parelli? how do i go about it?

Heavens this does exercise people, doesn't it?

One post stuck out for me about someone being able to ride a horse in just a headcollar and leadrope after a NH session. Why would I want to do this?

Surely this is each to their own? If people want to use these methods then let them. It's not for me, I don't wish to line Mr Parelli's pockets by falling for his evangelical patter. I can't believe these methods do any more harm, wrongly used, than 'traditional' methods. There are numpties everywhere!
 
YorksG said:
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.
Click to expand...
Great post and so true! Some of it calls itself 'science' too. ;)
I am a great believer in science, always have been, but no longer science done with an agenda. I've learned to guard against that I hope.
 
Finally entering a Parelli thread that I was determined to stay out of... but I'm going to stick to general points, not commenting about Parelli! :cool:

Pale Rider said:
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.
Click to expand...
Negative reinforcement isn't necessarily negative (i.e. bad) - I agree with you. I also fully agree with Amandap when she writes:

amandap said:
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.
Click to expand...

It has the potential to become problemmatic when it is overdone or not done well - i.e. the aversive bit is too strong, unnecessarily frequent, and/or there is no release or it is poorly timed, possibly in such a way that what should be a reinforcer becomes a punisher. I think there is much more to be gained by improving the quality of negative reinforcement rather than seeking to eliminate it from our repertoire - if that were even practically possible, which I personally don't believe it is. That said, the best negative reinforcements are, imo, the ones that still work even when the aversive bit is diminished almost to nothing. 'Nuff said.

Pale Rider said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'd be interested to hear which aspects of traditional training you'd like to see become "a memory".

amandap said:
Great post and so true! Some of it calls itself 'science' too. ;)
I am a great believer in science, always have been, but no longer science done with an agenda. I've learned to guard against that I hope.
Click to expand...
I'm a great believer in science too, being a scientist myself (supposedly). ;) In it's purest form - as a way of finding out the truth - it cannot be bettered in my opinion. But there will always be an agenda (or agendas), especially so if the work is being paid for - not necessarily a bad one - for example, one agenda behind medical research is ultimately to save lives and/or improve the quality of life. For better or worse, one can't get rid of the "cultural filtering" either - and sometimes the science itself is fine, but becomes corrupted in the way it is reported or applied.
 
fburton said:
Finally entering a Parelli thread that I was determined to stay out of...
Click to expand...
I gave up, or is that in, a while ago. I was determined to stay out of all training and behaviour threads not so long ago. :rolleyes:

Re science, I try to understand the who and what behind it now and their thinking, especially with observational science.
 
Behavioural sciences are very much open to interpretation, again based on the cultural filters of the observers. If you look at the work on attachment in humans, the cultural biases are pretty obviouse in terms of western culture versus oriental/african and asian subcontinent cultures. The actual observations are the key, rather than the interpretations. The changes in interpretation over historical time are also quite marked, again the observations may well remain the same, the interpretation changes. :)
 
Orangehorse said:
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. .
Click to expand...

That's nonsense. A horse is a horse is a horse. They don't know whether they live in America or anywhere else.

They are hardwired to react instinctively to perceived danger, regardless of where they were born or sourced.
 
Last edited:
Pale Rider said:
We don't want to put pressure on the head as you would with some of the control halters..
Click to expand...

Why not? Surely it is by the application of pressure on all relevant parts of its body that the horse learns to yield.

Pale Rider said:
If the horse chooses to pull back it gets the stimulus of pressure on the poll, the horse itself can quickly relieve that pressure by stopping pulling and or stepping forward..
Click to expand...

Not if it is restrained whilst that pressure is experienced. It is the responsibility of the handler to ensure that the pressure is released before the horse begins to resist. The above statement may only apply if the horse has previously been taught correctly to yield to pressure.

Pale Rider said:
..once again this is negative reinforcement coming into play, the removal of the stimuli is in the control of the horse..
Click to expand...

Negative reinforcement is in the domain of the handler, not of the horse.

Pale Rider said:
..Most horses quickly understand that a loose lead rope equates to comfort around the poll area, this really does eliminate the horse getting into a tug of war or dragging the handler around, without conseqence...
Click to expand...

Horses learn to yield to pressure. They learn that to follow the handler, and to be attentive and compliant, equates to no pressure. It has nothing to do with their ability to observe a loose lead rope. Any potential for a horse to get into a tug of war or drag their handler around is directly attributable to the ability of the handler to avoid that scenario. You speak as if the horse merely has to learn to keep the lead rope slack and this is enough to 'eliminate' any risk of him pulling away from the handler. If only it were that simplistic.

Pale Rider said:
..This once more is negative reinforcment which the horse can remove by stepping away....
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The handler is the source of negative reinforcement, and can only implement it after the horse has given its response.

Pale Rider said:
..Some people fail to appreciate exactly what it is they are conveying to the horse in these exercises or games, and become fixated with the task itself. This I feel, leads to some people drilling their horses, but this is always the fault of the human in failing to truely understand the purpose of the games. It is a common fault with horse people that they want to practice the end result rather than the steps to get there.
Click to expand...

This is possibly the most accurate description of PNH adherents that I have ever read.
 
Last edited:
Dolly- Seeing your posts tonight, I think it may be better for you to start your own thread ( NOT revolving around the whole parelli thing though :) ) Give people an idea of your horses background but more importantly get some advice on the issues you are having with your horse just now. I am sure there are lots of people who would offer good advice. Good Luck x
 
Sherbie said:
There have been a few reappearing tonight, I wondered the same. I think Dolly1971 is looking for some info, sounds as if she/he is having some issues with thier horse x
Click to expand...

Possibly. Or she's a regular poster is disguise deliberately unearthing old, contentious threads? Why not start a new thread otherwise, as newbies usually do, or unearth one of the much more recent, less contentious parelli threads?
 
FionaM12 said:
Possibly. Or she's a regular poster is disguise deliberately unearthing old, contentious threads? Why not start a new thread otherwise, as newbies usually do, or unearth one of the much more recent, less contentious parelli threads?
Click to expand...
What, to give someone else the opportunity to make it contentious?? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top