I know lots of you hate parelli, but....

Golf Girl said:
Who said that? I never heard anyone say that, ever.


With respect, that is a ridiculous statement. PEOPLE made him that way, not Parelli.


He's lovely! You obviously have worked hard with him and you have a great bond together. What you are doing with him in the videos is similar to what the 'Parelli' people I know do with their horses :)


See above. I'd love it if you could get rid of the 'Parelli' chip on your shoulder and just 'be' with your horse and allow other people to do the same and not vilify them just because their stick is orange and yours isn't :)
Click to expand...

Golf Girl - I don't know how the Laura achieved what she did with her horse but I just wanted to back her up on this becuase I thought some of your comments could have been a little more insightful (no offence). You said People made him the way he is, not parelli - but still, that's another example of some people's take on the method to add to the many others we've seen of Parelli being incredibly negative (*takes cover*) - catwalk, barney, etc etc etc.... I'm sure it does work for some people and some horses, and yes in any school of horsemanship or whatever there are those who do things badly/too roughly - but still that doens't take away from the fact that this seems ot happen regularly with Parelli. I too know of at least two horses who have been 'rescued' from Parelli homes and are lucky to have found the homes they have now, becuase their rehab has been incredibly long and arduous.

re: your second point about what the poster did with her horse being similar to Parelli - have you ever worked with a hrose who's been traumatised by one method? I don't mean to sound like I'm teaching you to suck eggs (is that the expression?! somehting like that!!) but if you have a horse who has been traumatised through one method (be it the people or the parelli or whatever) you cannot reschool it in the way Laura has done by using similar methods! Yes the end result is her wlaking loose in the school like you get wiht parelli, but you can also achieve that a million other (some would say, kinder) ways. E.g. I have a horse who was veyr traumatised by a trainer who used some particular NH methods. with him, being 'the boss' and proving i can move his feet around etc etc, as in parelli or MR, would be no use at all, he would just freeze up - he literally cannot understand becuase he just siezes up. However, teach him something with a clicker and a soft appraoch and you achieved anything with him. You have to take a different angle.

It's not about Laura having a chip on her shoulder, it's about her having found a way to achieve with her horse what someone else couldn't with their method.

Laura - fair play to you!
 
Golf Girl said:
1Who said that? I never heard anyone say that, ever.


2With respect, that is a ridiculous statement. PEOPLE made him that way, not Parelli.


3He's lovely! You obviously have worked hard with him and you have a great bond together. What you are doing with him in the videos is similar to what the 'Parelli' people I know do with their horses :)


4See above. I'd love it if you could get rid of the 'Parelli' chip on your shoulder and just 'be' with your horse and allow other people to do the same and not vilify them just because their stick is orange and yours isn't :)
Click to expand...

1Someone earlyer said through Parelli you can achieve what others only dream of!!!!! and I've heard lots of people say Parelli is the only way.

2 Urm I did say Parelli isn't compleatly to blame. But some of his issues do stem from the Parelli way of training. His last owner was sucked into all the parelli hype and honestly thought it was doing him some good. She even asked me to promise I would continu Parelli with him. I have known Parelli work with some horses like the one in the first video but it doesn't work with all horses especialy not Herbie.

3 Similer to Parelli, similer to Montey Roberts ect ect.......... The end result may be the same but the route to getting there is compleately diffrent. The videos show what I achieved with Herbie using my methods when the parelli method left him dangourous and nearly going for meat.

4 I don't have a parelli chip on my shoulder. I don't like the method. Thats all I said My opinion which I am intitled to, as you are yours. What I said I hated was people who said it was the only way and I do know lots of people who say this. (I'm not saying you are just that I know others who say it) And I do just be with my horse. I know my stick isn't orange I don't have a problem with the orange stick anyway. If other people want to use this method it is upto them. As long as it doesn't lead to Abuse of the poor horse (which I have seen Parelli result in as I have other methods of NH and traditional training methods) The Horse should always come first and everyone needs to remember every horse is an inderviduel and should be treated that way. What works with one horse may not work for the next. :)
 
People stuff up horses all the time, maybe by claiming to be using Parelli, BHS, NHS, EMS... what I mean is, that horses get stuffed up by people all the time and in that respect I agree with Golfgirl (unusual!). The Parelli numpties just stand out more than the non-Parelli numpties because of their orange sticks. If it were possible to quantify "traumatised" horses in the UK and then somehow decide what method was supposedly being used with them, I doubt you'd be able to claim that Parelli was any worse than people claiming to use more conventional methods, or even just plain common sense. So I do agree that it's the people who cause the problems, not the method they claim to be using.
If that makes sense...
 
Well once again as I said I don't blame Parelli compleatly but i'm shore it played a big part.
His last owner paid £1500 for just the pony then 6 months later sold him to me for £550 inclu a brandnew saddle (Worth almost £400), Bridle, rugs, grooming kit ect ect...... You can't tell me she paid all that money then took a massive loss if he even had half the issues he came to me with pre Parelli and as I have mentioned on preveious posts she wasn't doing Parelli on her own from a book or DVD she had help from a trainer who apparently was ment to be very good.

And as I said before Parelli works for some horses and it can be done in a much kinder way than has been shown in other videos. But I have seen both Pat and Linda abuse horses in the name of NH. Claiming it to be a kinder way of training while beating a horse over the head with a rope and mettle clip. That is what makes me sick. Even Parelli doesn't need to be done like that. You will never build a true bond by bullying your horse. Yes People mess horses up all the time using all sorts of methods. But you can buy a Parelli DVD and see some of the clips I mentioned above of Pat and Linda.

As I have said it's not just Parelli I have known MR methods turn into crulty even by the man himself. But thats a whole nother can of worms ;)
 
Can I try to explain what I mean? A few years back I loaned a TB from Blue Cross. He was a complete mess, soon exhibited scarey rig behaviour, was dangerous to handle, scared of jumps. I know he'd been given all sorts of expensive care and training by his owner and kept at a professional competition yard, but he was in a terrible "emotional" state. The thing is, I can't say it was as a result of MR, or Parelli training poorly applied. The fact was that whatever label the people chose to apply, they'd used it abusively and wrecked a horse.
I've got one in my field now. Something in his life had gone badly wrong, he was scared of everything, had cuts and bruises inside his mouth (chifney) and again was a very sad case. His owner was on the verge of having him pts. I don't know what training people thought they were using, but they'd traumatised and screwed him up.
There are 1,000's of horses being screwed up every day, we see their tales all over the forum, but no labels can be attached to the approach their owners and trainers are using. So why make a big deal of the horses that happen to have been screwed up by people claiming to use Parelli? These people would probably have managed to screw the horse up whatever approach (with or without a label) they had chosen to use. Some do their heads in with big shiney clips and orange sticks, others do it with excessive use of draw reins, and ill fitting saddles.
Similarly, once the horse has been screwed up, a good horseman or woman is most likely able to turn it around. That would apply for a good Parelli person, MR person, BHS person or Method-Without-A-Lable person.

See?

(MWALB... just trying that one out for size...)
 
Tinypony said:
People stuff up horses all the time, maybe by claiming to be using Parelli, BHS, NHS, EMS... what I mean is, that horses get stuffed up by people all the time and in that respect I agree with Golfgirl (unusual!). The Parelli numpties just stand out more than the non-Parelli numpties because of their orange sticks. If it were possible to quantify "traumatised" horses in the UK and then somehow decide what method was supposedly being used with them, I doubt you'd be able to claim that Parelli was any worse than people claiming to use more conventional methods, or even just plain common sense. So I do agree that it's the people who cause the problems, not the method they claim to be using.
If that makes sense...
Click to expand...
That makes sense, TP, and is very sensible (as always)!

Of course it is the people who cause the problems. I often wonder though... can a method be modified in such a way to make the likelihood of certain problems much less likely? For example, if Parelli (the method) was to recognize that it isn't actually necessary to hit or hurt a horse in order to train it, and that hitting could be reserved for very unusual and specific situations where safety is at stake, the amount and degree of what I have called "bullying" could be drastically reduced. This would entail a fairly radical rethink of Phases, of course, with a change in attitude to Phase 4 - the phase that can hurt. (I've heard people say that Phase 4 doesn't mean hit and that may be true in the sense that you don't need to hit to be effective, but clearly hitting is permitted, as Linda has demonstrated with the bull snap.) Could Parelli do this and still be effective? What are the downsides to making such a change?

This isn't the only area where I have a problem with Parelli, but it's an fairly obvious one.
 
Absolutely. I agree with everyone, and of course all labels and without-label people can screw up horses in a whole load of different ways! But I think what FBurton has said is very true - essentially some schools of labelled NH techniques can be seen to be quite confrontational, and clearly don't work with all horses. Therefore what is particularly problematic (IMO) about Parelli is that it sells itself as very purist and the ONLY way to do things correctly. Moreover, the application of pressure is, I believe, supposed to be increased if the required response doesn't occur. Therefore, for a horse who is struggling with the method for whatever reason, doesn't that encourage an extreme reaction?

Of course, the same can happen in any school of horsemanship (bad word but you know what I mean). But we do time and time again see these examples of Parelli being used very roughly, including by people who are supposed to be its founders and masters.

On that point, I was musing about this last night re: Barney and Catwalk and the others. I find this quite interesting - I'm sure most people have at some point acted in a way with their horses that they regret. I know I have, at times, got very frustrated and angry - even with my rescue horse - and for example, given them an overly rough kick/smack etc. However, I know that's wrong and I have absolutely made sure that I learn from it - it's not the way to act and it only makes things go backwards. It makes me cringe to think about it to the extent that I don't like writing it now! But if anyone asked me about those singular times I would absolutely say that I had made a mistake and learnt from it. Now - barney and catwalk are exmaples of times when the parellis have acted in overly rough ways, and even other parelli enthusiasts haven't understood what was going on. But I don't believe L and P have ever said in any way that this was a mistake and they acted wrongly and learnt from it?! I don't know - but to me that says a lot.
 
Well, if you must teach people to teach horses to back up from rope waggling you could I suppose take the clip off. In fact, looking at the poor fit of many Parelli halters (with the noseband far too big, so that the clip waggles about maybe 6 inches or more under the jaw) it would be a good idea to remove the clip and never use them at all. I can't think of any training reason why they are needed. Indeed, when riding in a rope halter with a clip I think they can affect the way a horse is going and inhibit relaxation in the neck and jaw.
Then you could remove the sticks. I do use a stick, but in the light way that some would when riding. Never to "smack", but sometimes to touch - by which I genuinely mean touch as in how you would rest or tap the fingers of one hand against the palm of the other. Problem is, when you give people a stick they tend to get frustrated or stressed and start using it in the wrong way. So maybe take sticks away, at least in the early levels, and only give them back when people are in control of themselves and need to touch the horse more specifically to back up cues? Bit like allowing use of spurs.
But then this is all controversial because, as we know from reading threads here, many feel it's fine to give a horse a good smack or belt with a stick if they are being "naughty" or "taking the piss". Many consider spurs to be acceptable because someone wants to compete at a certain level, regardless of how much control they have of their legs. So while they might agree with clips being taken off, they might not see so much of a problem with carrot sticks or sticks named after other veg even.
I'm not sure quite where I'm going with this, so I'll stop.
 
Morgan123 said:
Absolutely. I agree with everyone, and of course all labels and without-label people can screw up horses in a whole load of different ways! But I think what FBurton has said is very true - essentially some schools of labelled NH techniques can be seen to be quite confrontational, and clearly don't work with all horses. Therefore what is particularly problematic (IMO) about Parelli is that it sells itself as very purist and the ONLY way to do things correctly. Moreover, the application of pressure is, I believe, supposed to be increased if the required response doesn't occur. Therefore, for a horse who is struggling with the method for whatever reason, doesn't that encourage an extreme reaction?

Of course, the same can happen in any school of horsemanship (bad word but you know what I mean). But we do time and time again see these examples of Parelli being used very roughly, including by people who are supposed to be its founders and masters.

On that point, I was musing about this last night re: Barney and Catwalk and the others. I find this quite interesting - I'm sure most people have at some point acted in a way with their horses that they regret. I know I have, at times, got very frustrated and angry - even with my rescue horse - and for example, given them an overly rough kick/smack etc. However, I know that's wrong and I have absolutely made sure that I learn from it - it's not the way to act and it only makes things go backwards. It makes me cringe to think about it to the extent that I don't like writing it now! But if anyone asked me about those singular times I would absolutely say that I had made a mistake and learnt from it. Now - barney and catwalk are exmaples of times when the parellis have acted in overly rough ways, and even other parelli enthusiasts haven't understood what was going on. But I don't believe L and P have ever said in any way that this was a mistake and they acted wrongly and learnt from it?! I don't know - but to me that says a lot.
Click to expand...

The Parelli line is that the Catwalk incident was not a mistake, it was fine, just in front of the wrong audience. The right audience would have had enough "savvy" to understand what was going on. (That's not the exact words). Several of my Parelli friends have told me this -I just don't understand what was being done and why.

Similarly, re the extract from the Level 1 DVD's where Linda "works" with Barney the one-eyed horse. Parelli have never expressed regret at what was done, or said that they do things differently now. At the time there were reams of messages of sympathy and support for Linda from Parelli students, again expressing the sentiments that people just didn't understand what was being done.

I wish we could run another timeline and see how someone like Mark Rashid would have dealt with both animals.
 
HOWEVER
I have also been told many times by other experts that I don't understand what they are doing with horses and that if I did I'd realise that it was OK. For example, why they were hauling a horse's head in while pusing it forward, why they were using tight sidereins or riding hard in draw reins, or upping the severity of a bit. Or even why they were giving a horse a bit of a beating (in my view) because it was "taking the piss" out of them.
I think this whole debate of whether or not the means is justified by the end results goes far wider than Parelli and probably isn't appropriate on this thread.
 
I thought that the video was very interesting and I really dont want to create a row but please can someone explain further the whole point of NH/horse whispering to a normal not problem horse owner. I love my boys more than anything, they already follow me round the field when I poo pick, even more so if I have polos in my pocket!!lol they come galloping up the field when I arrive and nuzzle/lick big chap even grooms me if I stand still long enough now. When they arrived they were all young and a little nervous but I was gentle and made slow movements round them, spoke in a quiet and gentle voice, sat for hours in the field doing nothing much, didnt make eye contact etc etc.

I used to think wow to horse whispering etc that people could have such a bond but from what I have seen, they take a horse and they scare the hell out of it by driving it away...why? If my horse already approaches me, why would I then scare it away from "the herd" like "alpha horse would do in the wild" only to make it grovel to come back?

I am open minded and would love to further improve my relationship with my boys but refuse point blank and scare them or make them feel like they have done something wrong for my personal gratification, I would rather do it because they want to and because they love me back.

If I am being stupid then sorry for not understanding but from what I have seen, I dont get it
 
People screw up horses BUT there's another important factor. Just like people, horses 'are' a combination of nature and nurture. The same bad treatment can affect different horses in different ways. A horse born with a sensitive temperament can be turned into a fearful quivering wreck by being treated badly, while one that is more naturally confident is likely to become more confrontational and aggressive. One size does not fit all ;)
 
Tinypony said:
Similarly, re the extract from the Level 1 DVD's where Linda "works" with Barney the one-eyed horse. Parelli have never expressed regret at what was done, or said that they do things differently now
Click to expand...
They removed it from the teaching materials - what does that tell you? Actions speak louder than words ;)
 
nicolenlolly said:
I thought that the video was very interesting and I really dont want to create a row but please can someone explain further the whole point of NH/horse whispering to a normal not problem horse owner. I love my boys more than anything, they already follow me round the field when I poo pick, even more so if I have polos in my pocket!!lol they come galloping up the field when I arrive and nuzzle/lick big chap even grooms me if I stand still long enough now. When they arrived they were all young and a little nervous but I was gentle and made slow movements round them, spoke in a quiet and gentle voice, sat for hours in the field doing nothing much, didnt make eye contact etc etc.

I used to think wow to horse whispering etc that people could have such a bond but from what I have seen, they take a horse and they scare the hell out of it by driving it away...why? If my horse already approaches me, why would I then scare it away from "the herd" like "alpha horse would do in the wild" only to make it grovel to come back?

I am open minded and would love to further improve my relationship with my boys but refuse point blank and scare them or make them feel like they have done something wrong for my personal gratification, I would rather do it because they want to and because they love me back.

If I am being stupid then sorry for not understanding but from what I have seen, I dont get it
Click to expand...

Exactly exactly exactly this!! I too used to think wow so amazing, look at join up/bla bla etc etc. But when you read/learn/consider it more deeply - why when you can start a relationship with your horse in a quiet and pleasant way, would you want to instead start it by essentially chasing the horse around the arena until you've proved yourself in charge of it!?? I simply can't see the benefit of it with most horses. N.b. this is a question I actually asked Kelly Marks herself and got no response, along with some other quesitons about the fundamentals of MR stuff.

Of course that's MR and not parelli though but the same applies wiht the whole domination thing.
 
nicolenlolly said:
I thought that the video was very interesting and I really dont want to create a row but please can someone explain further the whole point of NH/horse whispering to a normal not problem horse owner. I love my boys more than anything, they already follow me round the field when I poo pick, even more so if I have polos in my pocket!!lol they come galloping up the field when I arrive and nuzzle/lick big chap even grooms me if I stand still long enough now. When they arrived they were all young and a little nervous but I was gentle and made slow movements round them, spoke in a quiet and gentle voice, sat for hours in the field doing nothing much, didnt make eye contact etc etc.

I used to think wow to horse whispering etc that people could have such a bond but from what I have seen, they take a horse and they scare the hell out of it by driving it away...why? If my horse already approaches me, why would I then scare it away from "the herd" like "alpha horse would do in the wild" only to make it grovel to come back?

I am open minded and would love to further improve my relationship with my boys but refuse point blank and scare them or make them feel like they have done something wrong for my personal gratification, I would rather do it because they want to and because they love me back.

If I am being stupid then sorry for not understanding but from what I have seen, I dont get it
Click to expand...
Nicole you are already doing it! You've done all the right things and the results are clear to see from the relationship that you now have with your boys. It obviously comes naturally to you, but the problem is it doesn't come naturally to most people, and that's where the likes of Monty and Pat Parelli come in - to try and 'teach' it to the masses :)
 
I think in the case of Barney words were needed to be honest. The teaching materials have been updated since that DVD and obviously 1,000's of "old" level 1 packs are still being used by students.
Golfgirl, out of interest, do you think the clip could be permenantly taken off the rope? And maybe the stick removed from the earlier teaching stages?
 
Golf Girl said:
Nicole you are already doing it! You've done all the right things and the results are clear to see from the relationship that you now have with your boys. It obviously comes naturally to you, but the problem is it doesn't come naturally to most people, and that's where the likes of Monty and Pat Parelli come in - to try and 'teach' it to the masses :)
Click to expand...

But it was nothing that came naturally, it was common sense. If anyone or anything is nervous, surely being quiet and gentle is what any sane person would do? I would imagine that parelli follower or not what we all want to achieve is that we are loved by our big hairy beast and it does what we want but scaring it into submission? Is that teaching common sense or is that teaching "POWER" in a jeremy clarkson voice?!

If someone doesn't have any common sense around an animal that is as potentially as dangerous as a horse then surely that could be viewed as foolish? I would not want to go into a ring with a scared horse and scare it more, silly I might be effing suicidal I am not!lol
 
Tinypony said:
I think in the case of Barney words were needed to be honest. The teaching materials have been updated since that DVD and obviously 1,000's of "old" level 1 packs are still being used by students.
Golfgirl, out of interest, do you think the clip could be permenantly taken off the rope? And maybe the stick removed from the earlier teaching stages?
Click to expand...
Parelli already sell ropes without the clip I believe, for those who want to use a gentler approach. I don't think the stick could be removed really, since part of its justification is keeping the human at a safe distance in the early learning stages. Just my personal opinion :)

Edit: Actually, I was just thinking, didn't Linda issue a statement re the Barney clip? I'm fairly sure she did ...
 
Last edited:
Golf Girl said:
Parelli already sell ropes without the clip I believe, for those who want to use a gentler approach. I don't think the stick could be removed really, since part of its justification is keeping the human at a safe distance in the early learning stages. Just my personal opinion :)

Edit: Actually, I was just thinking, didn't Linda issue a statement re the Barney clip? I'm fairly sure she did ...
Click to expand...

I would never want to start a relationship in the earliest stages with a horse by having to have a stick between me and the horse to protect myself!! What a horrific idea, that's even worse than join up!! If there is any chance of the horse acting dangerously enough that you need a stick between you and it, you need to rethink the method!!

Clearly in some situations, horses are dangerous due to past handling - but if that's the case then even then, using a stick should surely only be a last resort in very extreme circumstances rahter than something everyone has to do with their horses - even beginners on level one?!?! not very trusting, is it.

Out of interest, how do the parellis deal wiht stick phobic horses, like those warmbloods you see who've been cattle prodded into jumping big jumps at sales and you literally can't get a stick near?? just wondering.
 
to clarify - I know you're not syaing you use the stick to beat the horse or antyhing, but I'm saying that if you need it between you and ANY horse for 'safety' then there is something inherently wrong with the method.
 
fburton said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24xQQdMcsC4

I went to the Parelli website as suggested but couldn't find the note or letter referred to in the video.
Click to expand...
The point is that Linda did make a statement about the incident at the time as I'm sure you are very well aware. Websites, page links and most people have moved on apart from a certain few individuals in this forum who keep dragging up the same old few controversial incidents (which have already been discussed to death several times over in this forum) every time the 'P' word or even the 'NH' words are mentioned. It's really time to move on now, don't you think?
 
Golf Girl said:
The point is that Linda did make a statement about the incident at the time as I'm sure you are very well aware. Websites, page links and most people have moved on apart from a certain few individuals in this forum who keep dragging up the same old few controversial incidents (which have already been discussed to death several times over in this forum) every time the 'P' word or even the 'NH' words are mentioned. It's really time to move on now, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Golfgirl - but it's not the point is it? she made a statement DEFENDING what she did - which is basically what she's doing, ebcuase she said that we just don't understand the context. Isn't that EXACTLY the opposite of the point?!? :-s

It gets dragged back up because people keep dragging back up (if you want to put it that way) how wonderful the lot of them are. Just putting across an alternative point of view. We all know we've discussed it all before, but it's still interesting or we wouldn't still be doing it :-p
 
Parelli don't appear to sell 12ft lines withour clips. They have a shorter rope, but not for the same purpose. http://shop.parellinaturalhorsetraining.com/product.jsf?productId=1085
People will keep "going on" about the same things, just as Golfgirl does, because their views haven't changed and the reasons why they have those views remain.
As others have said, Linda's statement about Barney seeks to justify what she did. The usual "people don't know ANYTHING about what was going on and the whole thing has been taken out of CONTEXT". The only reason that the clip is no longer in training materials is because the training materials have been completely changed since then and a new programme released. (Based on what some call the "dumbed down" Parelli levels).

I suppose, to get back to where we started, people will never "move on" from pointing out that sometimes the work someone is doing with a horse looks really impressive, but for many it's relevant to also know how they got there. I was a Parelli student myself, with one horse working at "Level 3" at liberty. (Old level 3). It looked impressive and people might have said we had a great bond. However, I know how we got there, I'm not proud of it, but I learnt and wouldn't go there again. When I see an advanced Parelli student or instructor doing something amazing I am amazed, but nagging at the back of my mind is the knowledge of how they got to look that amazing.
 
Last edited:
Tinypony said:
I suppose, to get back to where we started, people will never "move on" from pointing out that sometimes the work someone is doing with a horse looks really impressive, but for many it's relevant to also know how they got there. I was a Parelli student myself, with one horse working at "Level 3" at liberty. (Old level 3). It looked impressive and people might have said we had a great bond. However, I know how we got there, I'm not proud of it, but I learnt and wouldn't go there again. When I see an advanced Parelli student or instructor doing something amazing I am amazed, but nagging at the back of my mind is the knowledge of how they got to look that amazing.
Click to expand...

Good point. ANY kind of training with an animal works with signal, pressure and release or signal, action and reward. Obviously the signal, action and reward approach is 'kinder' and is how most animal trainers work (clicker training/dog training/film work getting animals to follow a cue). However IME and I've done clicker training with some horses, it falls down teaching more complex behaviours because horses have a limited cognition, not all horses are food motivated and also not everyone wants to treat extensively. In terms of signal, pressure and release that is classically how horses are produced. You can make those signals anything you want, you can condition your horse to think a canter aid is a tap on the shoulder and halt is you yelling yeehaa if you want to. When you watch any trainer doing high level work, whether it be Parelli, Dressage or anything else, you don't know what was done initially to instill those responses. Someone posting a video ages ago of a western rider doing brideless sliding stops and they were all saying how amazing it was, I remember thinking at the time, yes but she probably spent 3 years yanking it's head off to get it to learn the pull on the mane meant stop.

You have to take the training in the context it was developed. IIRC Parelli was developed after Pat spent some time with a Circus trainer hence the games. Monty Roberts bases his system on join up because he was working with feral traumatised horses that he needed to produce quickly. Also you have to judge them against what came previously, either IMO is vastly preferable to 'rope breaking' which was the traditional western method. Literally tying a horse up and beating it to submission.

Parelli is one of my least favourite methods, mainly because of what I said in a previous post, but I also cannot stick the terminology and the holier than thou attitude. I've spent time with Richard Maxwell and been to Monty demos. I do what I suppose people call NH in that I use ground work with my horses. I'll read, watch, listen to everything and take what I think will work for us. My aim as an owner is to have a healthy, sound, happy horse who enjoys it's work. I compete, I do us bits, shoes spurs, whips etc. I have hit horses when I've needed to. The culmination of my training is that I have 3 outstandingly well behaved horses that will go anywhere, do anything and anyone can ride (and one work in progress ;-)!).
 
Golf Girl said:
The point is that Linda did make a statement about the incident at the time as I'm sure you are very well aware. Websites, page links and most people have moved on apart from a certain few individuals in this forum who keep dragging up the same old few controversial incidents (which have already been discussed to death several times over in this forum) every time the 'P' word or even the 'NH' words are mentioned. It's really time to move on now, don't you think?
Click to expand...
As long as people continue to think that what e.g. Linda did to Barney (to take one high-profile and done-to-death example) was okay / right / justifiable, I will continue to argue against it. I won't convince diehards like yourself, but if what I say makes even a few people think twice, question the Parelli orthodoxy and consider effective alternatives that are quieter and less rough on horses, it will be worth it. If Parelli were to change itself that would be wonderful, because there is so much to commend it in terms of structured learning and global reach.
 
fburton said:
As long as people continue to think that what e.g. Linda did to Barney (to take one high-profile and done-to-death example) was okay / right / justifiable, I will continue to argue against it. I won't convince diehards like yourself, but if what I say makes even a few people think twice, question the Parelli orthodoxy and consider effective alternatives that are quieter and less rough on horses, it will be worth it. If Parelli were to change itself that would be wonderful, because there is so much to commend it in terms of structured learning and global reach.
Click to expand...

Where's the ** Like ** button!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top