leogeorge
Well-Known Member
Neither would a traditional trainer include a buckstopper in the list of equipment needed for basic backing and starting as Monty did when he took part in a "science" trial to prove his methods were the "kindest" 
Natural Horsemanship. Is it just a circus act?
- Thread starter PuddingandPie
- Start date
jeeve
Well-Known Member
I guess that you would expect this, however, a lot of the work I was doing on the ground was at liberty. And to be able to basically pick up where we left off there was a great feeling. No ropes or leads, just responding to my body language.
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
I'll try to explain what I mean. I am not saying that young horses should not be touched after they have been backed, if cubbing is what you do to give them 'experience' fair enough.
I don't think, in general, people put enough foundation into their horses. For example there was a post yesterday, about someone going to an 'event' and when umbarellas were put up because of the rain, a lot of the horses freaked out. The OP said fortunately most of the riders were 'good' enough to stay on. My point here is that these horses should not be at an 'event' until they were sound enough not to freak out at mundane things like umbarellas.
These horses cannot be ready to compete if they are as poorly prepaired as that, and as most people who compete, at the moment, are what you would call traditional, the fault must lie here.
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
I think that the most traditional of horsemen think it's ok to race 2yr olds.
Whether or not a horse is started in front of a crowd, isn't really an issue. The horses I saw didn't seem too bothered, either at the 'Road to the Horse' or at the Parelli colt start.
It's quite a skill to take an untouched horse and have it tacked, backed and peacefully riding in the way it was done in a few short hours over a couple of days.
I see the updates that are posted on Parelli's horse Troubadour, which he bought, and things seem to be progressing nicely.
Morgan123
Well-Known Member
Pale Rider - this makes no sense, on page 24 you are saying that it's Traditional Horsemanship that is in too much rush and that is what the problem is with it?! so if Traditional people do it it's wrong but if 'NH' people do it it's 'quite a skill'??
I can't see the merit at all in backing a horse from scratch in an hour, 24 hours etc - when you have time, why not take it?!
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
This is what I said, 'My problem with 'traditional' horsemanship, is the rush everyone is in to get backed and bitted and then of to some event or other.'
Perhaps I should have said, people who use traditional horsemanship methods are in too much of a rush.
I see nothing wrong with people wanting to use traditional methods to back horses, personally I prefer NH methods.
Where I refer to people being in a rush, what I am talking about is the number who want to compete at whatever event, and turn up at places with horses which are obviously not prepaired. What is the sense in going places with a horse which won't load for example.
As far as the actual backing goes, I agree with the principle of taking the time it takes. What is going on at the Road to the Horse is trainers at a high level reading an untouched horse and demonstrating how efficiently they can get it backed and riding. The Parelli colt start was very interesting and watching people like James Roberts and Kalley Krickeberg handling young horses was fantastic. This however, is just the start of the program for these horses and the idea is then putting a good foundation on them where they can load, be trusted not to freak out at mundane things, all the day to day stuff that fill these posts over and over, before they go jumping or dressage or showing or whatever.
I referred to traditional methods because that is the predominant system being used here, I suppose it's not so much the method as the way people use it.
team barney
Well-Known Member
The racing argument is null and void, people in the racing industry are not traditional horsemen, they are business men (no offence to any race trains, grooms ect.). Racing is about getting a horse on the track and winning races, not training it to a high standard and style, it is purely based on speed. Due to the monies involved and the owners behind that money, racehorses (flat racers I should add) are started young, as the are retired young, racing isn't about a long career it is about a fruitful one. And for the record I don't think they should be racing as two year olds. However you seem to think Pat Parelli was justified in riding an untouched two year old after 2.5 hours training, in the end those babies had to display themselves in front of a huge crowd in sweltering heats. Not only did the have to walk trot and canter, the had to negotiate objects and drag a bale of hay! You only have to look at the pictures to see how exhausted the youngsters are. Parelli is a large heavy man, sitting on a two year old is cruelty. But Parelli has no respect for horses backs as you can from the "funny clip" at 37 sec in to this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2RRH9KKPjs
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
TB, you cannot just discount a whole industry and say it doesn't count. Moving the goal posts happens a lot, but running off with them is not on.
Yes I've seen the clips you post, I've seen hundreds of hours of Pat and sometimes I think 'why do that' other times you see something fantastic.
I know you have a real problem with Parelli and all their works, and I now think, having read a lot of your posts that we will always be diametrically opposed in our views.
I know you will always be making allegations of abuse and cruelty and if that is what you feel, ok. I don't see things in the same way you do, and I honestly feel that there is a lot more behind your campaigns, for you to have these reactions.
Like it or not the NH movement worldwide is growing at a phenominal rate, spearheaded by Parelli to a large extent. There is now a lot of support here on the H&H forum, where there was very little not long ago.
Nothing is perfect but I really do think a lot of the criticism of NH and Parelli in particular is spurious. I will continue to support NH and Parelli as I believe that this will benefit horses, and thats what this is all about.
Morgan123
Well-Known Member
Im interested in this could you explain WHY you think it will benefit horses. Why is it better than traditional stuff? How is it kinder?
Heres a vastly simplified summation of the three major schools of thought:
Parellli based on pressure and release (using various tools)
MR based on pressure and release (body language, various tools)
Traditional pressure and release (using body, various tools).
Its not the school of thought, its how you do it that makes the difference.
I have been through tonnes of the literature and demos and everything and there are major flaws with all of them in my view you just have to treat your own horse kindly and clearly and thats all there is to it really, in my opinion.
talkinghorse
Well-Known Member
Natural horsemanship and circus act contradict one another. Natural horsemanship can only be achieved when you have a few thousand acres of undisturbed countryside and turn your horses out there with everything that they need to live a fit and healthy natural life. Anything else may seem 'natural' to man, but it isn't natural to the horse.
What I want for my horses is something that is first and foremost influenced by the horse's nature and needs but ultimately permits me to do some very unnatural things with them like sitting on their backs to go shopping.
In terms of acceptable training methods, I will not hit or unduly coerce a horse, so Clinton Anderson, JeanFrançois Pignon and Pat Parelli are out and Klaus Ferdinand Hempfling, Steve Halfpenny and Monty Roberts are in. It's nothing to do with what's natural, it's to do taking violence out of working with your horse.
What I want for my horses is something that is first and foremost influenced by the horse's nature and needs but ultimately permits me to do some very unnatural things with them like sitting on their backs to go shopping.
In terms of acceptable training methods, I will not hit or unduly coerce a horse, so Clinton Anderson, JeanFrançois Pignon and Pat Parelli are out and Klaus Ferdinand Hempfling, Steve Halfpenny and Monty Roberts are in. It's nothing to do with what's natural, it's to do taking violence out of working with your horse.
Tinypony
Well-Known Member
Isn't it always going to be an issue though that one person's view of unduly coercing a horse will be absolutely fine for someone else?
I wince at the way some people deal with horses in fairly simple situations, such as maybe twitching just to clip, or walloping and shouting when they think a horse is being "rude". However, others will think I am too coercive because I will use a rope halter, and will flick a bit of my horse with the end of my rope (I use the word flick advisedly there, I don't mean a "phase 4" contact). Even people who use methods that are thought to really lack coercion, like clicker trainers, will disagree. For some anything other than working at liberty is coercion, whereas others are fine to have a halter or headcollar and rope and thefore restrict and guide the horse's options a bit.
So, whichever trainer you say you like, someone else will leap in and go off on one saying they disagree and that that trainer is coercive or maybe even abusive.
I think all we can do is set our own limits and make our personal decision about what sits right with us. Then work with trainers who enhance that. Also be prepared to agree to disagree, even with our trainers. I disagree with a couple of things that my main trainer is OK with, but that doesn't mean I dismiss everything he does. Babies and bathwater come to mind.
I wince at the way some people deal with horses in fairly simple situations, such as maybe twitching just to clip, or walloping and shouting when they think a horse is being "rude". However, others will think I am too coercive because I will use a rope halter, and will flick a bit of my horse with the end of my rope (I use the word flick advisedly there, I don't mean a "phase 4" contact). Even people who use methods that are thought to really lack coercion, like clicker trainers, will disagree. For some anything other than working at liberty is coercion, whereas others are fine to have a halter or headcollar and rope and thefore restrict and guide the horse's options a bit.
So, whichever trainer you say you like, someone else will leap in and go off on one saying they disagree and that that trainer is coercive or maybe even abusive.
I think all we can do is set our own limits and make our personal decision about what sits right with us. Then work with trainers who enhance that. Also be prepared to agree to disagree, even with our trainers. I disagree with a couple of things that my main trainer is OK with, but that doesn't mean I dismiss everything he does. Babies and bathwater come to mind.
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
I think that your simplified summation is vastly flawed, when you have found a method thats flawless, let me know. What you have said here is probably about right, ''you just have to treat your own horse kindly and clearly and thats all there is to it really, in my opinion.''
Tinypony
Well-Known Member
I could set us off on a whole new tangent thinking about that last statement. How many horses and ponies get totally stuffed up by well-meaning owners who think they are treating them kindly? And, thinking about it a bit more, how often can you sit on the sidelines watching someone dealing with a horse, when they think they are being clear, but from a distance it's easy to see they are confusing the heck out of the horse? An easy example of that for me would be the aimless and confused lunging that so many horses patiently learn to deal with. Constant "voice commands" that are thrown out in between pointless ramblings that must sound like white noise to the horse... lack of clear direction in body language and pointing of the whip, and yet, somehow, the horses manage to hurtle round in circles changing gait and halting roughly when required.
GingerCat
Well-Known Member
And a price tag too
...why are all things to do with NH so expensive...DVD's, halters, long lines etc. etc.Nothing new about NH, it used to be called Common sense and Empathy.
Last edited:
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
When people think of natural horsemanship that could mean a lot of things. It isn't natural for a horse to be around people, and it's not natural for a person to be sitting on him either. When we use these words we speak about what's natural for the horse to do within his own boundaries" - Bill Dorrance
Tinypony
Well-Known Member
I've got another one, that I've learnt through experience. Take circling - as in nh-type training. In Parelli we "lift it, lead it, send it..." - so we lift the rope and put a feel on the horse's head (ie give direction for the horse to come towards us). Then if the horse doesn't go out and on the circle, we send it, with direction from the stick and string, or maybe a tap or swish of the string on the shoulder. Horse then circles round, head on outside, rope tight, and we then balance them to try to get them to soften and get the rope slack by bumping on the head and maybe pushing in the direction of chest and rump.
Or, you could have a rule that you will never put a pull on the rope, so when you send the horse away you need to do it without pulling or putting any pressure on the rope at all. Using what your horse has already been taught, you could step the horse out sideways away from you, "push" the shoulder away, then put some "pressure" behind to ask for forwards. In doing this you have already set the horse up to be softer around you, and with the head tipped to the inside of the circle, because you haven't sent the head away. I know which seems clearer to me.
A friend of mine who posts here came up with an interesting test of how you can check how much you and your horse rely on the rope (this would be useful maybe before moving to liberty). She tucked the rope loosely in her belt and then found out how it all worked. Oh, before anyone asks, what is the point of that? The principle of no pull from the person and no pull or lean from the horse is that it extends to ridden work. It's the foundation for having a horse that is light on your hands and has good self carriage.
Or, you could have a rule that you will never put a pull on the rope, so when you send the horse away you need to do it without pulling or putting any pressure on the rope at all. Using what your horse has already been taught, you could step the horse out sideways away from you, "push" the shoulder away, then put some "pressure" behind to ask for forwards. In doing this you have already set the horse up to be softer around you, and with the head tipped to the inside of the circle, because you haven't sent the head away. I know which seems clearer to me.
A friend of mine who posts here came up with an interesting test of how you can check how much you and your horse rely on the rope (this would be useful maybe before moving to liberty). She tucked the rope loosely in her belt and then found out how it all worked. Oh, before anyone asks, what is the point of that? The principle of no pull from the person and no pull or lean from the horse is that it extends to ridden work. It's the foundation for having a horse that is light on your hands and has good self carriage.
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
I was trying to be nice. lol.
Tinypony
Well-Known Member
I disagree. Common sense and empathy are essential in a good horseman, but they are used alongside an approach/method, call it what you will, to training. The natural horsemen show us a style of training, BHS etc show us something a bit different. As would say an Italian cowboy someone who trains bullfighting horses.
Every time someone says "natural horsemanship is nothing new" I want to screech at the screen - no it isn't new and, the horsemen don't claim that it is. They talk about their trainers and their roots. Pat P says "this is so old it's new". Bill Dorrance, Ray Hunt, Buck Brannaman - they all acknowledge their learning and the history behind what they do. (Maybe the exception to this is Monty Roberts, who claims to have invented Join Up by observing mustangs, but I'm not sure if he would consider himself in the nh camp or not).
Morgan123
Well-Known Member
Pale Horse - you ignored my question? You said NH was kinder - can you explain in what way and why/how?
tinypony - agree with your posts, good point about it not just being 'doing what you think is right' - we all have a duty of care to learn and learn and reconsider all the time, I think.
tinypony - agree with your posts, good point about it not just being 'doing what you think is right' - we all have a duty of care to learn and learn and reconsider all the time, I think.
Tinypony
Well-Known Member
From the age of 3 until my late teens I was steeped in the way that most riders in this country learn to deal with horses. I rode conventionally, I added a stronger bit for control, I smacked and shouted when horses "took the piss". I hung off heads and legs when horses were protesting about things. This, let's be honest, is what we see and accept as normal on most livery yards.
I came back to horses after a break, started off down the same old route. Then one memorable dressage lesson had me sat in a loo at an equestrian centre in tears because I'd suddenly had a crashing attack of doubt about what I was being taught to do to the horse to get the results that would win the ribbons. I went to a Parelli Savvy Day (1998 I think) and as I walked in Pat Parelli said something that hit me to the core. He said roughly something like this: "Remember when you were a kid and you used to go down to the pasture to catch your pony, put the halter on his head, jump on and then gallop back to the yard without a care in the world? Where have those days gone?" I thought of the big dressage horse I'd been riding, in his double bridle, foaming at the mouth, me with two whips and biceps like Arnie and I never went back. I didn't stay in the Parelli programme, but it was the start of a lot of learning about completely new ideas and approaches that still keep me fascinated.
I think what I'm saying is that nh and other approaches to horsemanship offer us so many choices and opportunities to look at different ways of doing things with our horses, that MIGHT be an improvement on what we do now. So it always makes me sad when people dismiss such a huge and varied philosphy as nh based on judgements made about the price of one programme, or a few horses they've seen that were badly trained. I've got news, there are badly trained horses all over the country, 1,000's of them. Not all of their owners wave orange sticks. Not all of their owners ride either.
OK, ramble over... back to work. LOL!
I came back to horses after a break, started off down the same old route. Then one memorable dressage lesson had me sat in a loo at an equestrian centre in tears because I'd suddenly had a crashing attack of doubt about what I was being taught to do to the horse to get the results that would win the ribbons. I went to a Parelli Savvy Day (1998 I think) and as I walked in Pat Parelli said something that hit me to the core. He said roughly something like this: "Remember when you were a kid and you used to go down to the pasture to catch your pony, put the halter on his head, jump on and then gallop back to the yard without a care in the world? Where have those days gone?" I thought of the big dressage horse I'd been riding, in his double bridle, foaming at the mouth, me with two whips and biceps like Arnie and I never went back. I didn't stay in the Parelli programme, but it was the start of a lot of learning about completely new ideas and approaches that still keep me fascinated.
I think what I'm saying is that nh and other approaches to horsemanship offer us so many choices and opportunities to look at different ways of doing things with our horses, that MIGHT be an improvement on what we do now. So it always makes me sad when people dismiss such a huge and varied philosphy as nh based on judgements made about the price of one programme, or a few horses they've seen that were badly trained. I've got news, there are badly trained horses all over the country, 1,000's of them. Not all of their owners wave orange sticks. Not all of their owners ride either.
OK, ramble over... back to work. LOL!
Last edited:
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
team barney
Well-Known Member
I have nothing against "Natural Horsemanship", I have nothing against "Traditional Horsemanship" I have everything against abuse.
I am forced to come to the conclusion that you find the repeatedly striking a half blind horse in the face fully justified. And yes I have seen the entire footage and it was far more unpleasant than the cut down clip as the cruelty carried on much longer. I guess you also find it fully justified to use "level 4" force on a horse that is walking with perfect manners but whose speed is slightly to fast. Many people have seen the unedited clip as it was posted on Youtube and watched many times before Parelli inc. had it removed.
I have watched many of their DVD's shows etc. for my own education before coming to an informed opinion. Any organisation that reverts to the "you don't understand" argument to quieten dissenters and justify their own actions (Barney, Catwalk etc.) is highly questionable.
There is nothing more to my hate of Parelli than an all round hate of every form of horse abuse. I find the routine striking of any animal abhorrent and that is exactly what the Parelli program entails when you investigate it with your eyes open, not blinkered by marketing and prose.
Last edited:
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
Golf Girl
Well-Known Member
Excellent post Tinypony!
Morgan123
Well-Known Member
Tinypony
Well-Known Member
I thought she just meant it would benefit the horses Morgan123.
Golf Girl
Well-Known Member
TB I find your posts very disturbing. The language that you use, in particular your frequent use of the word 'hate' is just .... not quite right. I often wonder who you are and exactly what your REAL agenda is?
team barney
Well-Known Member
I have no "agenda"
I don't understand why you find my posts disturbing, but then I find Parelli-ites rather disturbing so I guess we are all disturbed by different things.
As far as I am aware this is the first time I have ever used the word hate, I certainly don't use it frequently. I do hate horse abuse though, doesn't everyone?
As for whom I am, I am a genuine horse lover. I believes that horses deserve to be treated with consistency and kindness, and if people can't managed kindness they should at least offer consistency. I am sure your opinions on the matter are very different but the Parelli program is far from consistent, even the carrot stick acts as a jekyll and hyde instrument.
Morgan123
Well-Known Member
Yes but WHY - I'm interested in eactly WHY NH would be any more beneficial to a horse than traditional methods, when the basis of them all is same. They're all about pressure and release and they are all flawed in some places but good in others, and they are all dangerous in the wrong hands. Why is NH more beneficial?