pat parelli contributions to society [Archive]

virtuallyhorses

1st Feb 2006, 11:54 PM

Yes, I'm a great believer that the more ideas available the better. In all societies with lots of ideas and free exchange of ideas - even the wierd and whacky at either end of the spectrum (and I'm not implying that PP is at either end of the spectrum) - there is a better understanding of issues and generally better solutions to problems. As individuals the ability to receive lots of new ideas, evaluate them against our existing ones and our lifetime experiences is what makes us more interesting and thoughtful individuals. It also helps us create and develop our own thoughts, philosophy and morals and many more 'tools' to solve problems with.

Bay Mare

2nd Feb 2006, 07:18 AM

From the point of view that he's brought natural horsemanship to a wider audience then I do think that he has made a contribution to horse society.

Although I believe that SOME of his exercises have merit I do not agree with the way that PNH works as a whole. I know that it 'works' for some people and horses but I do have issues with it and personally believe that there are better ways of doing things.

As far as the stunts like 'In A Whisper' are concerned I am absolutely disgusted and feel that this is mostly NOT a worthwhile contribution to the horse world. In promoting things like this (presumably for personal gain because it's certainly not in the horse's interests) then he is doing more damage than he has done good.

And now ... let the flames begin :)

Yann

2nd Feb 2006, 08:40 AM

Pat Parelli has certainly made a major contribution to horse society by promoting awareness of alternative and more enlightened ways of dealing with horses. The way he packaged a complete training system was also a stroke of genius and has made the methods available in an easy to access way to the average horse owner. It was also a brilliant marketing stroke ;) However in no way did he invent the methods as I believe he himself is quick to point out.

The methods are based on the idea of the alpha horse however and are therefore pretty dominant - this won't be suitable for every horse or to the taste of every owner either. Unfortunately the method is promoted as the only way of doing things and those following it are actively discouraged from looking at or trying anything else, which is a shame in my book and for the reasons that Virtuallyhorses states. It's not necessarily the fault of the system either but you do seem to get a number of people who get stuck at the riding bareback in a halter stage and think that's what it's all about.

cvb

2nd Feb 2006, 08:42 AM

for a view on broader impact, you might find this (http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2005/09/listening_to_us.html) interesting. Its referring to Parelli from a business point of view

Naturally

2nd Feb 2006, 09:10 AM

Great link, thanks CVB

Tootsie4U

2nd Feb 2006, 02:07 PM

That is a great link cvb. And true to the bone!

I wont reiterate too much, but the man has certainly brought alot of attention to NH, even to people who may have never even heard of the term let alone the entire training concept before. It seems you either love him or hate him.

Not quite sure why IAW was brought into it (um, yes I am :p ) but as far as "....promoting things like this (presumably for personal gain because it's certainly not in the horse's interests) then he is doing more damage than he has done good." - well tar and feather all of us because each and every single person who ever mounts up and rides a horse is promoting their own personal gain at the expense of the horse.

larri

3rd Feb 2006, 09:03 AM

Sorry Tootsie but I can't agree with your statement about In a Whisper in any way shape or form.

Are you saying that every rider who gets on a horse wants to overload it mentally and physically, put way too much pressure on it in too short a time, terrify it into submission and break it's spirit for monetary gain and a title??

Well if that's the way you think horses should be treated then poor them!

Me - I want to work with my horse at a pace they and I are comfortable with, building their strength to work correctly, getting her fit over time so that her muscles and bones can cope with ridden work. Let her enjoy her work, spend time exploring etc etc,make it as unstressful as it can be and as enjoyable as possible!
How in the name of the good lord you can equate that with grown men making totally green 2 year olds perform bloody circus tricks to an audience in the name of lets see who can BREAK and I mean BREAK this poor little horse in the quickest time to win a prize?????

Ask yourself this - Would you willingly have put your own young horse through that? Would you?

If not then I'm afraid that would make you a hypocrite for supporting it.

Yann

3rd Feb 2006, 09:59 AM

From a business point of view you can't fault Parelli at all, they've pressed all the right buttons and once people are on board with it they're not very price sensitive at all. No question that PNH is a marketing phenomenon and a market leader in a particular market where there is little or no competition. That however doesn't necessarily make it the best or most effective way of working with horses - that is something else altogether, and quite a subjective judgement.

In a Whisper and Parelli's involvement with it has already generated quite a bit of heat on here :D I'd agree it didn't do him any credit, the whole concept of that type of competition is plain wrong IMHO and tells us very little about the value of the methods used by the different trainers. It shows what a cultural divide still exists between the US and this country, I think I'm safe in saying it could never happen over here.

cvb

3rd Feb 2006, 10:15 AM

On another forum, someone commented on an interview on RFD - which seems to show quite a lot of horse TV.

There was an interview with a trainer, and they were talking about backing horses. He did say they started them at 2 and a bit - but only ride them a couple of times and then turn them away. Bring them back the following year and do a bit more, but again only light, and they only go into full ranch work the year after that...

after all, they need horses that are going to stay sound and workable for some time...

It did make me wonder whether a lot of the "we start them at 2" has been mis-understood. Not only here in UK but actually in US itself as well ?

Naturally

3rd Feb 2006, 10:43 AM

I agree CVB. My understanding of starting at 2 is exactly that, but I think it's more widely mis-understood.

I've never seen IAW but I do know that another similar type thing was done in Australia late last year. The sad fact is that the "average" horseperson seems to love it. They think that it's fantastic.

People talk about IAW like Pat created the whole thing. He was a competitor along side Craig Cameron and Josh Lyons, so why not blame them too? This has also not the sort of thing that Pat has done again, i.e. accept a position in one of this type of event, so why is he continually bagged for it? Tall Poppy Syndrome i'd say.

I don't agree that there is little or no competition for Parelli and his organisation. There is tonnes of it, it's just that PNH is more popular so has more students. Monty Roberts, Lyon, Cameron, Rashid, etc etc etc.

Yann

3rd Feb 2006, 12:30 PM

I'd be personally critical of any trainer who associated themselves with this type of competition because I don't agree with it, but we were talking specifically about PP here, not about IAW as such.

Sure, there's plenty of competition for Parelli as an organisation in terms of alternative trainers, but not for the training programme as it has been packaged and sold :)

larri

3rd Feb 2006, 12:39 PM

I mentioned it in response to it being already being brought up in a thread about Pat Parrelli , if it was a thread lauding any of the others involved believe me I'd be saying the same thing.

Not Tall poppy syndrome at all, merely a valid response to issues raised I would say.
Anyone who brands themselves as being the best thing for horses and horse owners who then takes part in such a demonstration of absolute and utter abuse needs to take a long hard look at their morals and deserves the backlash received.

Jacquie

3rd Feb 2006, 01:25 PM

......This has also not the sort of thing that Pat has done again, i.e. accept a position in one of this type of event, so why is he continually bagged for it? Tall Poppy Syndrome i'd say.

I don't want to go through stale water again regarding my thoughts about two year olds being used for ANY type of sport or competition.

What folks seem to be forgeting is the IAW competion took place nearly four years ago. At the end of the day Pat Parelli is only human and like everybody else has probably done things in his life that he later regrets - but, in doing so was able to learn by these mistakes. Maybe, this is the reason (as far as I'm aware) he hasn't took part in any other similar events. :rolleyes:

Tootsie4U

3rd Feb 2006, 01:31 PM

Larri, you've rightly gone and p*ssed me off, but I wont bother matching your audacity. For the sake of the original poster, if you want to duke it out over IAW, then create another thread so to not hijack this one.

It shows what a cultural divide still exists between the US and this country, I think I'm safe in saying it could never happen over here.

Thats a pretty strong (and condescending) statement. Ya know, its funny. I asked in another thread for someone to find some statistically proven information that documents factual statements regarding health and longevity of UK horses vs. US horses. I had no takers. I think it'd be interesting to know, being that we Yankee's are supposedly cruel and unkind to our horses. Starting them at a younger age than you is probably a fair vantage point - but does that mean that our horses die earlier or go unsound earlier or are unhappier?

AppleJacks1988

3rd Feb 2006, 02:02 PM

whats IAW?

cvb

3rd Feb 2006, 02:30 PM

"In A Whisper"

an event (whihc was then released on DVD) where 3 (I think) natural horsemanship clinicians all worked with colts for a certain period of time, with an "assessment" (obstacle course plus "freestyle" element) at the end.

Road to the Horse is a similar (yearly) event

Yann

3rd Feb 2006, 02:36 PM

Thats a pretty strong (and condescending) statement

Once again I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick - I wasn't talking about starting horses at 2, I was talking about the sort of horsemanship competitions we're discussing here, I really can't imagine most of the british trainers I'm aware of having anything to do with the idea :)

larri

3rd Feb 2006, 02:58 PM

Larri, you've rightly gone and p*ssed me off, but I wont bother matching your audacity. For the sake of the original poster, if you want to duke it out over IAW, then create another thread so to not hijack this one.

Why tootsie ? - This is a thread about the "great" man's contribution to Society, isn't being a contender on the IAW challenge a contribution then?
As for audacity - I object to any statement that infers that I would treat any horse of mine with the same kind of $ in the eyes way that was shown on IAW.
If you are so in favour of this and you believe that there is nothing wrong.......As I said would you have given Bonfire as a totally green 2 year old, to be broken by a full grown man in the space of four hours and during that time be ridden, jumped, made to do obstacle courses etc in front of an audience of 2500 people in a busy city centre just so the trainers involved could bask in smug glory at their prowess and make plenty of dollars in the meantime ?

Whoo yeah what a contribution to society THAT was.

You either agree with it or you don't and if you do then I guess the answer would be yes?

Tootsie4U

3rd Feb 2006, 03:02 PM

Ok, so? And where does that point get you? Except to convey a negative image against the US and the way we treat our horses. :)

Applejacks, the bottom line of any and all techniques is that natural horsemanship trainers of all types have brought great improvement to the horse industry because, for the fundamental reason, they've provided a new way of doing things and have re-educated a large portion of horse owners and horse buissness people. As a member of the average community, its my responsibility to pick and choose elements of each that I find most applicable and relative and use them.

As a wise man once said; (not quoting verbatim)

As a carpenter, I have many tools in my toolbox. I have a hammer called Lyons, a wrench I call Parelli, an axe named Cox, a driver called Rashid. Its up to the carpenter to choose the tool best suited to each piece of wood. Not all wood will be best suited to the axe and you must find a tool that is.

<edited for Larri> Since my personal life is so important to you right now, I'll give you an answer. If you search around in the archives, you'll see that I was flabbergasted at Parelli's display in that video. You'll also see that I am an advocate of the Parelli system - it is the largest contributor to my success with Bonfire. I have an obviously amazing and uncommon talent, though, to be objective about things and realize that while I disagree with what Parelli did in the challenge, I still find great value in his system. I dont have to love the man to appreciate the program.

I dont religiously use Parelli either. I use a bit of this and that, like alot of us do. If I dont like something about Parelli, like the use of the rope around the neck thing he did, then I wont use it on my horse. But I wont condemn the good things the man does either by blatantly bashing him each time a thread pops up on some message board. What good does that do?

In contrast to what Bonfire 'suffered' through in the first three years of his life, YES, I would consider it in his better interest to have been handed over to any one of the three participants in the video. If my only chance to give him their attention would have been under the IAW circumstances, or in any other publicized clinician demonstration that I approved of, I would not have begrudged him that opportunity. Its not ideal, but there are much worse things.

And to get into what point I was originally tyring to make earlier; a horse is not meant to carry 175 pound riders on his back. His conformation does not promote that. Im sure if he were given a choice, a horse would readily choose to not have a piece of metal forced into his mouth - something that was designed to monopolize on a pain response. Yet, day in and day out we subject our horses to these 'tortures' and think nothing of it. I personally do not feel comfortable belittling some trainer on TV for exploiting a horse when I do the same - it just happens to be in another fashion. Let me ask you Larri, have you ever spanked or cropped Saf when she napped? How cruel is that - to discipline your horse when all she is doing is reacting to her natural instincts to not leave the comfort of her barn or field mates? She's not hurting anyone. C'mon, don't cite hypocritisism to me because Im way too humble of a person to try that on.

Yann

3rd Feb 2006, 03:24 PM

Ok, so? And where does that point get you? Except to convey a negative image against the US and the way we treat our horses.

In this one single respect perhaps it's true. But it's otherwise clearly impossible to say and I wouldn't try.

Bay Mare

3rd Feb 2006, 04:54 PM

People talk about IAW like Pat created the whole thing. He was a competitor along side Craig Cameron and Josh Lyons, so why not blame them too? This has also not the sort of thing that Pat has done again, i.e. accept a position in one of this type of event, so why is he continually bagged for it? Tall Poppy Syndrome i'd say.

Not at all. I have the same feelings about anyone who participates in that kind of thing. The question asked was about Pat Parelli. IMO the IAW was one of his negative contributions, it doesn't mean that I absolve the others involved of blame or that I see PP as being solely responsible for it.

Francis Burton

3rd Feb 2006, 05:05 PM

Ok, so? And where does that point get you? Except to convey a negative image against the US and the way we treat our horses.
I think we all should try and avoid sweeping statements. Yes, there are cultural differences between UK and US. An example in the horse world is rodeo. We don't hold those kind of events over here. If they were legal under English or Scots Law (not sure!), I don't think they would go down very well here. But rodeo isn't representative of all USA, in the same way that GW Bush isn't representative of all US political thinking. I'm sure there is a wide range of attitudes towards rodeo, even amongst horsepeople, and it would be silly to judge American horsemanship solely by that "sport". In any case, cultural differences do not necessarily mean one culture is superior to another - just different!

So while the competitive nature of IAW leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I have to remind myself this was just one high-profile event. On the evidence of that alone, it would be unreasonable and unjustified to consider the US as a whole, in all its vast diversity, in a negative light.

Francis Burton

3rd Feb 2006, 05:08 PM

As a carpenter, I have many tools in my toolbox. I have a hammer called Lyons, a wrench I call Parelli, an axe named Cox, a driver called Rashid.
Shouldn't that be "fine emery paper called Rashid"?
Sorry, just joking! :D

larri

3rd Feb 2006, 05:21 PM

But I wont condemn the good things the man does either by blatantly bashing him each time a thread pops up on some message board. What good does that do?

It gives those of us who disagree with his actions a public platform to speak from and AFAIK this is a free country where I can and will speak out about things I have an issue with, regardless of whether he ever sees it or not.

In contrast to what Bonfire 'suffered' through in the first three years of his life, YES, I would consider it in his better interest to have been handed over to any one of the three participants in the video. If my only chance to give him their attention would have been under the IAW circumstances, or in any other publicized clinician demonstration that I approved of, I would not have begrudged him that opportunity. Its not ideal, but there are much worse things.

Two wrongs never make a right. And if you did speak out about it previously (I haven't seen other threads on the subject) and you now turn around and say you approve of it and would put your horse through that....well :eek: :(

And to get into what point I was originally tyring to make earlier; a horse is not meant to carry 175 pound riders on his back. His conformation does not promote that. Im sure if he were given a choice, a horse would readily choose to not have a piece of metal forced into his mouth - something that was designed to monopolize on a pain response. Yet, day in and day out we subject our horses to these 'tortures' and think nothing of it.
I must tell my horse to stop feeling so exploited when she puts her head down and opens her mouth before I even get the bit near it. And if being ridden is such torture she must be crazy for striding out to the school of her own volition without me even having to lead her. If horses weren't ridden or driven for pleasure these days they would be no differently treated to cows, sheep and any other food source.

I personally do not feel comfortable belittling some trainer on TV for exploiting a horse when I do the same - it just happens to be in another fashion.

And yet again I cannot comprehend how you can compare day to day riding a horse with that debacle.

Let me ask you Larri, have you ever spanked or cropped Saf when she napped? How cruel is that - to discipline your horse when all she is doing is reacting to her natural instincts to not leave the comfort of her barn or field mates? She's not hurting anyone.

Honestly - for napping - nope, what's the point in getting into a physical battle with a creature who can use her vast strength against me who is getting in a tizz...it's pointless!
Napping (not that she ever does) is best dealt with by other methods, I can expand on them if you like?
I use a crop as a schooling tool to ask for sideways movement or more sweep and to direct her when working in hand, it would be exceedingly stupid to use a schooling tool as punishment, totally negating the benefits of having it as an extension of my arm or leg.

Tootsie4U

3rd Feb 2006, 05:37 PM

Two wrongs never make a right. And if you did speak out about it previously (I haven't seen other threads on the subject) and you now turn around and say you approve of it and would put your horse through that....well :eek: :(

That is the issue I have with you right now. Never have I ever said I support it. I am merely the opposing opinion to the 'gang' who without fail always gets together at the sight of a "Parelli" thread with the sole intended purpose to bash and criticize.

I wouldn't subject Bonfire to any sort of training that I thought severely compromised him physically or mentally. I have pulled him out of training programs already over some things people might find trivial. For you to accuse me of blatantly inflicting harm on my horse is extremely abrupt and unfair. Sure I may allow him to be used in upcoming Parelli demo's, if ever given the chance, but the second I thought things were going the way I didnt approve, I'd pull him out of there. As I mentioned, I didnt see anything in the video that totally put me off except the rope around the neck and 'manhandling'. The obstacle course at the end was not required, the horses were not forced to do anything they couldnt do.

I do not support Parelli. I am not a subscriber to his program in any way. He does not pay me to be a voice of opposition on message forums like this. I feel it very unfair of people to completely bring down a proven system based on a few bad apples and is therefore why I voice my own humble opinion. Especially since said system has helped so many people.

I'll leave it at this, and sincerely hope you start respecting others opinions. You're entitled to yours but when you start telling me mine is wrong, thats where I draw the line.

" Whatever floats your boat - just dont sink mine. "

Jacquie

3rd Feb 2006, 06:19 PM

The only thing I disagreed with in IAW was the age of the horses used.

This was a well monitored competion that lasted approx two and half hours with each the horse having vet checks. I think for anyone to suggest that PP, Lyons or Cameron terrified these horses into submission and broke their spirits must have watched a different IAW to the one I've got.

But, as per usual the anti Parelli warfare has reared it's ugly head again and hijacked yet another thread. :mad:

Tootsie4U

3rd Feb 2006, 06:41 PM

Naturally

3rd Feb 2006, 07:30 PM

Anyone who brands themselves as being the best thing for horses and horse owners who then takes part in such a demonstration of absolute and utter abuse needs to take a long hard look at their morals and deserves the backlash received.

Larri, your comments prove their own ridiculousness. Parelli doesn't brand himself as anything but Pat Parelli.

To the original poster, if you are genuinely interested in NH, the book that I mentioned earlier would provide you with some valuable information. Thanks for the thread, pity about the oh so typical hijacking.

Jacquie

3rd Feb 2006, 09:26 PM

Jacquie,

Its been months since I've watched it so I can't recall but was it really 2.5 hours? I know there were scheduled rest times and checks for the horses but did the actual training time acrue to 2.5 hours? Or are you referring that the video is 2.5 hours long?

I remember that the video starts in plain daylight and they finish when its dark outside and under lights.

Hi Tootsie

I believe the trainers where given about two hours during the day to work with their horses in preparation for the judged section that took place in the evening.

In between these sessions the horses where rested and checked over by a vet. :)

Yann

3rd Feb 2006, 10:05 PM

But, as per usual the anti Parelli warfare has reared it's ugly head again and hijacked yet another thread.

Jacquie, rather than sniping (as usual) would you care to actually answer the original question then? People were asked what they thought of Parelli, and they've answered. Just because you don't agree with some of their opinions doesn't make it a 'hijack' I'm afraid :rolleyes:

Jacquie

3rd Feb 2006, 11:36 PM

Jacquie, rather than sniping (as usual) would you care to actually answer the original question then? People were asked what they thought of Parelli, and they've answered. Just because you don't agree with some of their opinions doesn't make it a 'hijack' I'm afraid :rolleyes:
I'm not the only one aware of the Parelli hijacking gang on this forum though am I Yann? :D

Applejack1998, to briefly answer your original question....Yes, I do believe Pat Parelli has contributed a great deal to the horse society. He's helped spread the NH training method to thousands of people by providing an easy to follow programme thats cut down into bite size chunks. I also agree with Naturally, if your genuinely interested in him I think you'd find his autobiography enjoyable reading.

You may also find these links useful:
http://parelli.com/info_page.php?page=professional&lit_num=1&title=Biography:%20Pat%20Parelli&t=OnePic

http://parelli.com/info_page.php?page=knowledge&lit_num=10&title=Get%20Started,%20Get%20Safe:%20Level%201%20Home%20Study%20Program%20and%20Equipment&t=OnePic

esse

4th Feb 2006, 04:37 AM

Personally I beleive that Mr Parelli's contribution to the equestrian world can be best compared with the contribution of Enid Blyton to children's literature.

Despite the differences in period, personality and product, there are some surprising similarities along the way... ;)

Afellpony

4th Feb 2006, 11:14 AM

Oh dear! This thread seems to have lost the plot a bit. Each person has their own way of doing things and each one seems to think they are right (including myself)! If when training and schooling a horse it is caused discomfort or fear then you are doing something wrong. For my own part, I prefer to get them as foals so they know me well and by the time they reach the age to be broken in, they are easy to do as they are so used to being handled and played with.

esse

4th Feb 2006, 01:39 PM

If when training and schooling a horse it is caused discomfort or fear then you are doing something wrong.

Exactly!

Francis Burton

4th Feb 2006, 02:56 PM

If when training and schooling a horse it is caused discomfort or fear then you are doing something wrong.
First of all let me say that I agree with the sentiment behind your statement. Playing devil's advocate for a moment, however, isn't a degree of discomfort and/or fear almost always inevitable? That would imply we always do something wrong at some point! Or are there threshold levels of discomfort and fear above which whatever one is doing becomes wrong? My own feeling is that we do make mistakes - I know I do! However, by making them, recognizing them for what they are, and caring about their consequences, we learn and improve. We should always try to reduce discomfort and fear to the absolute minimum, the ideal being no discomfort and no fear. What would be wrong is either to see discomfort/fear and not care (or rationalize them into something useful or essential), or to be blind to their existence.

For my own part, I prefer to get them as foals so they know me well and by the time they reach the age to be broken in, they are easy to do as they are so used to being handled and played with.
Assuming you can spend time with them as foals, why would any other way be considered better?!

Jacquie

4th Feb 2006, 03:16 PM

If when training and schooling a horse it is caused discomfort or fear then you are doing something wrong.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that statement regarding causing the horse fear, but I think some form of discomfort is unavoidable when training a horse by either a natural or normal training method.

Take for instance when teaching a horse to respond to leg aids, although only a gentle squeeze it still produces some form of discomfort (no matter how slight) but this is what produces the required movement from the horse. The same can be said for seat aids, the horse learns to respond to the slight discomfort caused by seatbone pressure.

So although it would be brilliant if we could actually train our horses without having to use any form of discomfort what so ever, I can't see how it could ever be possible.

I'd certainly jump at the chance of learning a training method that doesn't produce any form of discomfort.

julesandjoy

4th Feb 2006, 07:29 PM

Hey, Larry, do you happen to post on a newsboard called The Rec??? Your comments and posting style seem a bit familiar..... albiet remarkably toned down from what I remember on the Rec....

I believe that Pat Parellie and the many proponents of a kinder, gentler way of training horses have made horse ownership a Dream Realized instead of a Distant Fantasy. Pat is, imo, a product of his times. His ideas aren't really new - just ask Xenophone - but his marketing??? Only today could this be a successful life's business for him. sylvia

Yann

4th Feb 2006, 09:02 PM

If when training and schooling a horse it is caused discomfort or fear then you are doing something wrong.

This would be my main reservation about some aspects of the Parelli method, if a horse doesn't respond to an exercise and the handler goes to phase 4 pressure then you'll certainly get one if not the other. In some circumstances that might be unavoidable, but not all, but it appears that proponents of the method will often follow the script rather than trying a different tack and avoiding that escalation. The fact Pat Parelli himself is prepared to use a screwdriver to poke a horse that won't porcupine seems to back this up.

Jacquie

4th Feb 2006, 10:50 PM

....The fact Pat Parelli himself is prepared to use a screwdriver to poke a horse that won't porcupine seems to back this up.

Pat Parelli's description of helping a young girl with a thick skinned swiss pony

Quote:
......When it came to the Porcupine Game, this horse was not going to move. That little girl was pitched against his side, pushing her fingers into his skin with all her might and he just stood there and yawned. I came to help her and took out my pocketknife as I approached and concealed it in my hand. I rubbed his side, pressed very lightly with my fingers, then pressed a bit harder and a bit harder again and finally introduced the flat screwdriver tool from my pocket knife and kept slowly increasing the pressure. That horse lifted his head, widened his eyes, grunted and stepped away. He couldn’t believe it! I released the pressure and rubbed him, then began again with the light pressure of my fingertips.

Pressure not poking is used in the porcupine game. The screwdriver was used as a tool to provide the pressure required for the horse to react - this pressure was then instantly released when the horse stepped away. I fail to see how this is any different to NH trainers who use pressure halters on horses. :rolleyes:

Naturally

5th Feb 2006, 02:33 AM

Thanks for that post Jacqui. Sadly I doubt it will have any effect on some folks still picking up on and stuff and making it sound like Parelli hurts horses. It's sad that such small mindedness prevails everytime someone mentions Parelli on this forum.

As an example of the behaviour that Parelli has observed and teaches in his program exists in every horse.

When horses meet for the first time, they play (what he calls) a dominance game (we don't need to discuss the semantics again) The game is about moving the feet. The more dominant horse is the one who moves his feet the least. So when horse A gently mouths or bites horse B and he doesn't move, he bites harder and deeper until horse B moves. They do not both just give up if one or the other doesn't win straight away. They use this behaviour until they get effective. It doesn't have to be much, but it has to be a move. This is exactly what Parelli did in the example shown above.

In my paddock at the moment I have two mares and a gelding. The gelding rules to the roost. If he tells the mares to move, they darn well move. Are they fearful he might kick or bite them? You bet. Why do they thik he will? Because he showed them... just once.

The gelding is my riding horse. Do I want him to do that with me? No thanks.

I have no trouble in emulating the behaviour that horses demonstrate with each other and I think that by understanding that and much more of equine behaviour can only be a good thing for horse owners.

esse

5th Feb 2006, 08:41 AM

a young girl with a thick skinned swiss pony

As far as I am aware, there are no reliable studies showing that the skin of one nationality of pony is physically any thicker than that of another, so to ascribe a horse's lack of reactivity or responsiveness to "thick skin" seems a little unfair - to say the least - on the pony concerned.

Of course, perhaps what was meant was "unreactive" or "unresponsive" and if that is so, it would have been more educational to have explained this, and looked for reasons why the pony should be so extremely unresponsive, before progressing to the use of sharp implements

Naturally

5th Feb 2006, 09:32 AM

As far as I am aware, there are no reliable studies showing that the skin of one nationality of pony is physically any thicker than that of another, so to ascribe a horse's lack of reactivity or responsiveness to "thick skin" seems a little unfair - to say the least - on the pony concerned.

Oh heavens above Esse. Must you always try to create a problem? Please don't ruin threads with this kind of childish remark. :mad: It's a very common term.

chev

5th Feb 2006, 10:02 AM

Rather than turning this into the usual (and let's face it, tedious) petty arguments can we please try and discuss the original topic with some sense and level-headedness?

Nobody here has actually said he hasn't contributed to the horse world.

Some feel that aspects of his methods are a less worthy contribution than others - and they are entitled to that opinion.

Others disagree and feel this is not the case - they too are entitled to their opinion.

Perhaps it would be as well to remember that there is no one method or philosophy that suits all horses, ponies and handlers. I realise that it has been said in the past that with a Parelli person the method can be adapted to suit every horse; I believe that. I also believe the same can be said of most methods, and there is no one method that is more right than any other particularly because of that. (That is my opinion, and I am entitled to it! :p )

Parelli has certainly made some valuable contributions to the horse world; he has also made some less valuable contributions. As have we all.

These threads are actually putting off Parelli followers. I know of a couple of people who do follow his methods but who won't contribute to these threads because of the way both sides behave.

esse

5th Feb 2006, 02:43 PM

Guess what - this forum isn't read only by people with English as a first language.

So - DID the pony have a thicker skin than normal or was it less reactive or less responsive than normal?

Why not try answering that?

And if it was less responsive or reactive than normal, I would want to know why. Wouldn't you?

Jacquie

5th Feb 2006, 03:46 PM

As far as I am aware, there are no reliable studies showing that the skin of one nationality of pony is physically any thicker than that of another, so to ascribe a horse's lack of reactivity or responsiveness to "thick skin" seems a little unfair - to say the least - on the pony concerned.

The chapter headed Skin & Touch on the link below is very informative...

http://www.gla.ac.uk/external/EBF/uhcc7.html

Naturally

5th Feb 2006, 07:44 PM

Thank you once again Jacqui

And Esse, Get a life. And thanks to you Esse, I re-iterate a stance I took on this forum a while back. Quite frankly, you can shove it. I hope that makes you happy. You and some of the others are the most irritating, single minded people I have ever encountered. Take your little lives and wallow.

Francis Burton

5th Feb 2006, 08:06 PM

The chapter headed Skin & Touch on the link below is very informative...

http://www.gla.ac.uk/external/EBF/uhcc7.html
One shouldn't believe everything one reads on the Internet! ;)

It's a pity references weren't included, but they weren't required for the book. As far as I know, the statement about skin thickness variations between breeds is correct. I'll have to look out the box file with all the source material for the chapter and check to see where I got the info from. It should be relatively easy to verify by slaughterhouse or vet post-mortem staff. However, skin thickness is one variable; others, such as receptor density, may have more influence on sensitivity to touch.

Francis Burton

5th Feb 2006, 08:18 PM

I considered starting a new thread for this reply, but decided to reply here because it ties in to some extent with Pat Parelli's teachings.

When horses meet for the first time, they play (what he calls) a dominance game (we don't need to discuss the semantics again) The game is about moving the feet. The more dominant horse is the one who moves his feet the least.
Assuming that horses always play a dominance game when they meet for the first time - which I am not sure is actually the case - but let's assume it is - why would you want to do the same? Is it because you feel that it is a game that must be played and won, and that not to do so would have bad consequences?

In my paddock at the moment I have two mares and a gelding. The gelding rules to the roost. If he tells the mares to move, they darn well move. Are they fearful he might kick or bite them? You bet. Why do they thik he will? Because he showed them... just once.

The gelding is my riding horse. Do I want him to do that with me? No thanks.
Of course you don't, and neither would I! But I am curious why you think he would want to do that with you in the first place, and why you want to start playing the sort of dominance games that could make him start thinking you were a rival and a threat and responding to you as such. Do you really want to make him fear you as the mares fear him? Do you need to?

On the other hand, if it isn't essential to be seen as dominant, then moving feet for the sake of scoring a dominance point isn't important (though there other good reasons for getting a horse to move his feet).

I have no trouble in emulating the behaviour that horses demonstrate with each other
I have huge misgivings about emulating aggressive or violent actions, even though they represent part of horses' 'natural' behaviour. If it possible to communicate clearly, effectively and humanely without doing that, as I believe it is, then there are no compelling reasons to behave in a violent, threatening or dominant manner.

and I think that by understanding that and much more of equine behaviour can only be a good thing for horse owners.
Yes, I agree it can only be a good thing. However, it's unfortunate if people pay attention only to dominance behaviour and base their training methods around that.

Jacquie

5th Feb 2006, 08:36 PM

One shouldn't believe everything one reads on the Internet! ;)

It's a pity references weren't included, but they weren't required for the book. As far as I know, the statement about skin thickness variations between breeds is correct. I'll have to look out the box file with all the source material for the chapter and check to see where I got the info from. It should be relatively easy to verify by slaughterhouse or vet post-mortem staff. However, skin thickness is one variable; others, such as receptor density, may have more influence on sensitivity to touch.

Francis, I wondered if it was you that wrote the information provided on the link.

I found all of it (not just the paragraph on skin & touch) very interesting and informative reading. :)

Francis Burton

5th Feb 2006, 08:47 PM

I found all of it (not just the paragraph on skin & touch) very interesting and informative reading. :)
Thank you very much Jacquie! :) It was fun to write, but also dreadfully slow as I felt I had to double check everything as I went along. This included going off to quiz Vet Anatomy department staff. So while I believe it is largely correct and up-to-date, I still get pangs of doubt over some of the facts.

Yann

5th Feb 2006, 08:59 PM

For the record I read about the screwdriver incident on here from an American poster who had seen it first hand at a clinic, it sounds like something that PP has used more than once if the incident Jacquie is quoting happened in Switzerland. Whilst it is clear that different breeds have different sensitivities, I've never yet seen a horse that couldn't twitch a fly off its coat. If these horses weren't responding to being porcupined it wasn't because they couldn't feel the pressure being applied, chances are they were either braced against it or didn't know how to respond to it.

The tip of a screwdriver doesn't 'apply pressure', it pokes :D

Francis Burton

5th Feb 2006, 09:24 PM

Whilst it is clear that different breeds have different sensitivities, I've never yet seen a horse that couldn't twitch a fly off its coat. If these horses weren't responding to being porcupined it wasn't because they couldn't feel the pressure being applied, chances are they were either braced against it or didn't know how to respond to it.
Yes, horses are capable of feeling a slight applied pressure - witness the fact that they can learn to respond to very light touches. The issue for me is whether increasing discomfort (by increasing pressure) is the best way to go in this case. That may well be what the exercise dictates, but is it the only solution?

The tip of a screwdriver doesn't 'apply pressure', it pokes :D
Strictly speaking, in the "pounds per square inch" sense, a pressure is applied! A pointed object also gives a particular kind of sharp sensation - one can some idea what it's like by poking oneself with the same tool. Would it be reasonable to say the horse feels something similar?

Jacquie

5th Feb 2006, 09:47 PM

Of course you don't, and neither would I! But I am curious why you think he would want to do that with you in the first place, and why you want to start playing the sort of dominance games that could make him start thinking you were a rival and a threat and responding to you as such. Do you really want to make him fear you as the mares fear him? Do you need to?

Yes, I agree it can only be a good thing. However, it's unfortunate if people pay attention only to dominance behaviour and base their training methods around that.

I don't think Naturally will be posting on this forum again so I'll reply on her behalf using my personal experience.........

I really admire Mark Rashid and his approach to NH, this is the direction I wanted to follow, but having tried and perservered to become a passive leader to my very dominant (sometimes aggressive) 16.2hh thoroughbred , I sadly realised that I stood a very good chance of getting seriously injured if I carried on with this approach to NH training.

Although many will disagree, In my opinion not all horses will respond positively to passive leadership, just the same as (I believe) not all horses will respond to PNH. However, it was the turning point in our relationship, when I started following the PNH 'alpha' approach. My horse now respects me as his leader and in my book there's a big difference between respect and fear.

I'm sure the majority of PNH supporters had similar problems with their horses as I did. So please don't assume that folk choose to demonstrate dominant behaviour in their training methods, because if they value their life, many don't have any other option.

Yann

5th Feb 2006, 10:00 PM

[Yes, horses are capable of feeling a slight applied pressure - witness the fact that they can learn to respond to very light touches. The issue for me is whether increasing discomfort (by increasing pressure) is the best way to go in this case. That may well be what the exercise dictates, but is it the only solution?

In the context of the 'game' being played perhaps not, but in terms of achieving the goal of teaching the horse to move away from pressure then there are other ways it can be done.

Strictly speaking, in the "pounds per square inch" sense, a pressure is applied! A pointed object also gives a particular kind of sharp sensation - one can some idea what it's like by poking oneself with the same tool. Would it be reasonable to say the horse feels something similar?

I've no doubt they do. It's a question of semantics, when does applying pressure in a very localised area become poking with a sharp object?
Perhaps I'm being unnecessarily squeamish but I prefer the toolbox used with horses to contain different techniques rather than the real thing :D

Interesting article by the way, I didn't spot the author initially but the style seemed familiar :)

Francis Burton

5th Feb 2006, 10:08 PM

I'm sure the majority of PNH supporters had similar problems with their horses as I did.
That's an awful lot of people. The question is why did they have similar problems?? Your description of most horses as life-threatening, aggressive creatures doesn't correspond at all with my experience. :(

So please don't assume that folk choose to demonstrate dominant behaviour in their training methods, because if they value their life, many don't have any other option.
Well, they should at least give a non-dominant approach -- not necessarily "passive leadership" -- a chance, as you did. (They should also read Tom Widdicombe and Lesley Skipper.)

Jacquie

5th Feb 2006, 10:35 PM

Yann

This is a genuine question and I'd apprecite if you could answer it honestly....

Why are you making such an issue of PP using a screwdriver as a pressure tool in the porcupine game when you support a NH trainer who readily uses pressure halters, buckstoppers and other mechanical tools in his training methods?

Oh, and what do you think about how he breaks in 2 year olds horses and get's someone riding them within half hour (in front of a very large audience) and finally, what's your thoughts on how this trainer chased a supposedly wild horse untill it was almost ready to collapse from exhaustion-just for the camera's (and $$$$$$). :rolleyes:

Jacquie

5th Feb 2006, 10:57 PM

That's an awful lot of people. The question is why did they have similar problems?? Your description of most horses as life-threatening, aggressive creatures doesn't correspond at all with my experience. :(

Perhaps they inherited the problems like I did? I took on TB because no one else would - I wanted to give him a final chance.

If you re-read my post you'll note that I didn't describe most horses as life threating, I said most PNH supporters had similar problems with their horses as I did. It was only when I attempted the passive leadership approach it became life threatening.

I hope your good fortune continues and you never have to experience an aggressive or very dominant horse because if you did it would probably change your whole outlook (as it did mine) on the alpha method of NH. ;)