) by one P. Parelli. There is generally no acceptance that a) some of the practices are dubious, even if only in the way they are taught by those associated with the system, and b) that actually, some of us have managed just fine without these methods and still have well-mannered horses which we care for. I have put alot of thought into asking this question, that a savvy memeber wanted asked of you all. As written it was long, so some paraphrasing is included. I also, having seen this question asked many times in the past with, well lets say not very favorable results, as in, not recieved well, seen as argumentative. Thus the mudslinging ensues. So, I hope I get this right, and suppose this would be the flip side of my experiment. First can I answer questions, second can I ask them, without ignighting a flame. so here goes....keep in mind this IS a sincere question, no flaming intended.....
1. Speaking as someone that has been run over by a horse like a football player at the Super Bowl, I see a huge need for the snap and its effectiveness. If the horse that ran over me, when I had only a lead rope in my hand, had a healthey respect for backing up and knew the yo yo game then I feel I would have been saved a trip to the dr to check for a concussion. I guess I'm tryng to understand how those with out a snap or good back up, defends themselves with a flimsey rope. How do you handle a horse crowding you? Do you just get out of the way?
2. The inside of the horses mouth is the most sensitive area on their body.We (humans) inflict pain there more than anywhere else when bits are used incorectly, in the intrest of saying that the snap is abusive, I don't understand why it doesn't apply across the board to everything done to horses... spurs used incorrectly, crops used incorectly, etc. Honestly, why does the parelli program get so much focus, and not these other types of abuse when they arise?
So in the intrest of my answering questions as honestly and non defensively as possible, I hope that someone can reciprocate equally for me? Me personally, I know the answer to the question already, but don't want to speak for anyone else.
Here goes, I am hitting the submit reply button......now.....
I do not feel that the Parelli program is the only program that deals with coping with a horse that decides to disrespect your space in a huge way. I have dealt with horses of all shapes and sizes and been run over once and if dam well hurt. The horse in question only ever did it to me once, she was young with little to no handling and no respect. I used a headcoller and a leadrope at the time, and as I suggest to anyone dealing with a youngster (she was a yearling) i was wearing gloves and a hat and carrying a short stick in my other hand. When the horse ran at me, the reason behind it now unknown, I jumped out the way, and smacked the horse very hard in the chest with the stick, the horse stopped, and I pushed it back, made it wait and carried on, every time the horse attempted to pass, the stick was held in their way, so that they could not, however, never used to hit the horse again, the horse new what the stick did and knew what would happen in they passed me again. Any one can teach a horse good manners on the ground, it takes time and patience and the right tools. The Parelli way does teach it quite clearly and in stages (I have since done some personal research into Parelli and other NH theories since this thread) the hitting of the clip on the face is a clear, as you call it, stage 4, as it, DONT DO THAT. Me hitting the youngster in the chest with the stick is the same principle. I do not think that this is cruel, or hitting a young horse in the face with the clip cruel either, in this kind of situation. in fact If I had not had the hat in this situation I would of had to go to hospital as the horse was big, threw her weight about and clonked me on the head with her head and a leg at one point too. But the hat saved me this trip. I suppose that the long line used in Parelli may make it easier for jumping out the way, but could also create other problems if the horse got the line tangled in the legs, and the line does give the holder more time to think and therefore issue to 'snap'. I can see the benefits of the long line here, but I do not think it is the only way to teach good ground manners, but that is not to say that the Parelli program is not a good way to teach ground manners, just not the only way.
2. Well I am going to answer this question as I see it now, and not how I would of 3 weeks ago when I was less clued up. As I have said before, I have been researching this program (and others), in it principles and the theory behind it. Now the theory as I see it, is to have a more horse like relationship with your horse, as in, learning the body language the horse uses. This, too me, does not mean be 100% cuddly to your horse all the time and let it walk all over you and not tell it off. Horses in the wild have a hierarchy and the way I see it, the Parelli scheme and other NH schemes are about teaching the Human to be the Alpha Horse and therefore with body language and correction, get their horse to co operate, and by so have a more natural relationship with the horse. In the wild, horses tell each other off, in fact the kick, bite, fight etc etc and cause damage. However there are usually signs that most horses are aware off before the harsher stuff ensues. The way I see the Parelli relationship is teaching a horse to do what you want from these, subtler and less harsh signs, if they dont then the harsher tools are used. In Parelli they appear to be called phases, from 1 to 4. So in teaching a horse to go back, a phase 1 is supposed to be touching the horses hair, and phase 4 is pushing hard into the muscle to elicit a response. This to me, might be cruel IF only phase 4 were used, and sometimes videos, etc etc appear to use only phase 4. (Some Students are arguing that what happened to catwalk was a severe phase 4, other students are saying it was way beyond a phase 4 and verging on the cruel). So I guess, the point I am making here is in theory the PNH is not about being cruel, but teaching your horse in a way that uses a more natural approach, which does not mean only cuddles and kisses, it means using an approach the works with the horses natural instincts. It appears that it is in the practice of this theory where the abuse or possibility of abuse occurs. BUT and this is the big but, Parelli is not the only case where this happens, this also occurs in more traditional approaches, eg Rollkur etc etc and other NH schemes. I personally have witnessed Kelly Marks do some hideously cruel things to horses. Cruelty occurs everywhere under all names, it is not the tools that create the abuse, but the bearers of those tools. A gun on its own will never kill anyone, it is in the hands that hold the gun where the killing occurs.
I hope I have made myself clear. I am not about to go and start up Parelli, for all those worried, however I was interested to learn more after this thread and the clear and concise discussion that T~n~C raised. It is thanks to her that my curiosity rose and since my research into PNH started. I had already researched much into Monty Roberts and others and have liked and encorprated many of those things into training my previous horses. My research in PNH will not make me suddenly go all PNH on you, but I have found it interesting learning about the program and what it aims to achieve and the theory etc etc.
) Obviously not everyone has the advantage of training their horses from day 1 - nor the skill to do it - and we get lot of horses in for re-schooling that are bargey, ill-mannered so-and-so's who'll happily crowd you, walk on your feet and push you out of the way (for at least a day!)
I'm confused about this. When did this new requirement occur? I've audited a lot of clinics (although not in this past year), but every one I've seen advertised gives 2 prices for auditing - regular price and savvy club price (which is usually about $5 over the 2/3 days). I'm just wondering when this started. Thanks!
(I know not what you wanted to hear). But you have made a fantastic point here. In my searching since this thread, I have come across the FEW parellians who are arrogant and treat Pat and Linda as infallible Kings among men, but they are the minority. There are far more Parellians who are sensible and who have the safety first approach. I feel that I am an example of when arrogance takes over. My accident with Jim was caused by my idiocy, my feelings that 'All will be ok and nothing will go wrong'. I should of had my back protector on. But I didnt and I am paying the price now. Off work with with No Pay and a very sore back and LESSON LEARNED. It doesnt matter how long you have been in the sport how experienced you are and what angle you take on your training, at the end of the day, safety first, always. I like how you have addressed this issue and feel I can say no more here.
Sounds like a bit of a couble edged sword though. Children go free but presumably only with an adult who is all subscribed? Thus neatly encouraging the longevity of Parelli as children grow up to become paying adults.
The cynical among us would just call that good marketing
