I really love reading about Natural Horsemanship and I think it is a great way to go in training your horse....I would just like to know about others views....
Do you like Parelli Natural Horsemanship? If so, what do you like about it?
Whenever these questions arise, I read through the responses, and always find all kinds of supposed historical knowledge professed to validate the opinions. It becomes frustrating if not comical. Most people voicing opinions on NH don't seem to have a real concept of what it is about.
NH as it is defined today, is as elusive as it has been throughout history by any other name.
Xenophon, for example, would not qualify as an NH proponent by any stretch of the imagination today. The fact that the two bits he touted as essential to advanced performance were both absolute devices of torture used to force performance flies in the face of his abilities as a "natural" horseman. His idea of a "smooth" bit was one with the multiple discs on the mouthpiece being more rounded, and the ones on the other "rough" bit having sharp edged discs, not to mention the rest of the torturous aspects of the designs.
The idea was that if the horse didn't do what we wanted when ridden in Xenophon's version of "smooth" bit, the horse would be taught to do what he was "supposed to do" by being ridden in the "rough" bit which was almost beyond imaginable in it's capability to inflict pain. That was Xenophon's level of enlightenment to the idea of a reward system.
His philosophies may have been well placed in his time, but his methods were nonetheless barbaric by today's standards, and he had no idea of how to accomplish what we do today without the plowing discs he called "smooth" bits in the mouths of horses.
In my own lifetime of experience with what has gone on out there with horse training, I can verify that NH methods that are now being demanded by millions were rare or absent in most circles until these NH gurus came on the scene. Parelli may have it all backward for all I know, but his stuff is still a far cry better than what has been typical in many venues for decades before him. And as far as Xenophon and the ancient Greek and other European horsemen, their philosophies served as enlightenment in their time, but they would do well to see what we can accomplish today with humane tools and methods, and the application of sciences like biophysics and even psychology to work with our horses and accomplish our goals.
So, if Parelli or any other current NH trainer can help you to achieve what you want from any horse without the barbaric methods employed by the often overly esteemed predecessors, then I'm all for it. Wouldn't Xenophon be shocked to find that a horse could actually be coerced into doing those same things he needed metal muzzles and plowing discs in a horse's mouth to accomplish on a simple, actual smooth snaffle bit???
Add......Smokey....I know you meant to address the overall philosophy put forth by Xenophon, which is still good in its essence, and your reference to Xenophon is well taken. But today is today, and the idea of what is humane or necessary is judged by a higher standard than what existed in Xenophon's time, which I believe was BC, and not AD. I don't think Xenophon deserves credit for what he never accomplished.
I love questions like this. I love to read what people think natural horsemanship is, who they think is best at it, and what "natural" methods they themselves use. I especially like how some people can come on and claim one trainers methods are cruel, but then in another question, say that something like withholding food can be a good, natural training method.
The truth is... a good trainer doesn't know just one technique. Parelli is a great example. Parelli learned from a lot of different trainers (Bill Dorrance being one of the most well known) and then came up with a marketing plan. His methods work, but not for every person, and not for every horse. Obviously they work sometimes (the guy wouldn't be making money if they didn't), but to do a really good job training, you need to learn from a lot of different trainers, and a lot of personal experience.
Bill Dorrance, Buck Brannaman, Clinton Anderson... All good trainers to look into. But don't discount some of the trainers that use older methods. While I am not a fan of hitting horses, sometimes those guys have a good idea, or a good alteration to equipment, or something that can be used.
A good trainer may have a core set of techniques they routinely use, but they know more than just one way to get the job done. If you are interested in Parelli, go for it. Just keep in mind that his ways are not the 'end all, be all' of horse training.
To me true natural horsemanship means educating the horse and not making it do things by reacting. I am not against force, sometimes it is necessary. But in natural horsemanship you teach things step by step so the horse actually understands the concept "if I do this, then I get relief". Then you build on that. If the horse understands the concept, but doesn't respond, sometimes force is necessary. So natural horsemanship is not against force, it is againt unnecessary force. I have owned talented horses that won tons of ribbons and points and yet were missing huge areas in their training. They could do a few things - headset, lope off, move slow, etc. But because they were taught those few things without all the basics around them, the horses were often confused, resentful and unhappy. I've taken those horses back to the basics, filled in the missing parts, and made them better horses. And more than better, they were happier and safer. As for the length of time it takes - that can't be answered. Every horse varies, every trainer varies, and circumstances can vary too. But if a horse has a good foundation they can progress quite quickly. Example. My current young horse was really well started last year as a yearling. He did in-hand trail work. He had alot of good groundwork, including flexing, pivoting, backing, moving forward at different gaits. He UNDERSTOOD what was asked of him. He understood why he was corrected and praised. I started him under saddle last month, and he was easy, easy, easy. Basically it was just moving the cues from the ground to the saddle. With half a dozen rides he understood to move forward with a light cue, to give his head softly, to halt with a light cue, to walk and trot. Is he green broke? Nope, not that far along. But with the little bit of riding he's had, he sure came a long way and because he has good understanding of what he learned, its easy to build on it. That's what makes it different than what many so called trainers do. On the other hand, natural horsemanship is not new, it's been done for years by good trainers, but just not called that.
There are a lot of methods out there now days claiming to be "natural horsemanship". Parelli is just another one of them, they have found what works best for their horses and are using it, i suggest ou do the same.
Natural Horsemanship is a commercial name..... Not a method of training... To learn the method you need to go to the source of where it all started.. Read a book by a philosopher named Xenophon from around 1000AD. Then do some research on Reary and Solomon.. You can find an article on my website blog. After that read Harmony with horses by Ray Hunt and True Horsemanship through feel by Bill Dorance. After you have found the true "Methods" and Philosophies of what is now called NH and worked with A LOT of horses to understand how they think and react then you will know what it is... and can form your own opinion on NH.. NO ONE on here (including me) can give you the answer to something that take years of experience and learning to master... Most have only scratched the surface of what it really means to work with the horse not against him..And not a single good trainer or horseman will tell you he knows it all and is not willing to learn more or their method is the only way it works... And your best teacher will always be your horse. Not the guy on TV, the people answering questions on here or any of the books I mentioned.. But its a good place to start on your education of what it truly is..and how it works..
Think about it...
Smokie Brannaman
And one other thing most good horseman don't judge others or belittle their way of doing things.. They take what works for them and leaves the rest just like your horse..
Edit:
Very good points Gallop on bits..and Xen.. However it is his philosophy of not taking the spirit of the horse that I was referring to not the bits. You have seen I am sure all the bigger bit questions and answers on here to know that a new gimmick is always the answer today.. And who is to say that Xen very well might have known how to use that bit somewhat better than the hard handed folks today that still tear up horses with a snaffle and a lack of knowledge on how to use it.. Or the Spade bit folks that couldn't ride a stick horse but use a spade cuz wonder trainer teaching NH bridle horse methods does... And my point is not the NH name method or equipment but the experience and knowledge to get it done and not hurt the horse or yourself in the process.
Natural horsemanship is a great movement, but I think many of the "master" clinicians spend more time figuring out how to make a buck rather than figuring out the best way to train horses and people. For this reason, I tend to pick and choose what I take from each of these trainers instead of becoming a follower of any one of them. I think the heart of training is figuring out what works best for each individual horse, so no one can tell you one way to train all of them.
Pat Parelli's principles are solid, although I've read and attended only his earlier stuff. It seems that the more he evolves, the higher his prices are, which is a turn-off for me. Many of the big name clinicians put a very high price on their name... Pat Parelli sells his rope halter for $40! Our horsemen's association sells them for $10--and that's for fundraising!
I trained under John Niceley (who thinks Pat Parelli is ridiculous), a ranch horse trainer in Tennessee. He trained under Ray Hunt and looked up to Tom Dorrance. I've also heard great things about Buck Brannaman. All of these men are heavy on understanding the horse's psyche, on learning how to communicate correctly with horses.
The quality of natural horsemanship depends on how much is actually based on the horse, not showmanship. John always tells me that Ray Hunt had a saying that went something like "I give 100% to my horse. Anything left over you can have."
Parelli is just a big money making scam. i actually had a conversation last night with our trainer about Parelli. Our trainer went to a Parelli clinic and got through levels 1-3 in ONE DAY. but the instructors at the clinic would only let him take the tests to pass levels 1-2. the next day he passed the level 3 test and moved on to level 4. the instructors were doing absolutely everything they could to stall him since he was getting through everything so fast. they weren't making good money off of him since he was going so fast. so needless to say our trainer left. also, a little known fact about the Parelli's is that they start 2 year olds like everyone else. they use ropes and force when they start their horses. my dad's ex wife was big on Parelli and sent one of her horses that had been abused to a Parelli place. they tied him to a post in the middle of a field and tapped him on the butt with a carrot stick. he was trying to run from it but since he was tied to a post he could only go in circles and they kept following. doesn't sound like what the Parelli's typically preach. my trainer believes that Pat and Linda ARE great trainers themselves, but that they are focused on money. and with most people who try to do Parelli, they think they're doing stuff right but really they aren't. training just doesn't translate well through videos. another thing my trainer said was while at the clinic (and this is another reason he left), the level 4 trainer there couldn't even ride! he says a lot of the people at clinics (trainers included) cannot ride horses. and isn't the whole point of training so that you will have a horse that respects you and that you can ride? so ya i would definitely say AVOID Parelli and any horses trained in Parelli. we have a horse that the instructors at a Parelli clinic kept for 6 months and he is the dullest horse we have now.
as for natural horsemanship in general, i can't stand the mentality that you can't lay a hand on your horse. horses need discipline and the punishment should just slightly exceed what he did wrong. with certain things, smacking a horse is necessary. horses have super thick skin over most of their body (legs and face not so much but everywhere else it's thick), so if we smack them with enough force to hurt us, it most likely won't hurt the horse (if you use only your hand it will NOT hurt the horse, it'll just surprise him). you have to have your horse's attention. it is a must. if you don't someone WILL get hurt. there are also times when excessive force is necessary. if a horse rears up and starts pawing at you to hurt you, excessive force is necessary to make that horse realize that he cannot get away with that, and that you are in charge.
but what a lot of people don't realize is that a lot of natural horsemanship methods come from traditional training methods. and where natural horsemanship contradicts itself is through how they say "we communicate with horses the way they do". horses in the herd bite and kick each other. but natural horsemanship preaches NOT using force such as kicking or hitting a horse and giving the horse a choice.
i just really don't like natural horsemanship or Parelli. in my experience (and my trainer's), horses trained this way are either very dull, overly sensitive, full of problems, potentially dangerous, or all of the above.
but that's just what i think (and some of what i know. you can't dispute actual experiences!)
EDIT: Why the thumbs down? My trainer had first hand experience at a Parelli clinic to learn the methods and the instructors there were clueless on how to ride and tried to stall his progress in order to make more money.
I think Parelli is a load of crap. The best way to learn is from your own experience. Do what you think is right, not what they tell you.
For example, they teach horse to go on trailers, but how did the horse get there? They don't go to the horse! There's loads of little things like that that make me think Parelli doesn't work.
Im not for it, but not completely against it. It all depends on the situation, an abused horse may benefit from starting out with NH but Ive always believed NH should only ever be practiced by an experienced handler, only then can the person deceide which methods are reasonable, read the horses reactions properly and train to complete a well rounded horse.
NH leads people to believe that a horse can be your equal, a 500kg animal can never be equal to a 65kg human being, the human requires some level of superiority and respect from the animal to stay safe and in control of an animal that can kill you.
Parelli got rich from leading people to believe they can 'train' their own horse, its nothing more then a marketing act, and yes you can make your horse do tricks and 'play' with you, but his methods give people a false sense of confidence and security. So the horse can do tricks, now what? I also think it is extremely irresponsible for him to promote the 'levels'. To put an inexperienced horse handler in charge of an animal that can kill you is rediculous.
If NH works for you, thats fine, Im happy to stick to traditional methods. And yes I have tried NH on my mare, other then the fact she did what I asked, it got both of us nowhere. Lunging- Jogging around me, head dragging on the ground? whats the point, it did nothing for her as far as training, muscle development and respect was concerned. I now practice traditional methods and shes toned, fit, balanced, well muscled and respectful of me, none of this I got from NH.
One thing I have noticed with NH if someone can explain this, when a person is working with a NH horse, the horse has its ears pinned back almost the whole time? If ears pinned back mean the horse is p'ed off, then there are alot of p'ed off horses out there doing tricks and playing 'games'.
EDIT~ Emem, a few points in your post are incorrect. First of all, many Appys have white scleras in their eyes, where other breeds have dark ones. To say an Appy is constantly showing the whites of his eyes, is saying that the horse is probably being misunderstood and therefore mishandled.
I've seen Monty Roberts in person, doing a demo with 2 young, green horses. It ain't as friendly as he'd have you think from his book. His approach and retreat starts with a very aggressive, threatening approach.
The most important error you made was calling tying a horse and beating it for days "traditional training". You sound like a Parelli cult member. Abuse is not the norm, nor is it traditional except within a very few rough, uneducated equestrian cultures, like the Old West. Even then, they used a bit of horse sense, only being rough to make their point and then moving forward with the actual education.
********************
NH all sounds so lovey-dovey, nice and natural, friendly, etc etc. Unfortunately, the way most of the famous clinicians practice it, it's more aggressive and fear-based than any methods I ever used in 36 years of training happy, gentle, cooperative, safe horses. I will 'kick a horse's natural a**' when it has done something overtly rude or dangerous, but the NH guys *start out* on the attack, then make it the horse's responsibility to figure out how to make them back off and stop harassing the horse.
I loved reading Parelli, too, but then I saw him in action. He is the biggest hypocrite out there, talking about "taking the time it takes" while chasing, harassing, and stressing the horse into submission. At least Clinton Anderson is a bit more honest about it, although he is also much more aggressive and harsh, and he also works a young horse way too hard. Teaching people to work their colts and fillies into the ground pays off for him with his joint-supplement endorsements - the supplement company sells more product because his students' horses break down younger.
Monty Roberts will tell you that his body posture (upraised hand with fingers spread) is read by the horse as a predator's threat, and it's his starting point with a green one (after he has stopped actively chasing it with a rope or line). If you want to have a friendly relationship with another being, why would you start out by threatening its life?
Out of the NH guys, I like Dennis Reis. He calls his thing No Dust, because he doesn't want to run the horse around and around kicking up dust. He tries to keep the horse calm so it can think and learn faster, without all the fear.
It's easier on the horse and the human, and better for the relationship between them, to find ways to communicate without all the stress and dominance. Make no mistake, I hold my horses to a high standard of manners and responsiveness. I have never felt the need to start our relationship with NH-type harassment. If I get a horse that someone else has messed up, and allowed to develop rude habits, then of course I take necessary measures to change that bad attitude. I just don't *start* a *green* horse with aggression and attack.
The ideas behind NH are noble and effective, but the way it is actually done by most professionals makes a mockery of the concept.
Comments
Whenever these questions arise, I read through the responses, and always find all kinds of supposed historical knowledge professed to validate the opinions. It becomes frustrating if not comical. Most people voicing opinions on NH don't seem to have a real concept of what it is about.
NH as it is defined today, is as elusive as it has been throughout history by any other name.
Xenophon, for example, would not qualify as an NH proponent by any stretch of the imagination today. The fact that the two bits he touted as essential to advanced performance were both absolute devices of torture used to force performance flies in the face of his abilities as a "natural" horseman. His idea of a "smooth" bit was one with the multiple discs on the mouthpiece being more rounded, and the ones on the other "rough" bit having sharp edged discs, not to mention the rest of the torturous aspects of the designs.
The idea was that if the horse didn't do what we wanted when ridden in Xenophon's version of "smooth" bit, the horse would be taught to do what he was "supposed to do" by being ridden in the "rough" bit which was almost beyond imaginable in it's capability to inflict pain. That was Xenophon's level of enlightenment to the idea of a reward system.
His philosophies may have been well placed in his time, but his methods were nonetheless barbaric by today's standards, and he had no idea of how to accomplish what we do today without the plowing discs he called "smooth" bits in the mouths of horses.
In my own lifetime of experience with what has gone on out there with horse training, I can verify that NH methods that are now being demanded by millions were rare or absent in most circles until these NH gurus came on the scene. Parelli may have it all backward for all I know, but his stuff is still a far cry better than what has been typical in many venues for decades before him. And as far as Xenophon and the ancient Greek and other European horsemen, their philosophies served as enlightenment in their time, but they would do well to see what we can accomplish today with humane tools and methods, and the application of sciences like biophysics and even psychology to work with our horses and accomplish our goals.
So, if Parelli or any other current NH trainer can help you to achieve what you want from any horse without the barbaric methods employed by the often overly esteemed predecessors, then I'm all for it. Wouldn't Xenophon be shocked to find that a horse could actually be coerced into doing those same things he needed metal muzzles and plowing discs in a horse's mouth to accomplish on a simple, actual smooth snaffle bit???
Add......Smokey....I know you meant to address the overall philosophy put forth by Xenophon, which is still good in its essence, and your reference to Xenophon is well taken. But today is today, and the idea of what is humane or necessary is judged by a higher standard than what existed in Xenophon's time, which I believe was BC, and not AD. I don't think Xenophon deserves credit for what he never accomplished.
I love questions like this. I love to read what people think natural horsemanship is, who they think is best at it, and what "natural" methods they themselves use. I especially like how some people can come on and claim one trainers methods are cruel, but then in another question, say that something like withholding food can be a good, natural training method.
The truth is... a good trainer doesn't know just one technique. Parelli is a great example. Parelli learned from a lot of different trainers (Bill Dorrance being one of the most well known) and then came up with a marketing plan. His methods work, but not for every person, and not for every horse. Obviously they work sometimes (the guy wouldn't be making money if they didn't), but to do a really good job training, you need to learn from a lot of different trainers, and a lot of personal experience.
Bill Dorrance, Buck Brannaman, Clinton Anderson... All good trainers to look into. But don't discount some of the trainers that use older methods. While I am not a fan of hitting horses, sometimes those guys have a good idea, or a good alteration to equipment, or something that can be used.
A good trainer may have a core set of techniques they routinely use, but they know more than just one way to get the job done. If you are interested in Parelli, go for it. Just keep in mind that his ways are not the 'end all, be all' of horse training.
To me true natural horsemanship means educating the horse and not making it do things by reacting. I am not against force, sometimes it is necessary. But in natural horsemanship you teach things step by step so the horse actually understands the concept "if I do this, then I get relief". Then you build on that. If the horse understands the concept, but doesn't respond, sometimes force is necessary. So natural horsemanship is not against force, it is againt unnecessary force. I have owned talented horses that won tons of ribbons and points and yet were missing huge areas in their training. They could do a few things - headset, lope off, move slow, etc. But because they were taught those few things without all the basics around them, the horses were often confused, resentful and unhappy. I've taken those horses back to the basics, filled in the missing parts, and made them better horses. And more than better, they were happier and safer. As for the length of time it takes - that can't be answered. Every horse varies, every trainer varies, and circumstances can vary too. But if a horse has a good foundation they can progress quite quickly. Example. My current young horse was really well started last year as a yearling. He did in-hand trail work. He had alot of good groundwork, including flexing, pivoting, backing, moving forward at different gaits. He UNDERSTOOD what was asked of him. He understood why he was corrected and praised. I started him under saddle last month, and he was easy, easy, easy. Basically it was just moving the cues from the ground to the saddle. With half a dozen rides he understood to move forward with a light cue, to give his head softly, to halt with a light cue, to walk and trot. Is he green broke? Nope, not that far along. But with the little bit of riding he's had, he sure came a long way and because he has good understanding of what he learned, its easy to build on it. That's what makes it different than what many so called trainers do. On the other hand, natural horsemanship is not new, it's been done for years by good trainers, but just not called that.
There are a lot of methods out there now days claiming to be "natural horsemanship". Parelli is just another one of them, they have found what works best for their horses and are using it, i suggest ou do the same.
Natural Horsemanship is a commercial name..... Not a method of training... To learn the method you need to go to the source of where it all started.. Read a book by a philosopher named Xenophon from around 1000AD. Then do some research on Reary and Solomon.. You can find an article on my website blog. After that read Harmony with horses by Ray Hunt and True Horsemanship through feel by Bill Dorance. After you have found the true "Methods" and Philosophies of what is now called NH and worked with A LOT of horses to understand how they think and react then you will know what it is... and can form your own opinion on NH.. NO ONE on here (including me) can give you the answer to something that take years of experience and learning to master... Most have only scratched the surface of what it really means to work with the horse not against him..And not a single good trainer or horseman will tell you he knows it all and is not willing to learn more or their method is the only way it works... And your best teacher will always be your horse. Not the guy on TV, the people answering questions on here or any of the books I mentioned.. But its a good place to start on your education of what it truly is..and how it works..
Think about it...
Smokie Brannaman
And one other thing most good horseman don't judge others or belittle their way of doing things.. They take what works for them and leaves the rest just like your horse..
Edit:
Very good points Gallop on bits..and Xen.. However it is his philosophy of not taking the spirit of the horse that I was referring to not the bits. You have seen I am sure all the bigger bit questions and answers on here to know that a new gimmick is always the answer today.. And who is to say that Xen very well might have known how to use that bit somewhat better than the hard handed folks today that still tear up horses with a snaffle and a lack of knowledge on how to use it.. Or the Spade bit folks that couldn't ride a stick horse but use a spade cuz wonder trainer teaching NH bridle horse methods does... And my point is not the NH name method or equipment but the experience and knowledge to get it done and not hurt the horse or yourself in the process.
Natural horsemanship is a great movement, but I think many of the "master" clinicians spend more time figuring out how to make a buck rather than figuring out the best way to train horses and people. For this reason, I tend to pick and choose what I take from each of these trainers instead of becoming a follower of any one of them. I think the heart of training is figuring out what works best for each individual horse, so no one can tell you one way to train all of them.
Pat Parelli's principles are solid, although I've read and attended only his earlier stuff. It seems that the more he evolves, the higher his prices are, which is a turn-off for me. Many of the big name clinicians put a very high price on their name... Pat Parelli sells his rope halter for $40! Our horsemen's association sells them for $10--and that's for fundraising!
I trained under John Niceley (who thinks Pat Parelli is ridiculous), a ranch horse trainer in Tennessee. He trained under Ray Hunt and looked up to Tom Dorrance. I've also heard great things about Buck Brannaman. All of these men are heavy on understanding the horse's psyche, on learning how to communicate correctly with horses.
The quality of natural horsemanship depends on how much is actually based on the horse, not showmanship. John always tells me that Ray Hunt had a saying that went something like "I give 100% to my horse. Anything left over you can have."
Parelli is just a big money making scam. i actually had a conversation last night with our trainer about Parelli. Our trainer went to a Parelli clinic and got through levels 1-3 in ONE DAY. but the instructors at the clinic would only let him take the tests to pass levels 1-2. the next day he passed the level 3 test and moved on to level 4. the instructors were doing absolutely everything they could to stall him since he was getting through everything so fast. they weren't making good money off of him since he was going so fast. so needless to say our trainer left. also, a little known fact about the Parelli's is that they start 2 year olds like everyone else. they use ropes and force when they start their horses. my dad's ex wife was big on Parelli and sent one of her horses that had been abused to a Parelli place. they tied him to a post in the middle of a field and tapped him on the butt with a carrot stick. he was trying to run from it but since he was tied to a post he could only go in circles and they kept following. doesn't sound like what the Parelli's typically preach. my trainer believes that Pat and Linda ARE great trainers themselves, but that they are focused on money. and with most people who try to do Parelli, they think they're doing stuff right but really they aren't. training just doesn't translate well through videos. another thing my trainer said was while at the clinic (and this is another reason he left), the level 4 trainer there couldn't even ride! he says a lot of the people at clinics (trainers included) cannot ride horses. and isn't the whole point of training so that you will have a horse that respects you and that you can ride? so ya i would definitely say AVOID Parelli and any horses trained in Parelli. we have a horse that the instructors at a Parelli clinic kept for 6 months and he is the dullest horse we have now.
as for natural horsemanship in general, i can't stand the mentality that you can't lay a hand on your horse. horses need discipline and the punishment should just slightly exceed what he did wrong. with certain things, smacking a horse is necessary. horses have super thick skin over most of their body (legs and face not so much but everywhere else it's thick), so if we smack them with enough force to hurt us, it most likely won't hurt the horse (if you use only your hand it will NOT hurt the horse, it'll just surprise him). you have to have your horse's attention. it is a must. if you don't someone WILL get hurt. there are also times when excessive force is necessary. if a horse rears up and starts pawing at you to hurt you, excessive force is necessary to make that horse realize that he cannot get away with that, and that you are in charge.
but what a lot of people don't realize is that a lot of natural horsemanship methods come from traditional training methods. and where natural horsemanship contradicts itself is through how they say "we communicate with horses the way they do". horses in the herd bite and kick each other. but natural horsemanship preaches NOT using force such as kicking or hitting a horse and giving the horse a choice.
i just really don't like natural horsemanship or Parelli. in my experience (and my trainer's), horses trained this way are either very dull, overly sensitive, full of problems, potentially dangerous, or all of the above.
but that's just what i think (and some of what i know. you can't dispute actual experiences!)
EDIT: Why the thumbs down? My trainer had first hand experience at a Parelli clinic to learn the methods and the instructors there were clueless on how to ride and tried to stall his progress in order to make more money.
I think Parelli is a load of crap. The best way to learn is from your own experience. Do what you think is right, not what they tell you.
For example, they teach horse to go on trailers, but how did the horse get there? They don't go to the horse! There's loads of little things like that that make me think Parelli doesn't work.
Im not for it, but not completely against it. It all depends on the situation, an abused horse may benefit from starting out with NH but Ive always believed NH should only ever be practiced by an experienced handler, only then can the person deceide which methods are reasonable, read the horses reactions properly and train to complete a well rounded horse.
NH leads people to believe that a horse can be your equal, a 500kg animal can never be equal to a 65kg human being, the human requires some level of superiority and respect from the animal to stay safe and in control of an animal that can kill you.
Parelli got rich from leading people to believe they can 'train' their own horse, its nothing more then a marketing act, and yes you can make your horse do tricks and 'play' with you, but his methods give people a false sense of confidence and security. So the horse can do tricks, now what? I also think it is extremely irresponsible for him to promote the 'levels'. To put an inexperienced horse handler in charge of an animal that can kill you is rediculous.
If NH works for you, thats fine, Im happy to stick to traditional methods. And yes I have tried NH on my mare, other then the fact she did what I asked, it got both of us nowhere. Lunging- Jogging around me, head dragging on the ground? whats the point, it did nothing for her as far as training, muscle development and respect was concerned. I now practice traditional methods and shes toned, fit, balanced, well muscled and respectful of me, none of this I got from NH.
One thing I have noticed with NH if someone can explain this, when a person is working with a NH horse, the horse has its ears pinned back almost the whole time? If ears pinned back mean the horse is p'ed off, then there are alot of p'ed off horses out there doing tricks and playing 'games'.
What do I like about it? Very little.
EDIT~ Emem, a few points in your post are incorrect. First of all, many Appys have white scleras in their eyes, where other breeds have dark ones. To say an Appy is constantly showing the whites of his eyes, is saying that the horse is probably being misunderstood and therefore mishandled.
I've seen Monty Roberts in person, doing a demo with 2 young, green horses. It ain't as friendly as he'd have you think from his book. His approach and retreat starts with a very aggressive, threatening approach.
The most important error you made was calling tying a horse and beating it for days "traditional training". You sound like a Parelli cult member. Abuse is not the norm, nor is it traditional except within a very few rough, uneducated equestrian cultures, like the Old West. Even then, they used a bit of horse sense, only being rough to make their point and then moving forward with the actual education.
********************
NH all sounds so lovey-dovey, nice and natural, friendly, etc etc. Unfortunately, the way most of the famous clinicians practice it, it's more aggressive and fear-based than any methods I ever used in 36 years of training happy, gentle, cooperative, safe horses. I will 'kick a horse's natural a**' when it has done something overtly rude or dangerous, but the NH guys *start out* on the attack, then make it the horse's responsibility to figure out how to make them back off and stop harassing the horse.
I loved reading Parelli, too, but then I saw him in action. He is the biggest hypocrite out there, talking about "taking the time it takes" while chasing, harassing, and stressing the horse into submission. At least Clinton Anderson is a bit more honest about it, although he is also much more aggressive and harsh, and he also works a young horse way too hard. Teaching people to work their colts and fillies into the ground pays off for him with his joint-supplement endorsements - the supplement company sells more product because his students' horses break down younger.
Monty Roberts will tell you that his body posture (upraised hand with fingers spread) is read by the horse as a predator's threat, and it's his starting point with a green one (after he has stopped actively chasing it with a rope or line). If you want to have a friendly relationship with another being, why would you start out by threatening its life?
Out of the NH guys, I like Dennis Reis. He calls his thing No Dust, because he doesn't want to run the horse around and around kicking up dust. He tries to keep the horse calm so it can think and learn faster, without all the fear.
It's easier on the horse and the human, and better for the relationship between them, to find ways to communicate without all the stress and dominance. Make no mistake, I hold my horses to a high standard of manners and responsiveness. I have never felt the need to start our relationship with NH-type harassment. If I get a horse that someone else has messed up, and allowed to develop rude habits, then of course I take necessary measures to change that bad attitude. I just don't *start* a *green* horse with aggression and attack.
The ideas behind NH are noble and effective, but the way it is actually done by most professionals makes a mockery of the concept.