Is NH PNH???

[LindaAd]

I dont understand why the Fearless Horse book has been used to imply that NH has added nothing to traditional horsemanship.

On the contrary, the book describes how the authors whom one might call conventional expert horse breeders and trainers benefitted when they encountered the NH methods of Adam Goodfellow. Adam and his wife are themselves students of Mony Roberts.
The authors turned to NH to solve an otherwise intractable problem and the book describes how they now apply NH (not just natural but new horsemanship) to modify their handling and training horses for competition.

If the NH section of NR is quiet at the moment, I fear that is because many of the people who were interested in it have left, and those like me who were their students have settled pretty comfortably into our own ways. I've been using NH to problem solve, but dont need to ask advice or tell the story.

I don't think it's been used like that at all, Skib - why do you think so? Lot1983 quoted it as an example of good horsemanship, and I picked it up because it's a good book. The authors have their own approach, with elements of NH (although not Parelli, I don't think) and traditional ideas - and the bit I quoted about nosebands shows their open-mindedness.

I don't usually post in this section, because I don't regard myself as a NH aficionada or a Parelli fan, although I often read it with interest. It's a topic that often seems to provoke a lot of crossness.

 

[AengusOg]

the thing is there is NO SUCH THING as bad Parelli, .

What was that with the Catwalk horse then? Oh, and then there was Barney. Surely you don't think those were examples of good horsemanship, do you?

Everyone that meets my horses are amazed at how calm, repsectful, willing and happy they are..

That's great. I get that too, and I don't do Parelli.

there is however definately such a thing as people trying to do Parell, doign it wrong and making it look bad...
Its the riders / trainers that do the damage and give the discipline the bad name.

So what is it about Parelli that's good then? If there are only a few who can do it (such as yourself), what does that say about their teachings?

I follow Parelli but I also stay open minded to other trainers and their methods as no method of riding or other horsmanship etc is wrong. Its the riders / trainers that do the damage and give the discipline the bad name.

Do you think the way your horses are is attributable to PNH, or to the other trainers and their methods?

I know plenty of horsemanship 'methods' which are wrong. If so many people fail to get it right with PNH, as you suggest, maybe it is wrong too.

People have decided for themslelves for many years what a horse should do and based it on how they themselves would do it without thinking about the horse and what he thinks. The relationship was forgotten and the horse was a working tool. The ones that seemed to respect the hoprses more where those from way back in indian times.

oop:

Horsemanship was still there in small doses and then it started to get more and more popular as people took more notice. Pat Parelli decided to spread the word...

oop: again. I know horsemen who's fathers and grandfathers were horsemen, and none of them would have let PP sweep their yard. Their ancestors, ex-patriot Scots, Irish, and others, from the British Isles, who had their own knowledge of horsemanship, having been drovers, crofters, farmers, ploughmen, carters, pack horse men, hauliers, and cavalry men before they left for America, fought in the 'Indian Wars' in the mid to late 1800s, before Pat Parelli was even a twinkle in his great grandfather's eye.

Natural Horsemanship, a nice way itwas put was to break the wording Horsemasnhip into three, Horse - Man - Ship, so joining the horse and man together formed the relation(ship).

He sure is good with the catchphrases.

 

[popularfurball]

Im not pro-parelli in any way - but think the style of the post above is largely why NH is quiet.

Demson explained that the ides which parelli is based on is sound, but that in the wrong hands it can be dangerous - the same as anything else in life really.

As was discussed earlier or on another thread, parelli often provides structure for individual who are struggling with one or more aspects of their relationship with their horse . A close support network may be an alternative as would a good RI. Not everyone has access to the social network and not everyone has funds for an RI regularly - I think this is the niche parelli etcetc steps into - it pro dives clear "how to" exercises with goals to work towards and such.

 

[Jane&Ziggy]

Im not pro-parelli in any way - but think the style of the post above is largely why NH is quiet.

Demson explained that the ides which parelli is based on is sound, but that in the wrong hands it can be dangerous - the same as anything else in life really.

As was discussed earlier or on another thread, parelli often provides structure for individual who are struggling with one or more aspects of their relationship with their horse . A close support network may be an alternative as would a good RI. Not everyone has access to the social network and not everyone has funds for an RI regularly - I think this is the niche parelli etcetc steps into - it pro dives clear "how to" exercises with goals to work towards and such.

I agree PFB. We all know there has been some controversy surrounding the Parellis, but that doesn't prevent people from using their methods well and humanely and to good effect.

It's my belief that NR is at its best when people try to stay open minded.

 

[Thyme & Me]

Ditto the above. I am not pro or anti PNH has I know very little about it. I've known 2 parelli owners - 1 with the most responsive horse I've ever ridden, and 1 a complete muppet with a brain-dead horse. So I'm on the fence!

But I think it is a tainted brand. What I mean by that is that there are very strong opinions against it, that actually are often no longer really to do with he actual horsemanship, but are more about the way it is marketed and taught. As I see it, there are various anti-parelli views along the lines of:

Cultic
Rigid
Ego-maniacal
Money-grabbing
Spin-doctoring
etc etc etc

Plus the 'cruelty' claims that pop up from time to time.

This infuriates the non-fanatical owners/riders (who are probably the majority I would imagine), who are more interested in the principles and not the hoopla. So they fiecely defend Parelli-the-approach rather than Parelli-the-man. This reinforces the 'cultic, narow minded' claims and the pointless debate continues.

That is why I asked the question in my OP whether this section was just a PNH section, with a tacit agreement from the rest of the forum not to come on the section and rant against PP.....

Clearly it isn't, and I'm glad there is an nh section that is much wider. But I think we should have some sort of informal moratorium on debating what we think of parelli, personally.......

 

[Cortrasna]

Clearly it isn't, and I'm glad there is an nh section that is much wider. But I think we should have some sort of informal moratorium on debating what we think of parelli, personally.......
Reply With Quote

Why not start one then.....I am not aware of any veto on discussing pretty much anything on this forum.......just hope that those who disagree can do so without stomping off in a huff as usually happens.:wink:

 

[Thyme & Me]

Not suggesting a veto. Fully in favour of free speech etc. Just these discussions are generally pointless as I've yet to see anyone on either side 'see the light'!!

(There is an informal ban in our house on discussing public sector pensions for much the same reason )

 

[Joyscarer]

Not suggesting a veto. Fully in favour of free speech etc. Just these discussions are generally pointless as I've yet to see anyone on either side 'see the light'!!

(There is an informal ban in our house on discussing public sector pensions for much the same reason )

Ah but my favourite response to that is the same as to those commenting that their thread gets no responses at all.

Just look at the huge numbers of views that each thread gets without a corresponding number of responses. You don't know what the lurkers are thinking, you don't know how the trickle down of similar threads builds until someone decides to make a change. If just one person is influenced for the better than it is worth posting. I can't tell you the number years I read posts on certain topics before finally deciding that a change of approach was due. :wink:

 

[AengusOg]

but think the style of the post above is largely why NH is quiet..

And it's still quiet, despite my post which asked some reasonable questions.

I will always challenge anyone who suggests that PP is the man who brought us compassionate horsemanship, as has been suggested many times before on this forum. I would describe him as the man who invented circus tricks for those who had no wish to work in a big top.:giggle:

Demson says that not a lot of people are good at doing Parelli with their horses...I would like to know why that may be.

 

[Wally]

And it's still quiet, despite my post which asked some reasonable questions.

I will always challenge anyone who suggests that PP is the man who brought us compassionate horsemanship, as has been suggested many times before on this forum. I would describe him as the man who invented circus tricks for those who had no wish to work in a big top.:giggle:

Demson says that not a lot of people are good at doing Parelli with their horses...I would like to know why that may be.

 

[annareeves0]

:giggle: