Parelli - good practice or pigswill?

Gee, which camp are you in?  duh...

I don't support or not support Parelli. When I first heard about them, I did lean towards it to learn more. But now I can care less.

I have seen some of the so called "abuse" videos targeted towards Linda Parelli. I do think there is a level of ignorance on the posters part of those videos. They look for things to point out as abusive, without showing the entire situation. Parelli does strive to match the energy of the handler to that of the horse. It is a part of their training, from what I have seen. I have never seen anything strictly abusive, even though in the lighter terms of the word, just about anything can be considered abusive.

Now my anti-Parelli opinion?

I don't give a rats patoot who they are. No one should charge that much *** ****(Content Removed) money for horse training. No one should take that much advantage of ignorant people to make that much of a capitol on equines. That goes for everything, from Monty Roberts (who also has been accused of horse abuse) to Pat Parelli to Clinton Anderson, and every "Natural Horseman" in between. Yes, these people can do some seemingly amazing things, and yes, America does give them the right to charge an arm and leg plus some to get a hold of those techniques. I do believe it is wrong of them to take advantage of it. Especially when it comes to their equipment! But that is a problem with the American state of mind, rather than these individuals and their programs.

Now, in my opinion, the golden supporters of Parelli Natural Horsemanship generally have their heads up their *****(Content Removed). They stick to Parelli and only Parelli. I believe they are wrong for doing so. Parelli Natural Horsemanship is one way to go. With horses, with anything, you should never take just one road. You end up leaving yourself closed off to other options that can help with development and trouble shooting.

So if you want to use Parelli, use them. But don't close yourself off to the other options out there just because it is easier to fall into the crowd that worships them.

I have researched Pat Parelli's Parelli Natural Horsemanship, Monty Robert's Join Up, Clinton Anderson's Downunder Horsemanship, Linda Tellington Jones TTouch, The Mirroring Equine Attitudes (MEA) Way, Epona Equestrian, Hybrid Horsemanship, Dressage Naturally (a one off of PNH), Horse And Human, Light Hand Horsemanship, Quantam Savvy Natural Horsemanship, and Klaus Ferdinand Hempfling's Classic European Horse Meditation. Guess what? Most of them? Same crap, different day.

Personally, I put more weight into The MEA Way, K.F. Hempfling's Meditation, and LTJ's TTouch than any other "Natural Horsemanship". They are also alternatives to the typical present day "Natural Horsemanship" teachings that have been around for CENTURIES, farther back than Xenophon's writings of his days as a General of the Greek Cavalry.

Well & objectively put JC!

My first experience of 'natural horsemanship' was Parelli, around 20 years ago with my first horse. Back then, I thought he was a miracle worker & got into it very fanatically(in hindsight... didn't think I was fanatical then!). Since then, I've drifted away, drifted back, away again and have come to a point where I think I see it objectively for what it is, and find there is indeed a lot of great stuff there & I still have a lot of respect for what Parelli's done for horses & their people, but can also see many details that I don't agree with. So as with everything else, I think it's a good idea to learn from, but don't swallow it all whole, but take what you feel right out of it & leave the rest.

One huge point in bagging Parelli, that I think human nature being what it is often gets overlooked, is that people tend to (often blindly) follow the 'master', the program without thought, rather than what he seeks. I think his basic principles are sound, but it's the details that people get caught up on & argue about. Eg. he says in his book not to just follow his program without thought & without learning from other sources, but learn the whys & wherefores. He says that while he believes his particular style of equipment is the best, particular equipment is not necessary. He says to be 'as light as possible but as firm as necessary' - this is very subjective and I think a lot of people misunderstand how much 'firmness' is necessary. Eg. while I'm not afraid to get 'big' when I feel the need, these days I believe 'firm as necessary' is very little, compared to the 'phases' I learned to begin with...

I do find, after studying(& practicing on many species) behavioural psychology, the old statements of his that horses don't respond to 'reward', only release of pressure, etc, annoying. Although it seems, as the man himself has continued to learn he's also updated his teaching - in his recent teaching 'left brain introverts'(I think) are meant to work well with food rewards - it irritates me that he can't explain this in basic behavioural terms. But then, it could be just a matter of perception, as with so many other issues. Eg. people's perceptions of Parelli trying to categorise horses in the 'horsanality' boxes. While he does say that no horse should be just labled as one or the other, they're all a mix & it depends.... the way he talks about horsanalities, and human nature wanting to categorise things, I think the details of the theory get easily lost.

While the continual changes in his programs reflect his progressive learning, which I think it's a good point, agree with JC that the prices and 'rules' they inflict on students with that regard are prohibitive to many. Eg. a friend was working on her level 2 a fair few years back now, paid up PNH member(that's not cheap in itself), bought the kits, spent heaps of money on clinics, etc. But she got sick and in the meantime they updated their program. For her to actually get a level 2 certificate, she was told she needed to go buy the new level 2 kit & start again.... that is where I refused to fork out more money & lost interest in their 'pieces of paper', but she diligently bought what they told her & continued working on it.... only for life to get in the way again & she's recently learned that she will again have to buy a new kit & start again if she wants her piece of paper!!

So, in summary, I think Parelli is a great teacher, with a heap of worthwhile information & techniques & principles to learn from, particularly for beginners. But I think 'yeah-buts' are helpful to analysing what & why you're doing whatever, and that it should not be the only source you learn from. I personally like Parelli's 'ostentatious' type of style, but if you don't, I believe Clinton Anderson is one to teach the same type of stuff with a 'quieter' style. You'll likely never find a teacher that you agree 100% with, if you really analyse their lessons, so IMO learn as much as you can from as many sources as possible, to make informed decisions on what is right *for you & your horse(s)*.

I don't see how anyone can watch one of those videos of Linda and not cringe.  Her timing is horribly off in every way.  Is it abuse?  In most cases not at all.  Is is proper training?  No and the fact that she is trying to teach someone else just horrifies me.

Jungle_cat, by anyone's perceptions, anything can be considered abusive. I am told to get after the horse I am riding in my lessons. I tend to be to nice, and for me to get after them, I have to raise my voice, tanker down, and occasionally kick with my heels. I have even had to use a riding crop before. I do not like kicking or using crops, at all. At one time I did think their uses were abusive. I now know that they can be used without being abusive, but I can understand where some people can miss gauge the line where getting after the horse can turn into abuse.

I have even heard on other forums from farriers to be incredibly careful in their dealings with Parelli students, because even the smallest voice raising or wack will be perceived as abuse of their animals. [8|]

Wundahoss, I believe you are right when you say he does continue to improve himself. He is always learning, which is what life is about. He seems to apply what he learns to his everyday life. I also agree he does not convey his points in the best of ways at all. He admits that though. It is Linda who puts his words into written teachings. It reminds me of a crazed church gathering where people hang on to pastor/priest/etc's every word, every interpretation of the bible (or another holy book), only to take it out of context and apply it to themselves incorrectly. And then they pass it on to friends or strangers looking for new techniques and guidelines, and it gets misconstrued even more!

It's like a never ending game of "chinese whispers," "broken telephone," or "pass the message".

Excellent discussion, however please adhere to our : Forum Rules

2.)     Vulgarities, whether they be language, images or other offensive material, including, but not limited to, race, nudity or pornography will not be tolerated. The administrators and moderators shall be the sole judges of what does and does not violate the board's standards. 

3.)   The forum is a family friendly board and does have a forum censor for words that are not tolerated. Circumventing around the censor by using asterisks, exclamation marks, question marks or anything else in place of the letters is not acceptable. Failure to respect the censor will result in an edit, three edits equal a suspension. 
4.)      Debating and discussion is fine. We encourage it. It's how we all learn. However, respect your fellow members. Different posters are likely to express different opinions, and while they may differ from yours, everyone is entitled to express theirs freely. Whether it is blatant or covert, we will not tolerate rudeness, insults or personal attacks.  Do not disrespect, taunt, bother, bug or flame anyone, either on the forum or via private messages or email. If you fail to respect any your fellow members and insist on rudeness, insults, or personal attacks, you will receive a warning and your posts will be moderated for a period of time. 

All apologies Dane. I didn't realize I got out of hand, or that some of those words were not allowed. [X(]

Vulgarities, whether they be language, images or other offensive material,

Just by the by, wanted to clarify that the posts with **** above have been taken as vulgar, even tho there are no actual words included? I wasn't aware that level of 'vulgarity' was actually seen as vulgarity. If it isn't these stars, could you please explain where the problems are, because I don't get where the rudeness lies? ...Perhaps it's just cos I'm a crass heathen from Down Under!

I do not like kicking or using crops, at all. At one time I did think their uses were abusive. I now know that they can be used without being abusive, but I can understand where some people can miss gauge the line where getting after the horse can turn into abuse.

I understand where you're coming from JC & generally agree with you, but I fully agree with Jungle Cat on her comment. I think it is predominantly(there's more to it but won't start an essay now) Linda's horrible timing - or lack of, that has caused her to cross that 'line' between valid & reasonable force and abuse. I personally think that Linda has been great for the business of 'PNH' but she should have stayed in the office & left Pat to deal with the horses. I don't think she even gets the importance of timing at all, from the look of it.

The above doesn't change my attitude about the *principles* being the sound and important part of 'PNH' tho. It's just examples such as Linda's that are among the bits that I 'leave'.

On the note of timing, I remember reading a letter from a student in a Savvy mag, where he explained that his horse had just done something Good and (because it was a 'LBI'... if I got that right) he used treats for reinforcement, and because he was tardy about getting the treat out of his pocket & giving it to the horse after the Good behaviour, the horse, of it's own volition, started doing all sorts of other wonderful tricks. I was thinking they were going to have an editorial after this letter which explained the principle of 'variable reinforcement schedules', to help people understand how this basic behavioural principle works. But no, it was left hanging, to come across(to people ignorant of behavioural science) as one of those Amazing things of Parelli training. Very disappointing.

Vulgarities, whether they be language, images or other offensive material,

Sorry wundahoss, The asterisks replace the profanity/vulgarities (words) that have been edited.

We are a family friendly forum and a good discussion doesn't need profanity. []

I apologise for some of the innapropriate words I may have used, I didn't realise they were considered rude, as they are not considered so in the UK. 

Personally I feel that Pat and Linda Parelli's training methods are fairly average and certainly overpriced. I would definitely not pay that much for training material, as for their "carrot stick," its just a flipping orange lunge whip, not some revolutionary training aid! I don't really feel they are abusive, just overpriced. I am not narrow minded enough to dismiss any method that seems good, sound and evidence based, whether its from a local farmer or Parelli or Monty Roberts. A name means nothing, its the method that counts. It's good to observe, analyse and choose what it best for your horse. Has anyone heard of the natural horseman, Michael Peace from the UK? I find his methods quite good =]   
Cheers for replying to this thread guys, its been really interesting to read what you think =] I hope you all had a wonderful Christmas and go on to have a great new year =]          

PS: my innital forum post may have come across as a vulgar, Parelli-hating post, it was not intended to come across as that at all, I'm just a rather coarse-mouthed commoner from the UK. (Although swearing appears to be much more common place and acceptable in the UK than America) I apologise very much so if I offended anyone, I didn't mean to, sorry.    

Sorry wundahoss, The asterisks replace the profanity/vulgarities (words) that have been edited.

Oh, good! Was thinking it was a bit of overkill if you were just censoring asterisks! That has been known on some sites I've visited.

I didn't realise they were considered rude, as they are not considered so in the UK. 

Really?? Even that word for bottom is a bit rude to us from the 'colonies'! We prefer to confuse those of the US by using nice words like 'bum'. But then, they go & horrify us by talking about (gasp!) FANNY packs! Now if that's not vulgar.... Interesting what different countries perceive as rude. I remember my sister telling me when she first moved to London that a new friend was horrified when she referred to a gorgeous guy as 'a bit of a spunk'... but then my Pommie dad used to refer to us kids as 'sproglets' & thought that was perfectly acceptable!

....Now I think it's possible I might have had one(?) too many xmas drinks lately and perhaps this could be construed as a bit of a silly discussion(or monologue as the case may be).... Sorry to go OT!

Cheers respectfully to all... even the Parellis!

The vulgarities Dane is referring to, in my post, were, which Dane asterisked out,  using the Lord's name in vain, and using the less than 'nice' word for buttocks. Neither of which I consider vulgar, but I do realize others do consider them vulgar. Such is life.

Timing is crucial, and difficult to get down. I wish to study equine behaviorism, and have put some research into it. The MEA Way is the study of equine body language. A woman sat down and watched her Arab herds for years. [:-] The MEA Way is her sharing what she learned. I think it is a start to understanding behaviorism by examining their behaviors first.

Timing is crucial, and difficult to get down.
 
Too bad that more people don't *get* that it would be better to let the good or bad behavior pass rather than to reward or punish late.