parelli? how do i go about it?

[Fellewell]

The action of pressure from the forequarters is something that horses take with them throughout their life, and a controlling horse will use this pressure to move the forequarters of other horses within the group. This once more is negative reinforcment which the horse can remove by stepping away. Here in the porcupine game, the handler is tapping into the horses own understanding of negative reinforcement, they are familiar with the concept and quickly step away. As horses always yield to a horse of a higher status within the group, here we are indicating to the horse that we should be considered of a higher status and therefore the decision maker, the leader. (quote Pale Rider)

This is why, the BHS always taught people to lead at the shoulder or forequarters because you are driving in that position. You are also safer

 

[Orangehorse]

I think what many of you are forgetting is the HUGE culture gap between USA and UK. The USA is a very different country. I have relatives living there. There are lots of things lurking in the countryside that can kill you - snakes, bears, lions, etc. - and also the horse's reaction to those "other things" can be very extreme. If they think they are in danger they will react suddenly and violently.

This is something that horses in the UK hardly ever have to confront, I think that even a domestic horse kept in the USA is more attuned to "danger." A wild horse taken from the herd is going to be a different horse to one born in the UK, nicely handled from birth. I can remember riding one horse through a wood and we were stalked by a coyote, about the size of an alsation dog, and my horse became very agitated. Also, if they saw a bear they didn't want to hang around in that place! So this is what is meant by USA trainers about horses "killing you." There is also, unfortunately, a macho culture where it is all too easy to resort to violence when handling any animal that isn't doing what is wanted. Again, I have witness this in the USA. If Parelli, Monty Roberts, etc. can get Americans, and others, to look at things from the horse's point of view this is surely a good thing.

I have been wary of Parelli, as I thought that if the handler didn't have a really good understanding of the method, body language, etc. it might be easy to confuse and muddle the horse. However, I have ridden horses trained "the Parelli way" - in the USA - and I have never had better trained, responsive and nice horses to handle and ride.

 

[Fellewell]

Yes horsemanship should be based on common sense and feel, two things you can't buy or be taught, you either have them or you don't. In my opinion you shouldn't be dealing with horses if you don't have common sense. No system is ever going to give you that horse instinct that tells you how to deal with an unpredictable situation, if anything system based education is destroying instinct and common sense as it replaces it with a set of rules and reactions for hypothetical situations.
Today 09:38 AM Team Barney

I'm not a 'natural' with horses. I had to learn everything I know and I'm still learning. There has to be a system for people like me
I defended La Parelli on one of those vids because there was a horse who did not respect its owners space, heck, it wasn't even aware of her existence.
In that situation where a horse has been allowed to completely disregard its handler firm action is needed IMO.

A while back, a young mum was showing a home bred youngster. The horse went up behind her in the ring and tragically she was killed. Sadly, sometimes instinct isn't enough.

 

[Morgan123]

so is parelli therefore based on the idea that all horses are dangerous? this is why people keep asserting the idea that the stick is also for protection - you use it wiht EVERY horse becasue it's an extension of your arm and saves you putting yourself in a 'dangerous' situation e.g. going near its back legs? this is a major flaw. If you take things slowly enough and use enough nice positive reinforcement enough there shouldn't be any dangerous situations - except in very extreme and unusual circumstances - so how come it's the opposite in parelli?

 

[fidleyspromise]

I think what many of you are forgetting is the HUGE culture gap between USA and UK. The USA is a very different country. I have relatives living there. There are lots of things lurking in the countryside that can kill you - snakes, bears, lions, etc. - and also the horse's reaction to those "other things" can be very extreme. If they think they are in danger they will react suddenly and violently.

This is something that horses in the UK hardly ever have to confront, I think that even a domestic horse kept in the USA is more attuned to "danger." A wild horse taken from the herd is going to be a different horse to one born in the UK, nicely handled from birth. I can remember riding one horse through a wood and we were stalked by a coyote, about the size of an alsation dog, and my horse became very agitated. Also, if they saw a bear they didn't want to hang around in that place! So this is what is meant by USA trainers about horses "killing you." There is also, unfortunately, a macho culture where it is all too easy to resort to violence when handling any animal that isn't doing what is wanted. Again, I have witness this in the USA. If Parelli, Monty Roberts, etc. can get Americans, and others, to look at things from the horse's point of view this is surely a good thing.

I have been wary of Parelli, as I thought that if the handler didn't have a really good understanding of the method, body language, etc. it might be easy to confuse and muddle the horse. However, I have ridden horses trained "the Parelli way" - in the USA - and I have never had better trained, responsive and nice horses to handle and ride.

I need to catch up on what has been said but this post caught my eye
I was thinking yesterday about parelli etc and a friend went for 6 months to a USA ranch where they train all their horses via parelli. It's as you've mentioned more extreme reactions of USA horses compared to UK horses - she came back and said that parelli seemed to make horses more nervous. Whether this is due to the way they went about the method, or because as you say horse reactions are more extreme - I'm not sure.

I could never understand WHY this was the case. I may ask this and see what replies I get?

I'm sure you were simply using this to make a statement? but not all horses in the UK are handled from birth (I've known 2 that were taken off mum unhandled at 3yrs old, several up to 12 yr olds that had been left to run "wild", and my own Newfie that was born on New Forest was basically unhandled until she came to me.

Would this not be the same vice versa then, if you had an unhandled older horse which is going to be a different horse to one born in the USA, nicely handled from birth?


I can definitely understand being wary of Parelli, because I do think the handler has to have a really good understanding of the method, body language, etc. (same as any method, which is why any novice owner should have sound expertise on their yard to help with issues). I wonder if this might be the reason so many people see horses screwed up by parelli? Instead of knowing the system AND what they're doing and why they're doing it, perhaps they're reading the horse wrong? I also think some strive for perfection and drill the horse so instead of moving on from level 1, they stay there and the horse becomes effectively "dead" to it (similar to continuously nagging with your leg during ridden exercise?

"However, I have ridden horses trained "the Parelli way" - in the USA - and I have never had better trained, responsive and nice horses to handle and ride." This suggests more to me then, WHY were those horses on the ranch my friend went to were nervous?

This was supposed to be a quick reply. I'll catch up on other answers later - got to go sort ponies.

 

[Orangehorse]

Don't know, I haven't done any Parelli training and know nothing of the theory.

The only thing I picked up from the owner of the horses is that the Parelli training shows the horse that being with the handler/rider is a very safe and very comfortable place to be and all the horses I dealt with were relaxed and friendly and very light and responsive to ride.

 

[Fellewell]

so is parelli therefore based on the idea that all horses are dangerous? this is why people keep asserting the idea that the stick is also for protection - you use it wiht EVERY horse becasue it's an extension of your arm and saves you putting yourself in a 'dangerous' situation e.g. going near its back legs? this is a major flaw. If you take things slowly enough and use enough nice positive reinforcement enough there shouldn't be any dangerous situations - except in very extreme and unusual circumstances - so how come it's the opposite in parelli?

There are horses who really don't have a nasty bone in their body and they're a joy and pleasure to be around, they'll have a home for life.

However, I suspect that for some horses Parelli is a kind of last chance saloon. Due to temperament, breeding, lack of proper handling or a combination of all three these horses get passed round and end up in the wrong place. Parelli ends up with the final product which probably is dangerous.

What do you mean by 'enough nice positive reinforcement'?

 

[Queenbee]

hi all

im not a parelli nut but i have been doing it casually for over a year with my horse since he was 2 hes now 3 1/2.

he has excellent ground manners and i started him myself using parelli methods.

i dont really understand how people can bash it if they cant be bothered to look into it properly. and if you dont want to look into it dont bother commenting on something you know nothing about.

if you do it properly your horse will understand exactly what you want him to do.

normally peopls reasons for not likeing parelli is:
the price of the equipment- most horse equipment is expensive
pat himself- can be annoying so i'll give you that one

nothing generally to do with the method. its just a different way of doing something, tho i have seen it mentioned that its just common sense and for beginners really, well i have seen plenty of people lacking said common sense and plenty who should go back to basics.

if you are serious about finding more the free trial on parelli connect and the digital membership for £6 per month after that if you like it is the best way to go.

1: those who bash it without looking into it properly can see that the 'practices and methodology of Parelli are flawed' There are also those who have looked into it very thoroughly and still come out with the same opinion.

You are correct PP and LP are irritants, and they are commercial, this annoys the hell out of people, but it is nothing to do with why people dislike them, we are not shallow, we dislike their practices, and the visible effects that they have on the horse.

I tried PC, there is no commonsense there that you could not find in this world for free, and I really think to teach '1:1 work with horses in parelli, which is notorious in the right hands let alone the wrong 'naive' hands, is... 'questionable at best.

 

[Morgan123]

However, I suspect that for some horses Parelli is a kind of last chance saloon. Due to temperament, breeding, lack of proper handling or a combination of all three these horses get passed round and end up in the wrong place. Parelli ends up with the final product which probably is dangerous.

What do you mean by 'enough nice positive reinforcement'?

I think that's a bit sad. 99.9 percent of horses are basically nice, so those that become diffiuclt tend to have been mistreated in some way, whether that's blatant mistreatment (abuse) or whethr it's spoiling them, etc etc. But whatever the reason - people tend to make them like that - and it's a bit of a shame that their 'lkast chance saloon' is therefore a method based on extreme (by whihc i mean very frequent and recurrent) negative reinforcement based. Of course we all know all methods - even positive reinforcement programmes - employ SOME type of negative reinforcement, but given the problems wiht parelli APPEAR to come from the overuse of -ve re and the problem wiht that then evolvig into punishments, isn't oit a shame to use this as a last resort?

when you could, for example, start afresh and do things differently? use a clicker and positive reinforcement? which works wonders on most horses and their attitudes, whatever the problem. Seems to me that's a much more ethical type of lst chance saloon (though of course they still need boundaries and all that stuff - I just think that's so much of a more useful approach and much more pleasant?

 

[Morgan123]

Also if it's a last chance saloon type deal whihc is created for horses in the US which have all these extreme bhaviours etc etc - then why is it marketed to often novicey or nervous riders in Europe, without being altered in any way? surely in that case it should be clearly marked as needing adaptation?

 

[Queenbee]

But GeeGee my horse had excellent manners on the ground too and I never touched Parelli. From a foal I trained her with common sense and respect and ended up with exactly what I wanted, a well behaved horse that willingly did whatever I requested without any resentment or fear....

...I'm not bashing Parelli I just don't understand why it's needed. I think someone earlier hit the nail on the head when they said it was for the owner's benefit more than horse. Whatever happened to good old common sense?

It strikes me that Parelli is more a system for training people,than for training horse.

Yes horsemanship should be based on common sense and feel, two things you can't buy or be taught, you either have them or you don't.

It's not common it's rare is sense. I don't dispute many can get by doing whatever they do, yes some people need help, and these forums bare witness to that.
.

so what we are saying then (it seems that there is a general consensus from both the pro parelli people and the 'bashers) is that Parelli is for people with no common sense?

Got it.

 

[geegee84]

hedgewitch- i never said it was the only way its just a way that suited us.

same as your way suited you.

but i don't say i cant see the need to do it your way (whatever that was) whats so wrong with the parelli method that in your view it shouldn't be used? i am assuming you feel that way otherwise you wouldn't have said what you did. its not cruel so why not?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
My horse is not scared of me hes never been smacked or hit or even shouted at ever, quite the opposite. he gets treats when he does something that makes me really happy which i find really works on him as hes very food motivated.

i agree it is for the benefit of the owners as the horse is already thought to know the "games" as they are based on horse behavior.

queenbee- "1: those who bash it without looking into it properly can see that the 'practices and methodology of Parelli are flawed' "
how can someone possibly know this without looking into it?!?!?!?

i have personally seen horses turned around but these methods, horses who have come from a very "traditional" background with loads of baggage become obviously happy horses.

(the same horse being subjected to traditional solutions which had no effect or provoked the situation or added to the baggage)

is that the "visible" effect you were on about?
not saying "traditional" methods cause problems as the problem is always the person not the method or the horse.

you only have to look on you tube at what some people subject horses to to see that parelli is by far not the worst thing that can happen to a horse and in some cases it might be the best.

we all have our own opinions and i have my opinions on more traditional methods but i wouldn't bash them as each to their own i just wouldn't do that with my horse.

 

[Queenbee]

queenbee- "1: those who bash it without looking into it properly can see that the 'practices and methodology of Parelli are flawed' "
how can someone possibly know this without looking into it?!?!?!?

Because to see a truly confused and distressed horse when it is being trained and it is unsure of what the handler wants from it is flawed, sure the handler may get the desired outcome in the end, but I do not think that this excuses or argues for that type of methodology, especially when the horse could have learnt what the handler was trying to teach in a far more calm and relaxed environment. There is therefore no need to look into the whys or wherefores to see that that practice is inherantly wrong, and I do not say that for parelli alone, I say it for any demo or incident of handling that I witness, whatever the approach/methodology used, when it is causing unnecessary stress and confusion in an animal.

i have personally seen horses turned around but these methods, horses who have come from a very "traditional" background with loads of baggage become obviously happy horses.

I will not argue with you there, I have heard of such horses, but I have also seen horses turned around with other 'natural methods' and many turned around after being emotionally butchered by commercial 'natural' methods. I believe it comes back to the topic that seems quite 'central' to this debate, it is the handler, what ever the methodology that turns these horses around, not the methodology itself, it is called common sense.

Let us veiw these methods and practices as tools, and compare them to the bit:

We have many different 'types' of bit, some for example the 'snaffle' are considered 'milder' and some, for example the 'kimblewick' are considered harsher. The the bit is actually as severe or mild as the hands of the rider, exactly the same can be said for any kind of training method, across the board, the method is as severe or mild as the handler, and as effective or useless as the handler.

you only have to look on you tube at what some people subject horses to to see that parelli is by far not the worst thing that can happen to a horse and in some cases it might be the best.

I totally agree with you here, there are some appauling people out there and I would happily leave PP standing in his own little commercial world for the chance to swat those people with a ruddy great big fly swatter, but c'mon neither is he the best by far.

To be honest, I really do not think that Parelli is a great template for teaching those without common sense, because I think that to use this method in anywhere near a truly sympathetic and effective way you need to have a LOT of common sense. But I equally do not think that any 'school of thought' either monty roberts, traditional, Riding School, PP, has it nailed, the reason is simply this, horse have a brain, you can no more put a template to them and expect it to fit them all, than you can with humans.

I think that the best that us humans can expect from ourselves is that we do have common sense, we are responsive, responsible, sypathetic, adaptable, quick to react, and empathic with the horses, above all that we own our own mistakes and do not project them onto the horse, we must remain calm and unruffled at all times. Yes, PP does preach these things, and we see him practicing these things with his prevideoed demo's with the well behaved 'calm' horses, but when we see the reality, I just feel that there a huge difference between what he says and what he does. You can see this difference in the horses and it is not nice to see.

 

[amandap]

Just to throw a spanner in the works. I don't think common sense is enough myself. Education is vital as well. None of us, despite what some may think, are born knowing about horses, we have to learn and for me the only basis of any training is putting that animals needs at the centre.

Of course those of us who feel we use NH in whatever guise are deemed to have no common sense from the perpective of others. I've known that for many years. It's just taken me a very long time to come to terms with it.

 

[Fellewell]

I think that's a bit sad. 99.9 percent of horses are basically nice, so those that become diffiuclt tend to have been mistreated in some way, whether that's blatant mistreatment (abuse) or whethr it's spoiling them, etc etc. But whatever the reason - people tend to make them like that - and it's a bit of a shame that their 'lkast chance saloon' is therefore a method based on extreme (by whihc i mean very frequent and recurrent) negative reinforcement based. Of course we all know all methods - even positive reinforcement programmes - employ SOME type of negative reinforcement, but given the problems wiht parelli APPEAR to come from the overuse of -ve re and the problem wiht that then evolvig into punishments, isn't oit a shame to use this as a last resort?

when you could, for example, start afresh and do things differently? use a clicker and positive reinforcement? which works wonders on most horses and their attitudes, whatever the problem. Seems to me that's a much more ethical type of lst chance saloon (though of course they still need boundaries and all that stuff - I just think that's so much of a more useful approach and much more pleasant?

If only it was as straight forward as treat based training but I respect your stance. Looking at the bigger picture, a high profile operation like Parelli is there for all to dissect and discuss. Maybe I should have said they're the last chance before a very uncertain future in the auctions. Maybe EMW doesn't see Pat Parelli as a fate worse than death.

 

[Queenbee]

Just to throw a spanner in the works. I don't think common sense is enough myself. Education is vital as well. None of us, despite what some may think, are born knowing about horses, we have to learn and for me the only basis of any training is putting that animals needs at the centre.

Of course those of us who feel we use NH in whatever guise are deemed to have no common sense from the perpective of others. I've known that for many years. It's just taken me a very long time to come to terms with it.

Well its very much like the 'intelligence' nature v's nurture debate isn't it. I remember that was the first assignment that we were asked to complete at university. Nearly everyone argued the case for one or the other. There were only a few of us that actually argued that it was a combination of both that led to overall intelligence. The thing is that it never even occurred to me that I should pick one or the other, it seemed obvious to me (that bloody common sense again ) that it was a combination of both. It is the same here, it is a combination of factors that lead to an individual being a good horseman, and yes I do agree that education is a key factor, but I think this is education in its broadest terms and i recognise that it is never ending. Whilst I have had lessons, been at bigger yards, been educated by observation of others, learnt by both their good practices and their mistakes, learnt from my own experiences with horses, read the written word, watched demos etc. I still know so little You show me a man/ woman who knows everything there is to know about horses and I will show you a liar

 

[meesha]

ooohhh this is a long and involved thread - not enough time to read all of it - have to say love what I have seen of Monty Roberts - his attitude and approach. Parelli does seem full of gadgets and tricks (wont say circus tricks as will get shot down in flames - wont mention the standing a horse on a tractor tyre !)

The only thing that is a definite is that the person responsible for parelli marketing would be worth employing ! wonder if they could grow my business like that !


retreats ...........

 

[Dancing Queen]

And just to lighten the mood;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRmxcASjR5s&list=FLNoLFOUrRPR5_GpAJQandBg&index=70

 

[Morgan123]

If only it was as straight forward as treat based training but I respect your stance. Looking at the bigger picture, a high profile operation like Parelli is there for all to dissect and discuss. Maybe I should have said they're the last chance before a very uncertain future in the auctions. Maybe EMW doesn't see Pat Parelli as a fate worse than death.

I don't see why it isn't as simple as that?! If by treat-based training you mean positive reinforcement programmes (which aren't necessarily treat-based). I know a couple of animal rescue centres have done studies where they've taken two groups of ponies and done negative reinforcement programmes with one and positive reinforcement with the other, and have found the positive reinforcement group readier to learn, more confident and also quicker to get safe enough to rehome. I don;t see why parelli is the best 'last chance' before an uncertain future - in fact, because it is so extreme, perhaps it really is not the best sort of last chance a horse can be offered! Particularly as we see and hear of so many cases of horses being ruined or abused with it?!

 

[Dancing Queen]

WOW! Good Lord!

Personally everyone has a choice - Parelli or not Parelli. The way i see it is ; the world will not end because you pick the wrong one!

I would Not train my horses the Parelli way - I believe in normal good old fashioned common sense.

I despise anyone hurting or frightening an animal. Now Rightly or wrongly the clips TB posted, one shows the horse clearly disliking being flicked in the face. I watched that and felt very uncomfortable.
I would not like to be flicked/slapped across the face when i was learning algebra so i would not subject my horse to it.

The Parellis make me uncomfortable;their methods do not sit well with me; I cannot stop it, but I can make a decision NOT to use their methods. And for that reason I would not give any of my money subscribing to their training method.

I do believe the OP is a Troll - they seem to have vanished.

Each to their own - but not for me.

 

[Fellewell]

I don't see why it isn't as simple as that?! If by treat-based training you mean positive reinforcement programmes (which aren't necessarily treat-based). I know a couple of animal rescue centres have done studies where they've taken two groups of ponies and done negative reinforcement programmes with one and positive reinforcement with the other, and have found the positive reinforcement group readier to learn, more confident and also quicker to get safe enough to rehome. I don;t see why parelli is the best 'last chance' before an uncertain future - in fact, because it is so extreme, perhaps it really is not the best sort of last chance a horse can be offered! Particularly as we see and hear of so many cases of horses being ruined or abused with it?!

I didn't say he was the 'best last chance' but since he's the subject matter I made the point that if people took their horse to him at least they were looking for solutions. I never saw a ruined horse, they can always be brought back in the right hands, usually by someone who is BHS trained

 

[Fellewell]

Thanks so much for this

(I haven't laughed that much since the PF thread)

 

[Mare Stare]

I think you have to use common sense alongside whatever training method you use.

Any muppet can watch a horse training DVD or read a few books but that doesn't mean that they can train horses.

It's all about what works for you and your horse.

 

[Pale Rider]

I think you have to use common sense alongside whatever training method you use.

Any muppet can watch a horse training DVD or read a few books but that doesn't mean that they can train horses.

It's all about what works for you and your horse.

This is true, any amount of academic study via DVD or books or whatever doesn't mean you can train a horse. However, I am fully in favour of as much training material of any school being out there and available, so anyone can see it and have some sort of informed choice.

With the web and all, eveyone is far more informed than they were years ago, or should be, when hardly anything was available except a few books and some local instructors, who may be ok or not.

I agree that it would be nice to see a lot more common sense involved in horses.

 

[Pale Rider]

I think most people who have even a basic understanding of negative reinforcement realise that pretty much everyone uses it to some extent, including people who are very good positive reinforcers. To be honest I haven't seen a lot of people bemoaning negative reinforcement in Parelli, using that actual term. I have seen people bemoaning the harsher aspects of the training system, such as the use of the bull clip and over-use of the stick (maybe some would argue that Phase 4 comes into that category). There is also often criticism of Parelli for mis-using scientific terminology such as "positive reinforcement" and promoting flawed views of equine behaviour - but calling it equine behaviour.

I think you're trying very hard here Palerider and I applaud you for that. I've got to say though that in my opinion your response to morgan123 demonstrates some mis-use of terminology, and I don't think that's the best way to explain what happens in the training.

You seem to be falling into the trap of seeing negative reinforcement as a negative thing, just what Skinner didn't want, lets face it everyone has their own interpretation, understanding and mis conceptions about these theories, and lots of work debunks the whole lot.

I know that you have moved on from Parelli as have lots of other NH trainers, and the reasons are all individual, in many cases nothing to do with the training per se. This I think is a really good thing as it drives things forward and gives people more choice, and one trainer may appeal where another doesn't.

From my point of view, I've seen things move on so much in the last 20 yrs, I'm well satisfied with the progerss NH has made in the UK, a lot of it spurred on by Parelli, and in another 20 yrs a lot of the traditional stuff will be a memory.

For me the more pressing issue now, is getting people to educate themselves about looking after horses properly and stop killing them with sugar and cereals, and if people must have horses, ride them.

 

[Tinypony]

You seem to be falling into the trap of seeing negative reinforcement as a negative thing, just what Skinner didn't want, lets face it everyone has their own interpretation, understanding and mis conceptions about these theories, and lots of work debunks the whole lot.

I don't know how you work that out from what I said. I understand negative reinforcement and certainly don't associate it with "negative" things. What I said was that I haven't seen a lot of people "bemoaning" the use of negative reinforcement in Parelli, using that actual term. They do however bemoan the harsh aspects of the training (among other things).

I also disagree that "everyone has their own interpretations, understanding and mis conceptions about these theories". Some people may mis understand, as I think your earlier posts clearly demonstrate, but many understand them and understand that the definitions are clear and not open to some sort of flexible interpretation. +R, -R etc are what they are and I think quite easy to understand. Anyone who thinks they can be flexibly interpreted should look them up. We all use negative reinforcement.

(This all said with a friendly grin).

Edited to say that this bleedin' quote thing gets on my nerves sometimes...

 

[Pale Rider]

You seem to be falling into the trap of seeing negative reinforcement as a negative thing, just what Skinner didn't want, lets face it everyone has their own interpretation, understanding and mis conceptions about these theories, and lots of work debunks the whole lot.

I don't know how you work that out from what I said. I understand negative reinforcement and certainly don't associate it with "negative" things. What I said was that I haven't seen a lot of people "bemoaning" the use of negative reinforcement in Parelli, using that actual term. They do however bemoan the harsh aspects of the training (among other things).

I also disagree that "everyone has their own interpretations, understanding and mis conceptions about these theories". Some people may mis understand, as I think your earlier posts clearly demonstrate, but many understand them and understand that the definitions are clear and not open to some sort of flexible interpretation. +R, -R etc are what they are and I think quite easy to understand. Anyone who thinks they can be flexibly interpreted should look them up. We all use negative reinforcement.

(This all said with a friendly grin).

Edited to say that this bleedin' quote thing gets on my nerves sometimes...

LOL, round and round we go.

Been discussing this stuff till I'm blue in the face, no two people in our dept. sees things the same.

I've decided that a 16hh rat is the best solution all round to replace horses completely, they like living in stables, will eat any old ruddish, very trainable and would certainly not be popular.

 

[Dancing Queen]

 

[amandap]

I've decided that a 16hh rat is the best solution all round to replace horses completely, they like living in stables, will eat any old ruddish, very trainable and would certainly not be popular.

LOL! That makes so much sense!

When I said education, I didn't mean DVD's etc. I was meaning education about horses as a species rather than what we think is best or what is best because that's the way it's done...

To me negative reinforcement is the primary theoretical thing we do.Training and interacting with horses imo would be very difficult, possibly unpleasant for the horse and somewhat tortuous without it.

 

[YorksG]

I must confess to not having read the whole thread, but would like to point out that any understanding of animal behaviour is coloured by the experience and prejudices of the observer. This was fairly apparent when the behaviour of some animals was re-observed/interpreted, with very different understanding reached, from the original Victorian era natural history observation. This was around the idea that the male of all species was the leader, was in charge of the group etc. This was the observation made by men, who had a belief system that males would be 'in charge' as this was their understanding of the world. I am sure that misinterpretation is just as rife now, as the observations and interpretations will be filtered through the cultural understanding of the observer.