Parelli statement in re: Catwalk

Abay said:
I might be wrong, but did the vet not look at Catwalk on the Friday night.
Click to expand...

lets apply Occam's razor... and what do we get?

1. the obvious answer that there was no cut/lesion?
or
2. a fully fledged conspiracy is underway with the vet 'in on it'?

Yip agree with you, must be 2...
 
soo... all those letters and he never actually apologised for how he treated the horse, instead he chose to fumble and use certain words that justified his actions which in my eyes isn't really an apology.
arse and hole comes to mind.
 
TrecInWales said:
lets apply Occam's razor... and what do we get?

1. the obvious answer that there was no cut/lesion?
or
2. a fully fledged conspiracy is underway with the vet 'in on it'?

Yip agree with you, must be 2...
Click to expand...

I do apologise for asking.
Fully fledged conspiracy under way, what are you rambling on about???????
 
I don't get why he says that catwalk was more challenging than expected. When one assumes the bridling issue must have been pretty serious for a professional yard to be struggling with it.

eta and he had the gum line in his pocket anyway... he didnt have to go find one...
 
I can't believe people pay their hard earned money to watch these people spout utter rubbish about horse care and training.
The amount of money it costs to set yourself up with "carrot sticks" etc and the plethora of DVDs which should only be available in bargain basement bins at a local petrol garage...These people obliviously have more money than sense

If you want to teach your horse to do circus tricks, these are the right muppets for you but what really annoys me that anyone who treats their horse with respect and common sense is labeled as a "Parelli" or "Natural Horsemanship" follower.

This man couldn't control Catwalk and resorted to "methods" that were abusive. A short sorry statement on a website with a suspect vet letter does nothing to appease my suspicions of this way of treating and training horses.

If this is his public demonstration i would hate to think what it's like behind the close doors when a horse doesn't accept having a rope being wiggled at it to walk backwards or being hit with a carrot stick!!!

Grrr Rant over
 
I have only dipped in and out of all the threads so may be missing something, but that vets report said he examined Catwalk at 11.00 am on 10th July. Was the demonstration first thing in the morning then, or did he examine him before he was used.:confused:
 
I think the timeline goes something like this

Friday 9th July actual demonstration and from what has been reported this particular horse was the subject for approximately 3 hours

Fridy 9th July people complained - not sure to whom, some people were give a refund, some people report that Mr Parelli and/or Mr Whitaker said that they weren't obliged to talk to people

Friday 9th July it's alleged someone called a BHS vet who examined the horse and said it was not to be used in further demonstrations because of an injury to its mouth
- it has been debated whether or not the horse was to be used in further demonstrations, some people say yes, some people say no but there is published material to say that he would be used

Saturday 10th the incident is raised on here and discussions and debates have continued

Saturday 10th Mr Parelli continued to work with the horse in private - some of his own postings claim he worked with the horse for 7 hours in the Saturday

Saturday 10th at 11:00 allegedly a vet examines the horse and reports no injury - presumably this was before the 7 hours work commenced

Saturday 10th July mixed reports about who was actually present:
- eye witness reports say Mr Whitaker was there
- friends of Mr Whitaker claim he wasn't there
- a statement from Mr Whitaker says he was there

Saturday 10th July postings are made about complaints to Mr Parelli, Mr Whitaker, the organisers, and BHS

Satuday 17th July Mr Parelli posts an open letter on Youtube in which he refers to a veterinary report made by an independent vet and confirming the horse was not injured and its welfare not compromised


So the questions that still need answeing are:

who was the vet who examined the horse on the night of the demonstration and will they give a written report?

who called the independent vet for a report?

why did the independent vet only report on the horse's mouth and not the whole horse? Concern about the injury to the mouth was only voiced on the internet AFTER 10th July so why concentrate just on the mouth?

is the independent vet, who was Chief Veterinary Officer for Royal Festival of the Horse, truly independent - surely there was conflict of interest?

why did the independent vet not have a stamp, same as most UK vets do?

why has Mr Parelli not been able to provide video evidence to refute the edited video that has been posted?

why did it take a week for Mr Parelli to apologise?


and so it goes on...
 
What stuck out most was what we were left looking at when the vid had finished, the Parelli LOGO.

How sad and just proves it's all about "The Brand"
 
Well I was beginning to lose the will to live just waiting for the damn thing to upload but that might have been my equipment.
When I finally managed to read it I can't say my mood improved. He PLANNED to use the equipment that he used because otherwise he wouldn't have taken it into the demo. And as for the horse being more difficult than expected, did PP not visit the horse in a stable and watch him being bridled by familiar people? ( Admittedly some of Whitaker's grooms are very young and there for unlikely to have the experience to deal with this problem but at least the horse knows them). That's what any-one with any sense at all would do. And then factor in the extra stress caused by being in the demonstration with an audience.
How PP can state that he would never tolerate abuse of a horse after every-one has seen just that I simply do not know.
Incidentally I have used a rope to persuade a stallion to lift its leg when it preferred not to and have used a nose twitch very successfully on several occasions. So I have no objections to the practices per se. But in each instance I have only used these methods for a very short time because they are NOT SUITABLE for extended use. And I have never and would never use a gum line to twitch a horse. I do hope that Catwalk has not, to use PP's words 'been pushed over the edge'.
 
Cheers Pat! Thank god it was just my confusion and misunderstanding that conned my eyes into seeing a frightened and distressed horse. I guess really he was just stood there calmly, and it was my confusion that made me see him rear. Or maybe he was just dancing a jig of joy at being so lucky as to work with the great Pat Parelli??? Glad you cleared that up, now i can rest safe int he knowledge that i don't even know enough about horse behaviour to know what rearing and running away means.

Oh, and thanks for the appology..... oh no, wait, there was none.
 
I didn't think a 'gum line' was a twitch. I thought it acted like a daisy rein. A daisy rein does nothing until the pony (usually) tries to put its head down to graze and then gets a no-two-ways-about-it 'jab' in the mouth, via (directly or indirectly) the bit. Same could be said of an incorrectly adjusted running martingale. A standing martingale merely gives a tug on the nose and poll, two quite insensitive areas of the horse's head, as we all know.

Either way, all of these 'gadgets' rely on the horse putting two and two together - their action and the gadget's reaction to it. Hopefully they won't figure out that for the commonly found equipment I just mentioned, a bridle has to be fitted before they work. If you can get it on, that is...
 
I think that some are missing a big point here. That is, that Pat P, in his view, has nothing to apologise for. In his opinion what he did to Catwalk was fine, justified and a correct course of action, and that is clear from this statement. This video is not an APOLOGY it is a STATEMENT, entirely different.
If you think that Pat P is going to apologise for the way he dealt with Catwalk you've got a long wait.
 
Tannis said:
I think the timeline goes something like this




Saturday 10th July mixed reports about who was actually present:
- eye witness reports say Mr Whitaker was there
- friends of Mr Whitaker claim he wasn't there
- a statement from Mr Whitaker says he was there


i didnt know robert whitaker had made a statement???????????????
Click to expand...
 
So where does this BHS statement, emailed out to many people, fit in?

"Dear All,

Thank you for your emails to the BHS regarding the recent Parelli demonstration at the Festival of the Horse. It probably won’t surprise you to learn that we have received an extremely large number of emails concerning this and I apologise for the fact that I cannot respond to each one of them individually. I hope that this group email will contain the information that you asked for (please note you have been blind copied in on this so your email address will not be seen by other recipients).

I think I need to make it clear that nobody was officially representing the BHS at the demonstration. This means that we have no first hand knowledge of what went on and are having to rely on accounts from others. I am aware that there is video footage in existence but what I have seen is poor quality and it is quite hard to determine exactly what was going on. What I can tell you is that when a concerned individual made a complaint to a member of BHS staff on our stand at the Festival, that BHS staff member arranged for a vet to inspect Catwalk. As a consequence of this Catwalk was not allowed to take part in any subsequent demos. There is no more that could have been done at the time as we were not the show organisers and had no specific remit over what went on. The member of staff concerned is not part of the welfare team but acted exceptionally quickly and took absolutely the most appropriate action available to her.

Further than this I cannot comment on this particular incident. As I assume you will understand it is not (for many reasons) appropriate or useful to discuss individual ongoing welfare investigations.

What I can say is that the BHS recognises that there is room for many different schools of horsemanship. Whichever one an individual chooses to follow it is important to retain an open mind and be receptive to other ideas. However, whichever methods are employed we do not consider it acceptable to cause pain, fear or unnecessary distress to a horse. We are also very much anti the use of unnecessary equipment and would stress the importance of maintaining human and equine safety as the paramount concerns at all times.

If you would like to discuss this further please do not hesitate to contact me directly although please bear in mind that I am out of the office at meetings until Friday.

Yours

Lee

Lee Hackett

Senior Executive, Welfare

Tel: 01926 707804"
 
Have to agree, it's a fairly useless statement. The idea that this horse was "one of the 3 most challenging" horses he's worked with is pretty bizarre, frankly. In the videos - all of them, the edited one Parelli posted and those taken by attendees - Catwalk looks scared and unhappy but he doesn't look like he's all that difficult to handle. In fact, he looks like a pretty good-natured horse on the whole.
 
Tannis said:
I think this what the letter says - punctuation and capitals as shown:




10th July 2010

To whom it may concern

Details of Equine

NAME Catwalk IV
102ww23 (not sure about the ww - it looks like that)

Passport number this has been blurred out and is unreadable
Passport issuer this has been blurred out and is unreadable

Sex STALLION
Birth Date 22.05.2003

This is to certify that I have examined the mouth of the above Stallion at 11.00 am today. There were no clinical signs of inflammation on (or it could be "or") , word unreadable , word unreadable along the 2 unreadable words of the mouth, especially the word unreadable.

There was no evidence that the said Stallion was suffering or its welfare compromised by my(this is then crossed out) what I found in my clinical examination.

Signed

Signature is unreadable

then the name is printed and it looks like CLIVE A MASETROS

BVetMed
MRCVS followed by something unreadable
(Chief Vet Officer RFOTH)




Can the Chief Veterinary Officer for the organiser be classified as being an independent vet as claimed in the apology?
Click to expand...

I used to work for doctors, this was an easy read for me other than the equine anatomy. My interp of the transcription.


"this is to certify that i have examined the mouth of the above stallion t 11am today. there were no clinical signs of inflamation or pain along the 'macro?" cutaneous junction of the mouth, especially the "can't read". there is no evidence the said stallion was suffering and the welfare comprimised by "crossed out scribble of 1-2 letters" what I found on my clinical examination."

I googled the anatomy and couldn't find it. but macro means "large" and "cutaneous" is 'things related to the skin"

I am going to assume this is terminology for the space between the upper lip and gums where the "gumline" was applied.:cool:
 
There has been enough activity on this topic for H&H to investigate & report in Horse & Hound. Hopefully they will see through the patronising tones of Mr Parelli & actually put to him why he thinks everyone except himself in the arena watching his 'performance' was either misinformed, confused about what they saw etc etc. Hopefully they will be able to speak to Mr Whitacre & ask him his views on what he saw....assuming he can make up his mind he was actually there. :(
 
Toby_Zaphod said:
There has been enough activity on this topic for H&H to investigate & report in Horse & Hound. Hopefully they will see through the patronising tones of Mr Parelli & actually put to him why he thinks everyone except himself in the arena watching his 'performance' was either misinformed, confused about what they saw etc etc. Hopefully they will be able to speak to Mr Whitacre & ask him his views on what he saw....assuming he can make up his mind he was actually there. :(
Click to expand...
Someone recently posted an explanation that makes what Pat did clearer. I trust you will find it as enlightening as I did...

Quote:
Pat wasn't using the leg rope to control the stallion so that he could then teach him a lesson- being disabled with the leg rope WAS the lesson. This is a very complex concept and should NEVER be tried by amateurs or novices. Perhaps the reason Pat used this technique was to demonstrate that WITH ADVANCED TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE, EVEN THE MOST DANGEROUS, DIFFICULT HORSE CAN LEARN TO FEEL SAFE ENOUGH TO ALLOW A HUMAN TO BE THE LEADER- A VERY DIFFICULT CONCEPT FOR A DOMINANT STALLION TO LEARN
End quote.

[ALL CAPS for emphasis, presumably.]
 
Pat wasn't using the leg rope to control the stallion so that he could then teach him a lesson- being disabled with the leg rope WAS the lesson. This is a very complex concept and should NEVER be tried by amateurs or novices. Perhaps the reason Pat used this technique was to demonstrate that WITH ADVANCED TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE, EVEN THE MOST DANGEROUS, DIFFICULT HORSE CAN LEARN TO FEEL SAFE ENOUGH TO ALLOW A HUMAN TO BE THE LEADER- A VERY DIFFICULT CONCEPT FOR A DOMINANT STALLION TO LEARN

You have got to be kidding!!! Did someone really say that?!!!
 
fburton said:
Someone recently posted an explanation that makes what Pat did clearer. I trust you will find it as enlightening as I did...

Quote:
Pat wasn't using the leg rope to control the stallion so that he could then teach him a lesson- being disabled with the leg rope WAS the lesson. This is a very complex concept and should NEVER be tried by amateurs or novices. Perhaps the reason Pat used this technique was to demonstrate that WITH ADVANCED TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE, EVEN THE MOST DANGEROUS, DIFFICULT HORSE CAN LEARN TO FEEL SAFE ENOUGH TO ALLOW A HUMAN TO BE THE LEADER- A VERY DIFFICULT CONCEPT FOR A DOMINANT STALLION TO LEARN
End quote.

[ALL CAPS for emphasis, presumably.]
Click to expand...

UMMMM, didn't work very well, did it?
 
Tannis said:
I think the timeline goes something like this

Friday 9th July actual demonstration and from what has been reported this particular horse was the subject for approximately 3 hours

Fridy 9th July people complained - not sure to whom, some people were give a refund, some people report that Mr Parelli and/or Mr Whitaker said that they weren't obliged to talk to people

Friday 9th July it's alleged someone called a BHS vet who examined the horse and said it was not to be used in further demonstrations because of an injury to its mouth
- it has been debated whether or not the horse was to be used in further demonstrations, some people say yes, some people say no but there is published material to say that he would be used

Saturday 10th the incident is raised on here and discussions and debates have continued

Saturday 10th Mr Parelli continued to work with the horse in private - some of his own postings claim he worked with the horse for 7 hours in the Saturday

Saturday 10th at 11:00 allegedly a vet examines the horse and reports no injury - presumably this was before the 7 hours work commenced

Saturday 10th July mixed reports about who was actually present:
- eye witness reports say Mr Whitaker was there
- friends of Mr Whitaker claim he wasn't there
- a statement from Mr Whitaker says he was there

Saturday 10th July postings are made about complaints to Mr Parelli, Mr Whitaker, the organisers, and BHS

Satuday 17th July Mr Parelli posts an open letter on Youtube in which he refers to a veterinary report made by an independent vet and confirming the horse was not injured and its welfare not compromised
Click to expand...


Thankyou Tannis this is very intersting and helps me a lot, what I am still confused about and sorry I watch a few to many crime thrillers, is he carries out at least 2 session in the morning according to the video that he has posted. Now if the vet came before this session, then

A) he did two sessions in less than an hour, which does not make sense as the friday session lasted 3 hours
B) if the vet came at 11, then what happened to the vet report of the night before
C) Pat is a BIG FAT LIAR, sorry but it just doesnt add up and its annoying me.

clearly did at least 2 sessions in the morning which means he started probs at 8 am with the horse to fit those in and the "VET" came between these sessions and so I would think would have had more to say about sweat on the horse, laboured breathing etc which if the horse was so difficult, he would be showing these signs as they occur when a horse fights what the handler is asking.

This is me jut being pedantic I know, but the detective brain in me just sees the flaws and I just dont get the point of lying. have gone past caring about if it is an apology or not though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top