this forum about how and why PNH works for them. ;)

Yann

30th Aug 2005, 09:55 PM

That isn't the question, the question is how does the training system work, not how does it work for you.

Naturally

30th Aug 2005, 10:11 PM

Basically IMO if someone don't like Parelli then simply don't post on a PNH thread.

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. :D

Yann, really, it's not up to us to educate you on PNH. If you can broaden your opinions enough to investigate it further then good for you, but I'm not going to sit here typing a whole heap of stuff just so you can rip it to shreds.

Perhaps if you reread some of the threads where this has already been discussed and read them with an open mind, you might find the answer to your questions.

However noble your intentions, it's once bitten twice shy. ;)

Jacquie

30th Aug 2005, 10:19 PM

That isn't the question, the question is how does the training system work, not how does it work for you.
Again Yann, the answer is exactly the same as my previous one. The training system has also been discussed on this forum on many occassions, and you've left negative responses on most of the threads.
If you where truly interested in how the system works you would have logged onto the Parelli website and found out from there.
The reference made in your previous post ie: 'I don't want to read the official gospel' indicates just how interested you really are. ;)

Yann

30th Aug 2005, 10:45 PM

Ah well, I was accused of not understanding what I was talking about, which is a reasonable allegation, so I posted to give you all the opportunity to explain. Other people were also interested in your response.

I'm not closed minded, if I have missed something then I'm prepared to own up and take it on board. But nothing I've read here or elsewhere has made my view of PNH any more favourable, if anything it's been quite the opposite.

Anyone can go on an official website and read all the blurb about harmony and partnership and homespun sayings, but people's own explanations of why and what they do are always far more interesting and enlightening.

Basically IMO if someone don't like Parelli then simply don't post on a PNH thread.

How arrogant can you get? Are some topics off limit for discussion unless you are a paid up member? :rolleyes:

Naturally

30th Aug 2005, 11:55 PM

How arrogant can you get? Are some topics off limit for discussion unless you are a paid up member?

No Yann, but it's very disheartenng to have people ripping to shreds what you believe in on a continual basis. It's also boring, tedious and just damn annoying. :mad:

It's also not fair on new people trying to seek answers and gain progress with their training from other people studying the program to be bombarded with personal opinion of others who don't believe in it.

We know that you don't like it and you don't understand it, so you don't need to keep telling us, so why can't you just back off and let us and other parelli students enjoy each others discussions.

And if your training method (clicker, I believe) was bombarded with this kind of cr** on a regular basis you would feel as territorial as was what we do.

And for the record. I do PNH because I enjoy it. I find it DOES work for every horse, it's up to the human to adapt, not the horse. The first three levels of Parelli are designed for the human, level 4 and above is about the horse. It is a journey of emotional fitness and quite frankly, those that don't make it needed to look further into themselves, not stand there and say "well it doesn't work for my horse".

I have said in the past, and I mean it, that Parelli is not for everyone. It's not for people who want quick fixes and easy answers. It's for people who are dedicated and committed to finding a postiive communication pattern with their horse, that both can understand, in the most natural terms possible for the horse. It's not easy, it'd damn hard work, but the results are worth it.

Now I hope that will satisfy your curiosity somewhat :)

So fire away PNH bashers. This kind of a true and heartfelt response is exactly what you guys love to rip open, so rip away, it won't be anything we haven't heard before.

LindaAd

31st Aug 2005, 12:48 AM

It's also not fair on new people trying to seek answers and gain progress with their training from other people studying the program to be bombarded with personal opinion of others who don't believe in it.
<snip>
And for the record. I do PNH because I enjoy it. I find it DOES work for every horse, it's up to the human to adapt, not the horse. The first three levels of Parelli are designed for the human, level 4 and above is about the horse. It is a journey of emotional fitness and quite frankly, those that don't make it needed to look further into themselves, not stand there and say "well it doesn't work for my horse".

I have said in the past, and I mean it, that Parelli is not for everyone. It's not for people who want quick fixes and easy answers. It's for people who are dedicated and committed to finding a postiive communication pattern with their horse, that both can understand, in the most natural terms possible for the horse. It's not easy, it'd damn hard work, but the results are worth it.

Sorry, we're talking about a method of working with horses here. "Emotional fitness"? How does that fit in? You mean if we don't like it we're emotionally inferior? Wow!

I don't see how you can possibly say that one method works for every horse, not when the method seems to be as clearly defined as this one - seven games, four levels of pressure ... Well, as I said on another thread, up the pressure with my horse, and she'll up the pressure right back, and it won't be the horse that's on the floor.

No there has to be some explanation: it's no good just saying "all horses back away from a wiggling leadrope" because that just isn't true.

So now, judging by your post, you'll say I'm emotionally unfit and doomed to failure because I don't choose to commit myself - and large sums of money - to a system that I can't understand until I'm committed to it.

Or have I got something wrong somewhere?

Oh, and I think the reason Parelli attracts negative views is probably just because if anyone comes along and says "My system is the only true one and the only one that works, and only the initiated can understand it", well that's just bound to attract questions, isn't it?

Linda

Naturally

31st Aug 2005, 01:25 AM

Ho Hum,
Linda I've just gone to a lot of trouble to answer this question on the other thread.

"Emotional fitness"? How does that fit in? You mean if we don't like it we're emotionally inferior? Wow!

So now, judging by your post, you'll say I'm emotionally unfit and doomed to failure because I don't choose to commit myself - and large sums of money - to a system that I can't understand until I'm committed to it.

Not what I said, AND another childish retalatory interpretation. It takes a high level of emotional fitness to be able to complete the program and to understand how your own behaviour affects the horse. And yes it does cost, but so does everything, and certainly everything to do with horses. In Australia the cost of a Partnership pack is the equivalent to a pair of decent runners. Everthing is relative.

My system is the only true one and the only one that works, and only the initiated can understand it", well that's just bound to attract questions, isn't it?

Please show me where I said that. Childish comments really do you know favours, sorry. I've tried very hard to answer your question on the other thread, and you accuse me of being dictatorial. You have entirely proven my point. Thank you.

Em 1

31st Aug 2005, 01:42 AM

Apparently too many people are commenting on PNH without knowing enough about it, would someone who does take the opportunity to explain how and why it works?

I'm afraid I am not a PNH guru - I'm not rich enough for a start :rolleyes: :D but as an ethologist (amongst other things), I do have an opinion on 'how and why it works', which is.......

........conditioning, mainly operant but incorporating some classical conditioning.

Operant conditioning works on four basic priniciples:

*Positive Reinforcement = something positive is provided, and behaviour increases as a consequence.

*Negative Reinforcement = something negative is removed and behaviour increases as a consequence.

*Negative Punishment = something positive ends or is taken away, so the key behaviour decreases.

*Positive Punishment = something unpleasant is presented so the key behaviour decreases

If we look, for example, at the article below, it seems that most of the training techniques can equally well be described in terms of conditioning (the phrases in red being of particular interest). They largely seem to be examples of negative reinforcement in that something unpleasant (e.g. swinging ropes) is removed, when a horse stands still.

http://www.parelli.biz/PNH/Groups/Groups/information/articles/Articles/Article11.html

#1 The Friendly Game

This is about proving to your horse that you wouldn't hurt him even if you could. Rather than just petting him and going quietly about him, you need to expose him to situations that scare him so you can prove that those situations are not going to hurt him.

You should be able to rub him all over, toss ropes around his legs, over his back and head, even skip around him. This is about desensitizing your horse to 'scary' movements, objects and situations. The secret is to offer the 'scary thing' with some rhythm, a smile on your face and relaxed body language. You need to keep going, with rhythm, until the horse realizes there is nothing to worry about and becomes able to stand still. As you gain more knowledge and experience, you'll develop 1000 ways to play this game.

Many horses, even though they've been ridden for years, have never had the chance to get acquainted with their saddle. You can play the Friendly Game with the saddle and pads by lightly tossing them on and off until the horse feels confident and can stand completely still to be saddled.

There are two things that are extremely important here. One is to allow the horse to move, to drift around a bit while he is getting over being afraid. You just need to keep him facing you with some slack in the rope until he decides he can keep his feet still. Second is to stress the importance of using rhythm. Offering anything to the horse with rhythm gives him confidence because he learns to anticipate what is coming. This game should always be played first, and in between each of the other six games. Every time you play it with him, you reassure your horse and keep the balance between friendship and dominance.

I'm not saying that PNH does not have a role in training and handling horses. Done properly, conditioning/PNH generally provides calm, obedient horses. Not all are happy but that is true of all groups of equines and animals in general. A horse that knows where the boundaries are is generally a happy one no matter how (within reason of course!) the boundaries are set and which training technique an individual owner uses.

Demson

31st Aug 2005, 07:31 AM

The method does work for every horse, it is the person who it may not work for. It is human to immediately but blame to someone else, it happens all the time and I think this is what happens with Parelli as well as other riding disciplines especially dressage.. The person tries and fails and is quick to blame the system rather than think about what they are doing wrong.

The onlything that th equote states which reworded is true is that not just one method works for all horses butothers as well, BUT the parelli method does work.

I have been studying Parelli for two years and a have passed all but a few tasks of my level 2 (which I am re submitting next week) but I am not a Parelli fanatic. In fact my main passion is HDT and I like to use Parelli to relax my horse and let him chill out. (his fav game is ......the friendly game.... LOL)

I have days when nothing seems to go right and I have to tell myself two things. One what am I doing wrong and secondly I have to realise that today my horse don't wanna play. Just like us..some days we wanna go out partying some days we don't. It is not because parelli is to blame....

The easy solution in any situation is to blame, an easy cop out....it is harder to admit responsibility and misunderstanding.

[QUOTE]
No there has to be some explanation: it's no good just saying "all horses back away from a wiggling leadrope" because that just isn't true.

As an example, a lass (call her A) just starting with Parelli and another lass (call her B) who has been studying Parelli for a year tried and failed to get girl A's horse to back up using the 12ft line.

They told me that the horse just lifts its head and won't move even at phase 4. I said I couldn't guaranteee I could help but would try. I played friendly first and then established eye contact and some respect. Then I tried the yoyo. The horse stood and looked at me at phase 1, then after a few seconds using phase 2 the horse stepped back 2 steps.

The owner was amazed and I said I didn't do anything amazing just used my body language and the parelli skills I had learnt. I then asked the owner to try and she struggled. Was she doing anything wrong....

Basically the idea was there but it was the stiffness and awkwardness that confused the horse.

The owner told me she thought it was just the method not working for her horse and realised it was actually herself that needed to learn. Oh and the same happened when she tried the driving game. I got it easy as I knew where and when to position myself and the owner didn't.

You can use loads of pressure but if you do not use that pressure correctly then NO it won't work. The person NEEDS to learn.

Pat Parelli admits ALL the time that he did not invent the system but what he did do (Lucky S*d) is discover a very good way to market it.

I guess I shall be joining the line of threads being ripped apart and I guess it will be done by those who

1) May be stubborn and insist Parelli don't work
2) May be quick to blame type of people
3) May be impatient
4) Dominant
5) easily aggitated.

Dunno, but if a person has already set their minds that Parelli does not work then why keep coming onto a parelli thread to cause a storm? IMO I think they get a buzz out of it and not really bothered about the actual topic only the resulting follow up threads.

At the end of the day ....I enjoy Parelli....my horse enjoys Parelli and that is what is important.

Over to you....;)

cvb

31st Aug 2005, 08:23 AM

Naturally

31st Aug 2005, 09:15 AM

A lot of the previous posts have said "what" we do. But I don't feel they really say what works, why it works, what the grounding principles are (which are what make the difference).

Thanks CVB I agree with you on the Trailer loading, however for the "un-informed" the reason we need to load externally from the float is so that as we progress to level 2 it becomes at greater distances and at level 3 it becomes at liberty. The reason for that is that it demonstrates a very high level of truth in our horses trust of us, which comes from our communication.

But what works....everything if you try hard enough, and why it works....because we try hard enough. I don't really know how to answer that in brief, there are 1000 things for each.

And as for the principles, if ever I got an intelligent or articulate response to anything I posted on this topic, I might be inclined. Yann's question may have been genuine but she/he??? has friends and a whole host of other sources to find that, and quite frankly I can't be bothered typing it if she/he??? can't be bothered reading it.

As for Demson and EM1, Thank you, I think you are both angels, from wherever you hail :D :) :D

Jacquie

31st Aug 2005, 09:25 AM

Ok - an attempt here to bring this back on track, because I personally believe, even having read a lot of the posts (and contributed to a few as well ;) ) that it IS a valid question.
There's no denying it is a valid question but only when asked by somone who is generally interested in finding out information on how the PNH system works. ;)
Just like to add, I found your post very interesting cvb. :)

Jacquie

31st Aug 2005, 09:30 AM

As for Demson and EM1, Thank you, I think you are both angels, from wherever you hail
Naturally, I'm feeling very left out now..... :( :p :D

Shiny McShine

31st Aug 2005, 10:03 AM

I won't begin to tell you how PNH works because I am very new to it, I am not however new to the principles on which it is based, but that may or may not come in to this discussion. However, I must comment...

I don't like the fact that it accepts and codifies high levels of force and is very dominant in its style.

I didn't think PNH did accept or codifiy (?) a high level of violence or a very dominant style?

Where and how did you get this impression? What do you consider a high level of force? because if I thought PNH involved a high level of force (by my own definition) I definitely wouldn't use it.

Naturally

31st Aug 2005, 10:55 AM

Naturally, I'm feeling very left out now.....

Awww Jacquie, you know you are my favourite :p

katefarmer

31st Aug 2005, 12:02 PM

OK - Yann! I'll take the challenge and give you my opinion of why PNH works. As you know, I'm not a Parelli person and am sometimes critical of it - but it can and does work and this is why. (I'll try not go into too much detail - just the overall principles).

Equine communication revolves around movement, direction, personal space, attitude and comfort. In the herd, there are certain set patterns of movement of the feet and body posture that are used to establish the herd order and the relationships within the order. These are very detailed and some very subtle - but it it possible for us to tap straight into the horse's mind if we can get the horse to produce the same body language it uses towards other horses towards us. (If they "say" it often enough, they believe it! :) )

The 7 games give a simple (for the human) format that, if executed as prescribed, will produce the key elements of heirarchy language in the horse to the effect that the person will be seen as holding a higher place in the "herd order". As one moves through the levels, this "language" is refined to achieve a higher and higher degree of cooperation between horse and human. It activates the "herd brain" if you like - the mechanism that makes horses automatically cooperate with eachother to ensure the safety of the herd. The more accurately and precisely you do it, the stronger the effect.

In a nutshell - that's it. Where for me it falls short is that it does not explain WHY it works and what the crucial elements of the body language of the horse are. But then if it did, that would sort of blow the secret and everyone could get down to the basics without all the expensive paraphanalia and packaging - and Parelli is, after all, as good a businessman as he is horseman! The further shortcoming is that, because the people are not really given the "inner secrets" - or at least not until very much later on, they can actually end up allowing or even encouraging the horse to use "rude words" so to speak - and then they run into the problems we've seen on many other threads.

Even Naturally - a self confessed Parelli addict and follower (and I'm not knocking that!! :) ) says

"for the "un-informed" the reason we need to load externally from the float is so that as we progress to level 2 it becomes at greater distances and at level 3 it becomes at liberty. The reason for that is that it demonstrates a very high level of truth in our horses trust of us, which comes from our communication."

Now, who came up with the levels? Who says the horse has to load from a distance? Certainly not the horse. This is a purely human invention. The horse discovers the trailer is a pleasant, quiet and comfortable place to be, and seeks it out - that's the nature of horses. Once it has decided it's a comfortable and safe place, doing it a distance or at liberty just means the horse is so convinced it's a comfortable, safe place it will seek it out with little or no suggestion from the person, and it's not necessarily an indication of any greater trust.

So what makes me think it's not a matter of more trust to the person? Well, I do a lot of problem loaders, and a lot of the time the owners will say they just want the horse to load, nothing else. It's not ideal, and I always encourage them to learn at least basic groundwork to back it up, but sometimes they just don't want know. Anyway, after I've shown the horse that the trailer is a safe, comfortable place to be, and shown the owner how to get out of its way to let it in the trailer - I can go back years later and providing the owner has stuck to the "everything quiet and nice in the trailer" rule, that horse is still loading - even if it's showing total contempt for the owner in every other way! It's not really respecting or trusting the owner, it's just making itself comfortable. :D Of course, it can happen that I then get the owner complaining that the horse is running them over to get INTO the trailer - but then I insist on them learning some groundwork!! :D

Sorry it's long - but I think this is more what you meant in asking how and why does it work, isn't it?

On another bit of this discussion - Naturally - you say you find criticism of PNH disheartening - but this is an open forum, and I think most of us enjoy the range of approaches and opinions, and being able to discuss different viewpoints. If people want to stick to "strictly Parelli" - surely they should address questions and comments to their local Savvy Club where they'll get pure Parelli answers. If someone puts a question or comment in an open forum, they must expect to get answers from other angles. Just because people have criticisms of Parelli it doesn't mean they are necessarily ill-informed about it or wrong - they just have other opinions.

Cheers

Kate
www.harmony-project.net

Naturally

31st Aug 2005, 12:29 PM

Wow, Awesome, intelligent and articulate answer. Thanks Kate. I won't say much on it, because I think you have expressed an opinion that is well thought out and has foundation of it's own.

The Trailer loading thing is probably fairly accurate, so I guess the answer to some of it, is simply so that we have something measurable to assess. It still demonstrates a high level of trust & communication IMO.

As for the comments. Yes it is a public forum and you are right, but still, as an example, how would you feel if your child was trying to get involved in something new and some bully kept coming along ruining it for them and telling them it sucked. :mad: I just think it bares some consideration for the greater good of healthy discussion, which BTW, is the reason I am here. :)

LindaAd

31st Aug 2005, 12:53 PM

The method does work for every horse, it is the person who it may not work for. It is human to immediately but blame to someone else, it happens all the time and I think this is what happens with Parelli as well as other riding disciplines especially dressage.. The person tries and fails and is quick to blame the system rather than think about what they are doing wrong.

I have been studying Parelli for two years and a have passed all but a few tasks of my level 2 (which I am re submitting next week) but I am not a Parelli fanatic. In fact my main passion is HDT and I like to use Parelli to relax my horse and let him chill out. (his fav game is ......the friendly game.... LOL)

<snip>

I have days when nothing seems to go right and I have to tell myself two things. One what am I doing wrong and secondly I have to realise that today my horse don't wanna play. Just like us..some days we wanna go out partying some days we don't. It is not because parelli is to blame....

The easy solution in any situation is to blame, an easy cop out....it is harder to admit responsibility and misunderstanding.

The owner was amazed and I said I didn't do anything amazing just used my body language and the parelli skills I had learnt. I then asked the owner to try and she struggled. Was she doing anything wrong....

Basically the idea was there but it was the stiffness and awkwardness that confused the horse.

The owner told me she thought it was just the method not working for her horse and realised it was actually herself that needed to learn. Oh and the same happened when she tried the driving game. I got it easy as I knew where and when to position myself and the owner didn't.

You can use loads of pressure but if you do not use that pressure correctly then NO it won't work. The person NEEDS to learn.

Pat Parelli admits ALL the time that he did not invent the system but what he did do (Lucky S*d) is discover a very good way to market it.

I guess I shall be joining the line of threads being ripped apart and I guess it will be done by those who

1) May be stubborn and insist Parelli don't work
2) May be quick to blame type of people
3) May be impatient
4) Dominant
5) easily aggitated.

Dunno, but if a person has already set their minds that Parelli does not work then why keep coming onto a parelli thread to cause a storm? IMO I think they get a buzz out of it and not really bothered about the actual topic only the resulting follow up threads.

At the end of the day ....I enjoy Parelli....my horse enjoys Parelli and that is what is important.

Over to you....;)

"why keep coming onto a parelli thread to cause a storm?" Hang about, Demson, this isn't a Parelli thread, it's an asking questions about Parelli thread, started by Yann asking a question ..

OK, I see where you're coming from now. Although Parelli is packaged as a set of steps that anyone can do, it's really just about learning to handle horses, and you need an instructor for that. OK, fair enough.

Of course you need to be aware of how your body language affects your horse, and the fact that if a horse doesn't do what you want it's your fault. Those are pretty much the first things that children learn when they get on their first pony. I can't see that there's anything extraordinary about that. Still, I think I'm beginning to understand.

And if we're talking about types of people here, well the people it seems to appeal to are those who like clear-cut systems, lots of rules, a way of thinking that's closed to outsiders, and a strict hierarchy. No?

By the way, what's HDT?

Linda

LindaAd

31st Aug 2005, 12:59 PM

Ok - an attempt here to bring this back on track, because I personally believe, even having read a lot of the posts (and contributed to a few as well ;) ) that it IS a valid question. And I'll tell you why...

When I went to pick up my mare (I was living in Sweden), I suggested the previous owners loaded here as they knew her, had worked with her etc. They started swinging ropes and backing her up... and it took 40 mins to get her into the trailer. And she sweated up quite badly on the journey :(

About 9 months later we needed to move yard, so she had to be loaded again. In the meantime I had been doing a little round pen and parelli work (from the study pack, and having attended a course with another horse a few years before - with Ross Simpson in the UK).

She loaded in roughly 5 mins (being conservative - might have been shorter). Since then its only got better. She now rarely sweats up when travelling. I am still walking in ahead of her. But she is happy to go, stand there while I put bars and ramps up, and will stand at the other end without stressing to get out.

So whats the difference between what they did - which from the outside might have looked similar, and what I do ? (which is at least partly "parelli" if not 100% pure).

How do we (from the inside) explain it to the people who are outside trying to understand, and in some cases trying to get "in" ?

A lot of the previous posts have said "what" we do. But I don't feel they really say what works, why it works, what the grounding principles are (which are what make the difference).

[When I say what I do is not "pure" Parelli, it is because I use some slight variations learned from other nh people (Mark R, Leslie D etc). I use them because they fit with my value set, and because they work ;)]

I know exactly what you're saying here. I can tell you a story just like it, about a time when my daughter was trying to load her pony, and daughter was feeling stressed (for reasons not relevant here)and pony refusing to load. An experienced friend said "Let me try", and, to the pony, very quietly, "Let's go in there, shall we", and pony, recognising there was nothing stressful in the situation after all, followed her in.

So you're talking about handling horses quietly and confidently. And I suppose Parelli teaches people to do that. But that would come from the instructors. And I suppose the bit about levels helps train you to wait for a response and reward it. But why do you need all mystical "inside" and "outside" magical stuff, and the paraphenalia of carrot sticks and the rest?

Linda

LindaAd

31st Aug 2005, 01:18 PM

N: Linda I've just gone to a lot of trouble to answer this question on the other thread.

Thank you for your careful answer, Naturally. I've replied on that thread.

L: So now, judging by your post, you'll say I'm emotionally unfit and doomed to failure because I don't choose to commit myself - and large sums of money - to a system that I can't understand until I'm committed to it.
N: Not what I said, AND another childish retalatory interpretation.

Sorry if I seem to be retaliatory; I'm just reflecting the tone of voice people seem to be using to Yann.

N: It takes a high level of emotional fitness to be able to complete the program and to understand how your own behaviour affects the horse.

Consequently, people who can't complete it lack emotional fitness. Isn't that what I said, or have I missed the point?

L: My system is the only true one and the only one that works, and only the initiated can understand it", well that's just bound to attract questions, isn't it?
N: Please show me where I said that.

Not that you said it in so many words, Naturally. But when people talk about "insiders" and "outsiders", and how "you can't understand it until you're committed to it", and "it's no good reading about it, you have to live it", that's the impression it gives me.

N:
Childish comments really do you know favours, sorry. I've tried very hard to answer your question on the other thread, and you accuse me of being dictatorial. You have entirely proven my point. Thank you.

And if we're talking about words, where did I use "dictatorial"? ...
Which point?

Linda

cvb

31st Aug 2005, 01:26 PM

Just to start by saying that I don't think Yann would have posted the question if not prepared to read and take it in - I've seen enough postings over the post few years to believe that..

But also that on such threads we often only see the tip of the iceburg in the people actively posting, as there are a whole bunch of lurkers just reading what we have to say. I think we owe it to them to finish what we started as well !!

I was listening to the radio the other night and they were talking to David Blunkett. For non-UK people, David is a member of parliament and has been a Minister (but had a few...er... "family" problems recently). Anyway, he is also blind. They got talking about the impact of body language and how he needs feedback to know when his body language is not matching his voice. For example he has been told that his body language can be aggressive when he is actually trying to be calm and rational ! And I thought - goodness, its hard enough to learn body language when you can see it :eek: How hard to learn it when you can't see either other people or yourself ! All you have to go on is someone else's observations..

Well it just occurred to me that this is a bit like what we are trying to do. We are trying to learn enough of the horse's "language" to be able to have a conversation with them. (Note: not for them to see us as horses ! But to be able to communicate). What systems like Parelli give us is an initial language guide to help start the process. We start speaking "pigeon" horse in simple words, and build to phrases, sentences, and so on.

Our system of "cues" for riding is similar - tho slightly more like morse code (esperanto ?) where the common language is not native tongue to either of us.

cvb

31st Aug 2005, 01:28 PM

p.s. meant to say about "loading from the outside".

As I said, I haven't got round to trying this yet. As Pat says, prior preparation n all that - I do NOT want to try it for the first time when I am off to a comp...

However, I did use a similar approach recently when "introducing" a new field shelter. I asked Fi to go in ahead of me. And she did. I suspect partly cos I'd been playing with "cul de sac"s of poles and so on in the arena (there's that prior and proper preparation again ;) )

So I am not too fussed that we have a problem with the principle. But I want to give myself and Fi the right time and space for the practice :D

Yann

31st Aug 2005, 01:31 PM

Thanks to those who answered my (genuine) question, which appears to confirm that I do indeed understand how it works.

Yes, this is an open forum, and this is a subject I'm interested in. I've learnt a lot from the responses in some of the recent discussions, even if it hasn't really altered my thoughts on the subject particularly. I'm surprised at some of the emotive responses I seem to have engendered - I've never remotely suggested Parelli was rubbish or didn't work, if anything the opposite is true. What I have done on occasion is question some aspects of it which I personally find questionable, and others clearly do as well. There is plenty in the system which is common to any other number of trainers, the difference is sometimes in how it is applied. Hardly amounts to 'bullying' or 'trashing' does it?:rolleyes:

Parelli is often the only 'alternative' people have heard of, it's hardly scaring off the children to point out that it might not always be what they expect and that there are other things out there which might suit them as well if not better. To the uninitiated 'natural horsemanship' is about being kinder and more sympathetic, as opposed to 'traditional' which can sometimes be the opposite of those things. Such a person would not expect to see a practitioner hitting a horse with a stick or smacking it in the face with a metal clip as part of a more 'natural' approach, I didn't. The fact is that it isn't necessary.

That's not to say that Parelli doesn't work, because it does, but going to that level on a regular basis, granted in the early stages makes the human by far the dominant party in the relationship, particularly the yo yo game, which appears very confrontational to me. It isn't necessary to teach a horse to back up that way, but what it does do is establish who's in charge in no uncertain terms. As I've said before, that might be the best approach with some horses, but it isn't the sort of relationship I want to have with mine. It's perfectly possible to achieve the same goals of a secure well behaved horse that knows where the boundaries are without having to use such overtly dominant methods.

One size does not fit all, and it's disingenuous at best to say that if Parelli doesn't work for someone it's their fault, not the system, nothing is perfect.
Em1, you might need to find another way to describe what you do now Parelli UK are rebranding themselves as Equine Ethology TM;)

LindaAd

31st Aug 2005, 01:40 PM

T

And as for the principles, if ever I got an intelligent or articulate response to anything I posted on this topic, I might be inclined. Yann's question may have been genuine but she/he??? has friends and a whole host of other sources to find that, and quite frankly I can't be bothered typing it if she/he??? can't be bothered reading it.

I don't think it's fair to say that Yann could find answers to his questions from his friends or the Parelli website. I have no idea if he has Parelli friends or not, but presumably by asking the question on here, he's looking for a broader set of answers.

As for the website, well I think what Yann wants - I know I do - is real stories from real people rather than high-sounding principles. We all know about pressure and release, what we want is stories, like the ones about loading and the one about cvb's mum's pony - that's what makes it come into focus. And also answers that we can relate to our own experience with our own horses (thank you Naturally and cvb for your answers on the other thread).

As for "intelligent" and "articulate", well I'm sure we all do the best we can.....

Linda

Yann

31st Aug 2005, 01:47 PM

You're quite correct there Linda:)

And Naturally, if you don't want to read or respond to my posts nobody is forcing you:D

Jacquie

31st Aug 2005, 04:57 PM

One size does not fit all
For once I agree with you Yann, Parelli suits me and thousands of others just fine but it's not everyone's cup of tea.
On the other hand, I'm not into training my horse to do tricks that could teach him to rear or paw the ground - but that's my personal choice and I would never try to monopolise all the clicker training threads with my views on it. ;)

Esther.D

31st Aug 2005, 05:25 PM

But why do you need all mystical "inside" and "outside" magical stuff, and the paraphenalia of carrot sticks and the rest?

Basically.....you don't! Just like you don't 'need' the Monty Roberts Dually halter or any of the other many things marketed by the many NH trainers, just as you don't 'need' a round pen either to do these methods. What some of these things do is make your life easier.

Carrot sticks are just a non-flexible stick with a lash attached, arranged in such a way that it is hard (but like anything, not impossible) to use it as a whip as it has no 'flick' in it. As for the name....well that is just marketing to try and get away from the idea of a whip..as it isn't a whip. The carrot stick is useful because there is nothing else really like it, anything similar is a whip and therefore is flexible to give a 'flick' which would defeat the object of the carrot stick which should never be used as a whip.

The rope halters are useful because they allow greater feel and sensitivity and the thin rope does not encourage the horse to lean on them and barge. I have found them a godsend with ours as they seem to prefer them to ordinary headcollars and they give great control. But they are not intended to have any tension put on them so, used correctly, should not be harsh.

The 12ft line is also a very useful bit of kit - it has a lovely feel and weight which allows communication down a loose line rather than having to have a tight rope. It is also very useful for general leading etc. I also like the way the heavy clip weights the rope, but am not happy with the way some people allow it to thump into the boney jaw in the yo-yo game..that is 'not cricket' in many opinion and too aggressive.

So the basic kit is useful, the Parelli brand stuff is good quality but not essential..the cheaper copies can be just as good if you shop around. Half my stuff is 'real' Parelli, the other half is imported from America at half the price and is identical (literally).

As for the mystique...half of that is marketing engendered by Parelli as a 'brand' and the other half is the result of the 'disciples' who get a bit carried away and call it the answer to everything, which goes beyond Parelli's own claims.

The trouble is the actual Parelli stuff gets mixed up with the stories and ideas of some of the students and it all ends up in a big mish-mash of chaos, which leads Parelli students to be defensive as they feel threatened and non-Parelli students to also be defensive as they also feel threatened. When in fact we should all play together nicely as, after all, we should all be in this for the good of our horses..no matter what method we use.

I like Parelli and I use Parelli, although not exclusively, and I don't believe it need be any more aggressive than any other horse training method. The key to the method is..in that real Americanism....'savvy'.....ie USING YOUR HEAD which Parelli reiterates over and over again is the most important feature of the method. His levels are designed to help you develop this horse sense but if you go into it blindly and follow blindly in a 'one size fits all' approach then I believe you are defeating the whole purpose of the method. Whatever method I am using I will never use violence and aggression with my horses, no matter what anyone tells me, no matter how 'well qualified', and that applies to any method.

Demson

31st Aug 2005, 05:28 PM

why keep coming onto a parelli thread to cause a storm?" Hang about, Demson, this isn't a Parelli thread, it's an asking questions about Parelli thread, started by Yann asking a question ..

If this thread is not about Parelli....am I missing something? ;) I reckon we are meaning the same thing but just expressed it different. Or in my case worded it wrong :D

HDT is Horse Driving Trials, I compete at National events regulary up and down the country.

Since starting with Parelli it has helped my horse to focus much better and be more relaxed and it has helped me to relax and be more patient.

Result.....better performance when competing....maybe its just a coincidence I dunno but I do have a better relationship with my fella and as long as he is happy with what we do then I am happy.

Dales_Lover

31st Aug 2005, 07:33 PM

Parelli 'works' for certain horses and people - we are all different. That's where I think many people (many of the Parelli 'addicts' atleast) get it wrong. They don't see why some people get on with it, and some people don't.

If the BHS do make it part of their exams and stages I shall go mad.

Sorry - random comments but I had to get it off my chest!

Naturally

31st Aug 2005, 08:24 PM

I don't think another full blown he said she said answer is needed here. (if anyone wants a particular point answered by me please repost)

Yann, it appears that your question has raised some good and solid responses (in the end). And thank you for persisting with it. :) I know I now have a far better idea of where your coming from. I would REALLY like to demonstrate yo-yo with a dozen horses with you, but logistically it won't ever happen, and I know I would probably have to tie you to a chair to get you to watch it. :D

LindaAD, Yann did infact set the tone in earlier threads, so we were not being (from our perspective) overly harsh, but when it's all said and done, it has become a great topic for discussion, and now, thankfully without the inflammation.

PNH does require a fair amount, and more as you progress, of what we call emotional fitness, but since part of that emotion is dedication to the program, no it doesn't mean you are emotionally void if you don't do it, it just means you don't have the same desire to reach those goals.

One area (and no this is not official) where we have to work on our emotional fitness is being "clobbered" by anti PNH sentiment a lot of the time. I'm CLEARLY working on mine :o in that regard, and still have some way to go !! :p

I'm out of time now, but I guess, just back to the floatloading thing, it's not always about the end result either. It's about learning approach and retreat, timing, focus and feel. And to get that at distance and at liberty is a great thing.

Cheers everyone, I'm really glad this post has become a good point of discussion.

Em 1

31st Aug 2005, 11:50 PM

I've only got a few minutes now but will post at length tomorrow but I just wanted to point out that although the question asks 'how' does Parelli work? the answers seem to focus on 'why', 'what' and 'when' Parelli works. Maybe if we looked beyond the superficial discussions on 'right and wrong training methods' we would progress in our understanding?

As for Demson and EM1, Thank you, I think you are both angels, from wherever you hail

I'm extremely flattered to be called an angel but I'm afraid I am not a supporter (or an opposer) of Parelli. It is a training system based on well established ethological/psychological theories that have absolutely nothing to do with Pat Parelli. He is an extremely astute businessman who (probably) saw a way to make horses' lives easier through his scheme at the same time as making money. I do not criticise him for this but neither do I follow his training methods.

Naturally

1st Sep 2005, 02:08 AM

I'm extremely flattered to be called an angel but I'm afraid I am not a supporter (or an opposer) of Parelli.

Yes I understand that Em1, but you provided a very level headed response, which was much needed at that time, so thank you.

(this is not just directed at Em1's post btw)

I'm not sure why so many people get so caught up in the "business side" of PNH. There is no doubt that Pat has created his program to reach a broad area and he certainly has that "thing" that attracts a lot of people, I just don't understand why it is often used as a negative.

I own and run a business (and have had many over the years) and strive very hard for them to be successful. The object of any business is to make money (OK not for profit etc excluded) so why is this even an issue when it comes to PNH? I truly don't understand and it comes up frequently.

Pat's primary focus has always been to increase the base level of horsemanship world wide, but should be be expected to do that at not make money ? His program does cost money, but so does everything. Just curious to know some thoughts on this.

Mossy

1st Sep 2005, 05:48 AM

Basically.....you don't! Just like you don't 'need' the Monty Roberts Dually halter or any of the other many things marketed by the many NH trainers, just as you don't 'need' a round pen either to do these methods. What some of these things do is make your life easier.

Some years ago I went to a Parelli evening and asked the self same question. I was looked as though I had suddenly brought in a bad smell, and was told that the proper equipment is essential in order to follow Parelli and if I were really interested I would find the means to get it. At that point I rather lost interest. I do not know if I have a problem with the underlying principles of Parelli or not. In fact the seven "games" seem like a standardized version of common sense. I have severe problem with anything, be it Parelli or any other ethos, that insists you spend several arms and legs just to find out if it works for you. As the devotees admit, Parelli does not work for everyone and I have better things to do with £x00 in order to find out!

Naturally

1st Sep 2005, 06:09 AM

Parelli does not work for everyone and I have better things to do with £x00 in order to find out!

It's not that it doesnt WORK for everyone, it's just that it's not for everyone. i.e. people like yourself, obviously.

Mossy

1st Sep 2005, 06:41 AM

It's not that it doesnt WORK for everyone, it's just that it's not for everyone. i.e. people like yourself, obviously.
I apologise for taking issue with you. It is NOT obvious that formal Parelli is not for me. All that is obvious to me is that the financial entry boundaries are set so high that I am never likely to find out!
Also the principles behind Parelli may well work for everybody, however all horses and all owners are individuals and need slightly different approaches. My experience of Parelli is one of didactic one size fits all which just does not work. The English human education system are belatedly rediscovering this very point

Naturally

1st Sep 2005, 07:17 AM

Fair enough, It just seemed fairly obvious from what you said that you don't think it's for you either. :)

Yann

1st Sep 2005, 08:00 AM

The key to the method is..in that real Americanism....'savvy'.....ie USING YOUR HEAD which Parelli reiterates over and over again is the most important feature of the method.

My problem is that in reality savvy sometimes appears to be in short supply, time and time again we read posts here and elsewhere about trainers brutalising horses (at least one was left with a bleeding chin) because they are following the method to the letter, rather than making sure the horse understands or is physically comfortable with what is being asked. If accredited trainers are doing this you can be sure the people watching them will think it's fine to go home and do the same thing. That's the nub of my problem with all this. Using the games with a bit of 'savvy' is a different matter, clearly something many people on here do, and I'm sure the results are just as good. Hell, I've even tried some of them;)

BTW, whats all that about training horses to rear with a clicker? I assume it was a swipe at me?:D If you're actually interested I don't really follow a 'system' as such, I'm open to trying different things but do use a clicker as my horse responds to it and enjoys it.

cvb

1st Sep 2005, 08:09 AM

Just to focus in on a particular aspect here - the conversation about carrot sticks.

I took my mum's unbranded "carrot stick" in to the local golf shop to get a new grip put on it. They were fine about this as the guy told me that at one stage they used to do a lot of this kind of work for making "sticks" for stock men.

In other words, carrot sticks are not new, and not unique to working with horses. I guess it may be that Pat etc actually picked the idea up from working with cattle rather than horses. Not sure the cattle stockmen use "savvy strings" - but the stick is basically the same.

Can't remember that french phrase - but as they say "there's nothing new under the sun"....

Naturally

1st Sep 2005, 11:00 AM

Jacquie

1st Sep 2005, 12:07 PM

BTW, whats all that about training horses to rear with a clicker? I assume it was a swipe at me?:D
For once I agree with you Yann, Parelli suits me and thousands of others just fine but it's not everyone's cup of tea.
On the other hand, I'm not into training my horse to do tricks that could teach him to rear or paw the ground - but that's my personal choice and I would never try to monopolise all the clicker training threads with my views on it. ;)
If you re-read my post I said clicker training could teach a horse to rear or paw the ground - big difference. By this I mean't any form of teaching if not followed correctly can and will cause problems whether it be natural or normal training - no method is idiot proof. ;)
However, some folk seem to take delight in constantly leaving negative views only on PNH threads when clearly all forms of teaching can have it's drawbacks - I'll leave it up to you to decide if you fit into this category. :)

LindaAd

1st Sep 2005, 01:40 PM

<snip>

I'm not sure why so many people get so caught up in the "business side" of PNH. There is no doubt that Pat has created his program to reach a broad area and he certainly has that "thing" that attracts a lot of people, I just don't understand why it is often used as a negative.

I own and run a business (and have had many over the years) and strive very hard for them to be successful. The object of any business is to make money (OK not for profit etc excluded) so why is this even an issue when it comes to PNH? I truly don't understand and it comes up frequently.

Pat's primary focus has always been to increase the base level of horsemanship world wide, but should be be expected to do that at not make money ? His program does cost money, but so does everything. Just curious to know some thoughts on this.

Why do people find the money-making side of Parelli so noticeable?

I can tell you why I do:

1. Because the marketing is in your face, and you're asked to commit a lot of money before you can begin to understand (at least that's what you're told: how many people have said to me on this thread "You can't understand until you're committed .."?)

2. Because other horse people (John Lyons, Michael Peace, Kelly Marks ...) seem to make their money by teaching, by doing clinics, by writing books and making videos. They don't have "methods" or big marketing empires.

3. I haven't really got a 3. Isn't this enough?

Linda

cvb

1st Sep 2005, 02:16 PM

I think something that I am very quickly discovering is the apparent annamolies (sp?) in the level of instructors around the world.

Australia is credited with having many of the higher/est level instructors in the Parelli Program. My instructors to date have been Dave Stuart and Mel Flemming, and another who is now (thankfully) no longer an accredited instructor. Both these two are amazing with horses, and each has a very different approach.

I know when Dave started out, he was not well received, but he has grown and developed and his teaching style now reflects his ability (in my experience) with horses. He is, in my opinion, bl**dy fantastic. I have had reason to put great trust in him and his timing and focus was faultless.
Mel too has a brilliance that is beyond question.

So my experiences have never been what some of you have reported. Although in the early days of PNH (in Aust.) it may have been different. I guess you guys have a broader range of intructos and therefore experiences. Lucky for me, mine have been 5 star.

CVB what are your thoughts on this? (and anyone else who can offer)

Yes, though to be fair this is not unique to Parelli and should not be a big surprise. I think the dilemma comes from the fact that Parelli Co makes a big effort to co-ordinate the message so it is coherent and consistent. But of course at the end of the day it is delivered through human beings, who can't help but say it with their own tone, inflection etc

I have had Alexander Technique lessons with a few different teachers as I progress around UK and Europe. In theory they are all teaching the same thing. In reality, there are now only a few people who trained with The Man himself, and increasingly there are "strands" of approach depending on which school your trainer learnt and qualified with.

I actually haven't come across a "bad" AT teacher, but they have all been different.

The challenge for Parelli is that it is a much younger organisation that has grown very fast. They have done their best to manage that process, but there will inevitably be things that slip through the net.

At one of the previous UK Parelli conferences I was watching the "melee" of students at the beginning - the bit where there are a whole load of people in the arena working at the same time, with music on etc. I noticed that one horse was not looking as "happy", so I watched more closely. What I observed - and please note this is my personal observation so not necessarily "fact", was that the person concerned did not seem to say "thanks" to the horse when they did good, and after a task. They just did one task, then went on to the next, and maybe did a stroke of thanks every 4-5 "tasks". The other horses the person said thanks every time. The difference was noticeably to me. Yet all were "doing" Parelli. Such a small thing can make such a big difference. (and no, I am not going to name names, describe the horse).

Well if something so small can make this kind of difference, and thats only one horse and one person, those differences will be magnified big time when it is someone training.

Even between Ross Simpson (in his Parelli days) and Alison Jones - (ok a different level of instructor, and different stage of parelli evolution) - I could see big differences (not right vs wrong, just different).

Yann

1st Sep 2005, 02:19 PM

However, some folk seem to take delight in constantly leaving negative views only on PNH threads when clearly all forms of teaching can have it's drawbacks - I'll leave it up to you to decide if you fit into this category.

You're making a lot of assumptions there... if someone posts something you are interested in and think you might be able to contribute to then it's hardly 'taking delight' just because you might not agree. As far as I'm aware all I've done is stated my own opinions in a reasonable manner which I'm perfectly entitled to do. As someone said previously if you only want to see positive Parelli responses go and post on a Parelli only board:)

As regards the marketing, that also put me off from the word go. The demo I saw had a loudmouthed australian bloke (Dave Stuart?) whose patter got up my nose within minutes. And the prices for everything are frankly preposterous however much people go on about quality or how worthwhile it all is. But if people are prepared to pay?

chev

1st Sep 2005, 02:20 PM

Those who say that Parelli is suitable for every horse... I'm not so certain about that. I used it with huge success on one of my ponies after she was injured to bring her back into work.

On the other hand, I've tried using it on my one-eyed gelding and although we did have some limited success it was just that - limited. He just doesn't respond well to the four phases at all. I did think it was me - I'm afraid that I'm another who simply doesn't have the available funds to buy into Parelli in any official capacity - but I did ask someone who has completed Level 1 and was working towards Level 2 to come and work with him... and she said much the same. At the same time as refusing to co-operate at phase one or two, he was also anticipating phase three and getting very stressed. We stopped trying to use the Parelli system with him in the end - I've had more luck just bumbling along using whatever I find works with him, whatever school of horsemanship it came from.

I have to admit, to then read that Parelli works for every horse is a bit of an eye-opener. I'm not a critic of Parelli at all, although I don't follow it exclusively by any means. But I do think it's a bit... arrogant?? to say that when it doesn't work it's because it's not for the handler, rather than the horse, when the handler has found it works well with other horses but not this one?

My feeling is that there are definite aspects of equine communication that don't change much at all from one horse to another; the basic building blocks of horse communication. Any system built using those building blocks has a high chance of success - obviously it's going to be easier to train a horse if communication is mutually understood and clear-cut between horse and handler. But there are also differences in individual horses. Different horses react differently to the same stimuli. And gelfy simply doesn't react well to Parelli's phases. If I persisted, I could probably get it to work eventually - but when I can get the same results by using some other means, why put him through that? He's very happy working the way we do, with no Parelli at all now. I get the same results, just a different way, even though Parelli gave me fantastic results with my mare. For me, that's not just a case of me not being suited to Parelli - it's the horse too.

Any thoughts?

Yann

1st Sep 2005, 03:52 PM

Well said as usual:)

Jacquie

1st Sep 2005, 04:13 PM

As someone said previously if you only want to see positive Parelli responses go and post on a Parelli only board:)
I think you really need to start reading posts thoroughly before commenting because you seem to be the one making all the assumptions. :rolleyes:
I've never said or even indicated that I only want to see positive responses.
What I would like to see are healthy discussions on PNH threads like you see on other NH topics on this board - without them being constantly barbarded with (now quite tedious) repetetive negative posts from certain anti PNH members. ;)

Yann

1st Sep 2005, 05:02 PM

I think there has been a lot of healthy discussion here recently. If you don't just want to see positive responses what other sort are there?

It seems to be a recurring theme that anyone disagreeing with aspects of PNH ends up being accused in emotive terms of either troublemaking and spoiling, not knowing what they are talking about or worse having a hidden agenda in wanting to promote their own brand of horse training.

chev

1st Sep 2005, 05:30 PM

What I would like to see are healthy discussions on PNH threads like you see on other NH topics on this board - without them being constantly barbarded with (now quite tedious) repetetive negative posts from certain anti PNH members. ;)

Forgive me, but I don't see that the discussion has really been bombarded with tedious repetitive negative comments.

If someone has a question, and the answer raises another question, surely the response has to be a considered answer and not an accusation this kind?

When, for example, Yann asks whether using the four phases is in fact simply another way of bullying a horse into responding quickly to avoid further episodes of phase four I would see that as a genuine question. And also, to my mind, a very reasonable one.

I'm not the sort of person who will cheerfully swallow whatever I'm told without exploring every aspect I think of - and nor, it would seem, is Yann. That does not make us accusatory or deliberately negative.

Indeed - it was not questioning the assumption that Parelli would work with every horse that got me and my poor little one-eyed gelding into trouble.

I also find it a bit hard to deal with a branch of NH that seems (and I do say 'seems' - based purely on a few comments read in these threads) to condemn my more traditional methods when I use them. It was 'traditional' horsemanship that meant my Gelfy already played the porcupine game by merely pointing in the direction I wanted him to move - before either of us had ever even heard of Parelli.

There are, to my way of thinking, only two methods of horsemanship - good, and bad. Good horsemanship is one that achieves what you want with understanding and kindness... whether it's labelled 'Parelli', 'traditional', or just plain common sense.

I'm not convinced that phase four is a good thing for all horses - works for some, not with at least one of mine. In the same way that I'm not convinced join-up is the answer for all horses, or all situations... or that any other technique is. Parelli meant that my mare came back into work as a lead rein pony cheerfully and happily. It didn't mean the same for my gelding. No big deal.

Jacquie

1st Sep 2005, 05:55 PM

I think there has been a lot of healthy discussion here recently. If you don't just want to see positive responses what other sort are there?
A healthy discussion in my book does need positive and negative responses but not to point where the member(s) constantly post more or less the same offensive or personal messages against a system or trainer.
It seems to be a recurring theme that anyone disagreeing with aspects of PNH ends up being accused in emotive terms of either troublemaking and spoiling, not knowing what they are talking about.
Not everyone, only the one's in a certain category which we've already discussed are justly accused of this.
or worse having a hidden agenda in wanting to promote their own brand of horse training..
This was a healthy discussion held mainly between myself and another member which I remember very well, the posts where neither offensive or personal on either part - perhaps another case of not reading posts thoroughly again?....... :D

Jacquie

1st Sep 2005, 06:04 PM

Forgive me, but I don't see that the discussion has really been bombarded with tedious repetitive negative comments.
I'm not refering to this thread, I'm refering to the multitude of other PNH threads posted on this board. ;)

Esther.D

1st Sep 2005, 06:40 PM

[QUOTE=Mossy] In fact the seven "games" seem like a standardized version of common sense.[QUOTE]

Thats why I use them...I object to using any method that does not involve common sense :) I have been using similar principles for years but I find it hard to be consistant with 5 ponies and limited time - the Parelli system provided me with my 'lesson plan' as it were in handy chunks so I could pick back up immediately where I was with which pony..mind you I hardly use it with the shetlands, mostly with Rupert. It suits me but it has not changed my life or methods. I continue to longrein and to school in other ways as well, this may have hampered my progression through the levels but it has done what *I* wanted it to do - produced a nice obedient happy pony.

Naturally

1st Sep 2005, 08:15 PM

Jacquie

1st Sep 2005, 09:58 PM

Why do people find the money-making side of Parelli so noticeable?
I can tell you why I do:
1. Because the marketing is in your face, and you're asked to commit a lot of money before you can begin to understand (at least that's what you're told: how many people have said to me on this thread "You can't understand until you're committed .."?)
Could you please explain in more detail why you believe PNH marketing is in your face. I've never seen it advertised on bill boards, TV (not in the UK anyway), door to door canvasing, local or national press (except the conferences/demo's). In most instances I've found that folk 'get into' PNH through either watching a student playing with their horse, attending a conference/demo or watching a DVD.
You don't have to commit anything to begin to understand PNH, look it up on the website and read up about it. Then, if you decide to join the savvy club it costs £12.99 per month, for that you get the Partnership pack worth over £100.00 (which you could resell after passing L1), monthly mags worth around £3.00 each, on site help and discounts. The basic gear to get you through L1 costs about £100.00.
2. Because other horse people (John Lyons, Michael Peace, Kelly Marks ...) seem to make their money by teaching, by doing clinics, by writing books and making videos. They don't have "methods" or big marketing empires.
Pat & Linda Parelli are no different to any of the above - they also earn their living by teaching, doing clinics, writting books and making video's.
Contrary to what you may believe (but goodness knows why you should think this) all trainers do have "methods" of teaching and if they're professionals, market their business/programme to the best of their ability.
I haven't heard of any professional trainer that teaches purely for the love of it. They all have to earn a living, but some earn a damn sight more than others. :D

Jacquie

1st Sep 2005, 10:25 PM

Sorry Naturally, just noticed you've also replied to the same post. :o

Chablis

1st Sep 2005, 11:08 PM

You two are funny.

There seems to be a misunderstanding of what others are saying on this thread - I guess it's because the written word has some many interpretations AND we can't see each others body language or hear them speak to see how things are intended...

Basically I've gathered that Yann wanted to know about PNH but wanted student opionions (despite posting at one stage that he/she didn't want student opinions...) and didn't want to go look at 'propaganda' by doing some research and looking at the Parelli sites...

Well, Yann, you really need to look at those sites as they usually describe things a whole lot better than students who are only learning - Guess who we got our information from?!

There is heaps of information on PNH on the web, good and bad. It's not really fair to base your opinion (or others) on imperfect information because you don't want to do some research - what you are doing is essentially running these people down because the information they found (whether it was more or less than yours) has let them decided that they want to learn Parelli - they're choice and they shouldn't have to justify themselves constantly.

If you want student accounts, please ask for them and then do them the honour of actually reading them instead of coming back with a 'them' and 'us' theory - we are very sick of this attitude.

We don't have an attitude of Parelli versus the world! I have numerous friends who don't do Parelli (they're choice) but we share a common love of horses and we actually manage to stay friends/discuss ideas.

It's taken the students on this forum courage to post considering how these type of threads turn out ie them getting attacked and defending themselves.

It's become very obvious that the people who have posted are NOT able to provide the answers in a way that you can accept so either accept that or as I said above, please do some research on the web.

I may have got this wrong but after reading this post (as an 'outsider'), this is how it comes across.

LindaAd

2nd Sep 2005, 02:35 AM

I'm not refering to this thread, I'm refering to the multitude of other PNH threads posted on this board. ;)

I think it's always better to stick to one thread at a time. Not everyone has read all the threads, or wants to, and references to what's gone on in other threads are often boring, confusing or irrelevant.

Linda

chev

2nd Sep 2005, 07:20 AM

Although to be honest, having now read the other threads, I still can't see much of a problem.

Two things spring to mind. First off, no-one has been able to (or interested enough?) to be able to shed more light on why it didn't prove suitable for my pony. I have, luckily for me, been able to talk to other Parelli students who although surprised that it didn't work with Gelfy have tried to shed some light on it. It seems a shame that none of the students here have felt able/interested enough to try and do the same.

And secondly, to give an answer saying that unless you subscribe fully to the programme and try to understand Parelli from the inside as it were that you can't understand how it works is from my point of view at least a bit bizarre.

Any method of working with a horse requires real commitment and understanding - a subscription to that method, if you like. But every other method I can think of can also provide reasons why the method works. As an example - join-up roughly works by re-establishing herd order, by making a horse uncomfortable until he's prepared to take his place below us in the herd dynamic and accept what it is we're asking of him. It teaches him that to 'trust' us keeps him safe and comfortable. It teaches him that the more he resists, the harder he has to work, and the more vulnerable he is. I suspect there is really more than an element of that in Parelli but that students of Parelli are so worried about the 'abuse' claims (usually from people worried about training a horse to respond to a light stimulus by using a forceful one) they are reluctant to go into that.

Mossy

2nd Sep 2005, 07:55 AM

Why do I find the marketing for Parelli in your face?
No it is not on bill boards etc, but neither is advertising for Sprenger bits or AN Other brand of horse feed. The equine industry tends to advertise internally. I consider myself to be an open minded intelligent soul who can assess critically and impartially, so when I ask why I need a Parelli halter at £x as oppose to a similar one at half the price I want a sensible answer, based on the particular attributes of that halter. The answer I got was not sensible or acceptable. It was marketing speak, you buy into my course and you will discover the secrets of the universe. Would I swallow that about double glazing? No I would not.
I have looked at the Parelli site, not recently I must confess, but have found nothing there to convince me to spend £100 for something that might or might not work. Mike Peace's books are less than £20, Likewise Kelly Marks. Emma Kurrels is very helpful and I have found her advice invaluable. However, unlike what I have seen of Parelli, all of the above will admit that they cannot solve every equine problem and situation.
I am not going for "them and us", far from it. Tell me more about the principles, and potential problems, and less about the hype and I will gladly listen.

Naturally

2nd Sep 2005, 07:56 AM

chev

2nd Sep 2005, 08:06 AM

It's the first post I made on this thread. I'd just be interested to hear what those who feel that Parelli is suitable for all horses think.

Will copy and paste the contents here...

Those who say that Parelli is suitable for every horse... I'm not so certain about that. I used it with huge success on one of my ponies after she was injured to bring her back into work.

On the other hand, I've tried using it on my one-eyed gelding and although we did have some limited success it was just that - limited. He just doesn't respond well to the four phases at all. I did think it was me - I'm afraid that I'm another who simply doesn't have the available funds to buy into Parelli in any official capacity - but I did ask someone who has completed Level 1 and was working towards Level 2 to come and work with him... and she said much the same. At the same time as refusing to co-operate at phase one or two, he was also anticipating phase three and getting very stressed. We stopped trying to use the Parelli system with him in the end - I've had more luck just bumbling along using whatever I find works with him, whatever school of horsemanship it came from.

I have to admit, to then read that Parelli works for every horse is a bit of an eye-opener. I'm not a critic of Parelli at all, although I don't follow it exclusively by any means. But I do think it's a bit... arrogant?? to say that when it doesn't work it's because it's not for the handler, rather than the horse, when the handler has found it works well with other horses but not this one?

My feeling is that there are definite aspects of equine communication that don't change much at all from one horse to another; the basic building blocks of horse communication. Any system built using those building blocks has a high chance of success - obviously it's going to be easier to train a horse if communication is mutually understood and clear-cut between horse and handler. But there are also differences in individual horses. Different horses react differently to the same stimuli. And gelfy simply doesn't react well to Parelli's phases. If I persisted, I could probably get it to work eventually - but when I can get the same results by using some other means, why put him through that? He's very happy working the way we do, with no Parelli at all now. I get the same results, just a different way, even though Parelli gave me fantastic results with my mare. For me, that's not just a case of me not being suited to Parelli - it's the horse too.

Any thoughts?

Naturally

2nd Sep 2005, 08:29 AM

Right Chev and Sorry, I do actually remember reading your post.

Each horse does require a different approach and Parelli teachings advocate that.

It sounds to me that your horse is quite sensitive, in which case, you'd probably use a longer & lighter set of phases. You would use heaps of friendly game, but never when the horse is being right brain (reactive) as it only reinforces the problem.

I haven't had a sensitive horse to work with since my very early days in the program, so I'm not that experienced with them and when I did have my mare I was pre level 1.

Because this horse was reactive at phase 3, my guess is that phase 1 and 2 weren't long enough and phase 3 or 4 , for a sensitive horse, may have been too harsh.

If you were a student who was actively achieving their levels you would find that this information would come to you, especially throughout and toward the end of level 2. In level 2 we really concentrate on being in harmony with the horse and overcoming much of the emotional problems. We concentrate heavily on focus, feel and timing.

It doesn't sound to me as if you are studying the program, more that you have learned the games. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is where much of the problem lies, in that the games, while the foundation for our training are only the very very beginning . It's also my guess why so many people have difficulty and get critical of the program, because they don't progress any further than this...or get stuck at a particular game (see yo yo thread) and think PNH sucks because of it. Truly, it would only be a matter of incorporating some instructor help (or high level friends) and these matters would be resolved. This is where we say that it's the human not the horse. It's the humans lack of understanding or desire/ability/preparedness to gain understanding that fails, not the horse. Sure, sometimes that desire might be inhibited by cash, if you had to go to an instructor, it will cost you, but so does any instructor (as far as I know). As an active student I have access to a host of instructors by email, and that comes with my savvy club membership, which I find totally worth it.

So anyway, I hope that answers something of your question. If I've gotten off track again or if I've missed your point, I apologise, but this forum is really starting to exhaust me :o :)

cvb

2nd Sep 2005, 08:45 AM

My feeling is that there are definite aspects of equine communication that don't change much at all from one horse to another; the basic building blocks of horse communication. Any system built using those building blocks has a high chance of success - obviously it's going to be easier to train a horse if communication is mutually understood and clear-cut between horse and handler. But there are also differences in individual horses. Different horses react differently to the same stimuli. And gelfy simply doesn't react well to Parelli's phases.

<snipped bits out ;) >

Any thoughts?

Chev - yes ! I have some thoughts ;) (when don't I :rolleyes: ) I have a nephew who has Aspergers. Only mildy as it happens. He is a member of the human race so in theory has the same "basic building blocks" of communication to work with as the rest of us. But they don't work the same for him.

And back to the David Blunkett example that I either quote here or on another recent thread. How does David, as blind from birth/early years, learn to use body language (one of those basic building blocks).

Ok, now Gelfy is a horse not a human ;) And I don't know when he lost his eye. But we also know that horses sight works differently to ours, so if he loses sight from one eye, he adapts, but the adaptation and impact may be broader, etc than we expect based on our own experience of sight.

Surely it is reasonable to expect that in the equine population there will be horses who don't deal with communication as well as the "average" (as well as ones that are very good at it). In fact we see this when induced by human treatment e.g. foals that have not be "socialised" with other horses.

And isn't it also reasonable to expect that losing input from one sense might affect the horse's ability to deal with the communication - which in parelli can be very visual (as voice cues are not used, certainly at the lower levels - can't speak for later on).

So out of this, can't we see that some horses will not react "by the book" ?? (Even if we set aside the human factor in all this - that it is a dialogue..)

Naturally

2nd Sep 2005, 09:05 AM

Yep, sorry, i forgot about the eye problem and CVB is right, however I have no doubt that an instructor could help with this horse.

chev

2nd Sep 2005, 09:32 AM

Naturally - he is sensitive in some ways, but not overly. Rather he's a peculiar combination of insecure and dominant, the insecurity being mostly associated with his inability to see very well. When working with my mare I did start to study the programme, but not in depth. I found she did work very naturally within the Parelli system. No doubt, if I paid for decent Parelli instruction and studied the programme in depth, I could eventually get the same kind of result with Gelfy. But this is where I become reluctant - I don't feel that Parelli really suits his way of working - cvb has hit the nail on the head with the vision problem.

When we started we had to adapt the friendly game with sticks and ropes, and the driving game because of his eye. I cannot drive him from his left side - he can't see me, and doesn't have the faintest idea that I'm asking him to do anything. From his sighted side I can drive him really well - and he's soft and attentive. It is impossible to drive a horse from a point where he is blind using visual cues. Touching him without warning on his blind side spooks him - it always will. If he was ever to become so dead to stimuli that he didn't spook when touched with no warning then something would be very wrong. So... we had to introduce a carrot stick with plastic bag attachment (thanks to Esther here for that solution - I did post asking for advice on Gelfy and his Parelli long long ago... :D) and voice cues (not commands, note - we tried to do with my voice what I would be doing with my hands on his sighted side). So far so good.

But Gelfy also has some very odd rections to things. His flight response isn't very developed. In a herd where something spooks the horses and they run, Gelfy more often than not just freezes - to the point where he can be left standing alone when his companions have gone. I used to think it may be to do with his sight - how can you run from danger if you're not sure where it is?! ;) Either way - going up a phase to a point where things are made uncomfortable for him has much the same result. He neither comes to me nor moves away - he just freezes. That same reaction got him clobbered by a previous owner who discovered that the more you threaten Gelfy the more likely he is to just stand, rock-like until he eventually lost his temper and battered him. This is where I fell down; and my Parelli friend. Gentle phases 1 and 2 result in him generally ignoring you - stepping it up results in this freezing reaction. Further attempts then using lower phases mean he anticipates the stress of higher phases.

I tried join-up with Gelfy too. Failed miserably - it's impossible to send visual body language derived cues to a horse that can't see you. I admit that having spent a very frustrating morning with him I felt pretty dim for having tried it even. Join-up on his good side works well.

Everything about this pony is skewed - he lost the eye before he turned two, and he's 9 now. His whole communication system has been adapted to suit it. We had to think laterally and introduce voice cues, or Parelli would have failed even on the friendly game. The seven games without studying Parelli's system as a whole would never, ever work - but I wouldn't class the seven games alone as Parelli system. My question really is whether or not the system itself works in a case like this where the pony's communications system is so compromised, when it is based so heavily on communication. And if it could, if it's even worth the struggle to get there, when my haphazard bumbling has got the results I was after anyway.

I guess it comes down to what you define as 'works for all horses' - for me that definition has to take into account ease of use.

Sorry for lengthy post - and thankyou for the replies. I really do appreciate it.

Jacquie

2nd Sep 2005, 09:39 AM

Why do I find the marketing for Parelli in your face?
No it is not on bill boards etc, but neither is advertising for Sprenger bits or AN Other brand of horse feed. The equine industry tends to advertise internally.
I fail to see how something thats advertised internally can be classed as 'in your face'. :rolleyes:
It was marketing speak, you buy into my course and you will discover the secrets of the universe.
I don't believe PNH has ever suggested anything even remotely similar to what your stating, could you provide more information or better still maybe post a link because I'm sure everyone on this thread would be very interested to read it. :)

Jacquie

2nd Sep 2005, 09:51 AM

I think it's always better to stick to one thread at a time. Not everyone has read all the threads, or wants to, and references to what's gone on in other threads are often boring, confusing or irrelevant.Linda
If you've been following this thread you'll find many replies refer to previous threads and posts on the NR board. My reply was relevant to the post I was answering. :rolleyes:

katefarmer

2nd Sep 2005, 10:43 AM

Hi Chev!

Had to smile at the story of Gelfy! My mare (who I first started learning NH with) is also one-eyed! Luckily, my mentor is a bit more flexible than the Parelli system, and more focussed on the elements that really matter to the horse, so her blindness on one side wasn't a problem. (In the awful corporate-ese - it was an opportunity for me to learn how to work with it!)

For a one-eyed horse you have to work with a lot more "feel" on the blind side. This will mean coming off the Parelli script - so you would need someone at a higher level to be able to adapt for this. It would mean adapting the phases - and becoming more aware of the influence your energy and focus have - horses "feel" these without being able to see them. Whereas I think if you had a sufficiently flexible and experienced instructor Parelli would work for Gelfy, I think it would be a lot easier to go straight to the key elements I mentioned in an earlier post, and focus on these rather than the "games" and "Parelli" as such.

Hooking on (join up, if you prefer) also works for a one-eyed horse - but again you have to do it with lots of feel and come off the Monty Roberts script. If you use it in a much finer way, to recognise and reward the horse for thinking about you as solution to its problems, it will work the same on both sides. You'll just find that when they give you the first signals of thinking about you as the solution - the softening, a little slowing and the look towards you - the head will turn a bit further when they're on the blind side.

I think the lack of flight response in Gelfy is more likely to be a pony thing than a blindness thing. Ponies are sometimes psychologically more like donkeys - there's less flight and more stand and fight. A pony knows it can't run as fast as its larger and longer legged relatives, but it can (as we all know!) exert a fair bit of push and kick. This would appear to be the case with Gelfy - he knows he couldn't keep up with the herd, so his best chance of survival is either to freeze and hope he's not noticed, or turn and attack. In his case - it's freeze.

If I were working on Gelfy with you, I think I'd go very low pressure indeed. Just look for the mind reaction - the flick of the eye, yield of the head, shifting of weight etc. and build on that. It's amazing how little it takes to set off that opposition reflex for some ponies! However, if you can find the way into the mind, you get enormous changes very quickly.

As a footnote - I think a lot of people do dismiss one-eyed horses as "unsuitable" in various ways. When my one-eyed mare was threatening to beat a tattoo on my skull every time I tried to lead her I tried a few eminent names in NH for help (not Parelli - he was unheard of in Europe at the time). Most were rather humm..haaa, and one told me a one-eyed horse is "unsuitable" for this approach and they couldn't help. Luckily I didn't give up, and then found Richard Thompson. I told him Sunny was blind in one eye, would this mean his methods wouldn't work? He said "She's still a horse, isn't she? Then it will work!" - and boy, was he right!! :D

All the best

Kate
www.harmony-project.net

Naturally

2nd Sep 2005, 10:46 AM

Well Chev, you certainly do have an interesting case and yes, perhaps we should rephrase to all horses with use of their senses :D The poor little thing.

I was just reading an answer Ray Hunt gave to a student about a deaf horse, which ofcourse presented different problems, but interesting all the same.

Look, you'd have to go far far higher than me or probably anyone on a forum to get help with this horse, but gee I'd sure like to hear the answers.

I guess as you are doing, a mix of whatever is going to work best in this situation to get the end result where you can communicate with him.

You are an admirable person to take on such a challenge. I know of other blind horses (one eye) but they are not handled or ridden, just livin' the good life in the paddock.

May I ask what your intended use for this horse is, and which eye is it?

I'm clutching at straws here, but is it possible to refine the porcupine game down to the point of when he's moving off at phase 1 on his blind side, that you then make phase 4 your phase 1 i.e. instead of say "hair, skin, muscle, bone (for porcu. phases) you might use say "breath (raise life), shoulders (present yourself), hair, skin". I'm wondering if you can gain his trust enough that he can sense you. As you know they have an increadible sense of feeling. Just worth a try. It's really really lightening the phases as I said before. Mmmm, I'm curious now.

Let me know what you think.

SkyLady

2nd Sep 2005, 10:47 AM

Just in reply to the poster talking about her horse not responding to phase 3 and getting upset. The other way to look at it is that your phase 1 is might be at phase 3 for the horse.

Naturally

2nd Sep 2005, 10:48 AM

Now I would just like to say that I wrote that at the same time Kate must have been posting !!! :D

katefarmer

2nd Sep 2005, 10:54 AM

Naturally

2nd Sep 2005, 10:57 AM

Naturally

2nd Sep 2005, 11:05 AM

Great minds, Naturally! :D

We're obviously thinking the same way!

The "feel" side is fantastic to work with. My one-eyed mare does everything - dressage, jumping, trail riding - and is my number one assistant when it comes to teaching!

Do you have the link to the Ray Hunt thing? I'd be interested to read it too!

Cheers

Kate
www.harmony-project.net

LOL, I've impressed even myself !

The Ray Hunt Questions is only a brief paragraph, but it just got me to thinking laterally.

http://www.rayhunt.com/1stanswer.htm

Cheers

cvb

2nd Sep 2005, 11:10 AM

Kate got a question for you. Would the blinded eye, on a particular side, affect the nature of the horse, i.e. as we use the term of right brain (reactive) left brain (thinking). Just a question (i realise it's not a brain injury though ;) )

Also Kate, I'm still not sure why you think (and seems general consensus) that Parelli doesn't allow for this kind of different situation. All I did was think about what an instructor would say/do and thought about using the lighter phases/feel/focus/timing. Ofcourse if a horse has a disability that you would move outside the norm.

Naturally, I know there is a link between left-handed-ness and creativity (right brain) but it does not exclusively mean that right handed people are not creative..

In a similar way, if there was a clear and definite link between "eye" and brain-side, wouldn't we only see a reactive response if we were on one side, and only a thinking response on the other ?

I'm not saying I know the answer, but intuitively it "feels" wrong to suggest it would be this closely linked....(based on general observation. i.e. if I put your question up as a "hypothesis", can I find evidence to support it ?)

chev

2nd Sep 2005, 01:06 PM

Now you've really got me thinking! Ok... I think if I was to go to someone high up in Parelli we would be able to adapt it to suit. My experience is way too narrow to be able to do that without leaving the Parelli behind altogether, and I think now my Parelli firend's experience isn't wide enough.

So; I'll rethink my belief that it won't work for every horse :D - although I do feel the flexibility to work with more... interesting (!) horses isn't there at the lower levels, which is a real shame.

Kate - this quote "This would appear to be the case with Gelfy - he knows he couldn't keep up with the herd, so his best chance of survival is either to freeze and hope he's not noticed, or turn and attack. In his case - it's freeze. " has caused me to have yet another light bulb moment... :D Gelfy has arthritic hocks and stifle problems - there is no way he'd keep up with any herd. In the past he did have an attack reaction (I was on the receiving end more than once :o ) although we seem to have got over that one now at least.

It's his left eye that's blind. The really strange thing is that he's happier being handled from his blind side. He'll lead like a dream from the left side, whereas if I lead from the right he still sometimes has a tendency to try and climb into my pocket. That's one area that Parelli really did help with where nothing much else did.

My plans for him... well that's a bit up in the air at the moment. It depends whether or not we can get him sound, as his hocks have seriously deteriorated over the last few months. Originally I took him on with no plan in mind - he was given to us in a bit of a state and I couldn't say no. He's been my riding pony on and off for a while, and we were planning on trying to get him good enough for my kids to ride and maybe drive him.

And this; "If I were working on Gelfy with you, I think I'd go very low pressure indeed. Just look for the mind reaction - the flick of the eye, yield of the head, shifting of weight etc. and build on that. It's amazing how little it takes to set off that opposition reflex for some ponies! However, if you can find the way into the mind, you get enormous changes very quickly. " actually sums up what I've been doing, albeit without really thinking about it! We ended up in a Waterford snaffle to try and keep at least some semblance of control while we were out hacking/at war (delete as appropriate!). Since then I've actually been approaching things differently - avoiding confrontation with him if I can and being as gentle about things as I can. It must be working... we're out long-reining now in a plain flexi-mouth rubber snaffle, no arguments, no fighting... just lovely soft light responses. :D

So... perhaps Parelli as we know it isn't really suitable for all. The difficulty for me then is the structure - the fact that in order to get it to work with Gelfy I'd have to be working at a far higher level than I already am, or get help from someone else who is (or better still, both!). In that respect, maybe the way it's promoted is the stumbling block - that in order to have it working well you need to have worked your way up there first. It's maybe not as accessible as some other theories.

Which leads me to another question (sorry!!). I have two ponies to start in the next few months. It's vital that they do work happily ridden traditionally, in snaffles, and respond well to traditional methods - Parelli is not well known amongst the Pony Club fraternity just yet!! So - how realistic would it be to expect to be able to combine both Parelli and traditional methods? I've been told that Parelli is in some ways 'exclusive' - that in order to have it working properly, it has to become the main way of thinking. If that's the case, then it's not going to work for me - because the ponies I have are children's ponies, that have to be up to being ridden and handled by non-Parelli trained people. How well can Parelli work alongside other methods? What advantages are there to using Parelli to train when the end result has to be more traditional in appearance if nothing else?

And thanks again... this is really interesting. :)

cvb

2nd Sep 2005, 02:01 PM

Chev

If I broaden your question out a bit to exclude non-parelli NH, then there is a lady in Scotland who is backing Eriskays for children and PC use, and I think she's not Parelli but is Silversands - Crystal Fire could confirm.

My mum's off to see her in a few weekends time. I figure my mum's needs are pretty close to a PC child ;)

Kate F.

2nd Sep 2005, 03:35 PM

Hi Chev!

I ws thinking just the same as CVB! Wish I were in your area - this is just the sort of thing I specialiase in! Trad disciplines with an NH approach in the training!! Silversands seem to be more similar to our approach and I think would be a good idea to contact.

Sunny is blind in her left eye too - and also prefers to be led from the right. The "humans on the left" preference seems to be something to do with the lateralisation of the brain, and not directly to do with sight.

"Naturally", I didn't say I thought Parelli COULDN'T do it, just that Chev would probably need a trainer at a fairly high level to be able to interpret the exercises in a way that would be easily workable for Chev and Gelfy. Parelli is fairly rigid in the early levels - and Chev needs to start with a greater level of feel than is usually talked about at the earlier levels of Parelli.

However. Chev, don't be put off by that. We start people off with a high level of feel on their first day of level 1 - and they generally manage fine!

I don't think the blind eye really affects the nature in any major way. Obviously they get used to bumping into things on this side, and may be a little desinsitized, or a little stiffer - but it's not usually a big problem.

I am not at all sure about Parelli's idea of the "left brain, right brain". Whilst I am pretty sure that there is a high degree of lateralization in the equine brain, I haven't yet found any real evidence that it is lateralized in the same way as the human brain - ie right reactive, left thinking. (I'm actual