At 08:42:00 on 14.07.10, plodalong wrote:
thank you for posting essexequine, you are entitled to your opinion,as is everyone else.

At 16:40:24 on 17.07.10, PonyPower wrote:
I've been dreading this so avoided TrotonTV this week. There is someone I know who has the exact same problem with her stallion. It only started after she took him to stallion grading (he got very high scores) however, he has severe anxiety about the bridle ever since. Why???? The grading people INSISTED all stallions be led in a chifney. She now goes through hoops to make bridling a nice experience for him, but is very interested in what Pat did, and see no problem in restricting the movement of the front legs when a horse is striking out....its all about safety, after all you can't help a horse if it's put you in hospital. I watched the clips posted by metalfreehorse on youtube. I wasn't there so I can't comment on legs being tied, but nowhere in the clips did I see Catwalk's legs tied together or up or in whatever position they were supposed to be tied...a touch of hysteria, and a complete mis-conception of what natural horsemanship is??? Its not all fluffy huggy fuzzy. If a horse is dominant, you have to be dominant back, or that horse will forever dominate you and ignore you which can be very dangerous for both the horse and the human. How many of us know of horses that will run people over or barge them out of the way to go where they want. For some there is no difference in the definition of "backing a horse" or "breaking a horse". "Backing a horse" for me means teaching a horse to willingly accept a saddle and rider. "Breaking a horse" to me means forcing the horse to tolerate a saddle and rider for fear of the consequences. Most people unknowingly "back" a horse, while still calling it "breaking". An introverted horse will appear to accept saddle and rider willingly, with problems on emerging later in the form of rearing or bucking, or even severe reaction to being presented with a saddle and bridle (as a new mare on our yard is showing). Monty Roberts comes in for criticism for "chasing" horses around the round pen, being agressive with horses that are defiant. Monty Roberts even went to the extremes of having heart monitors placed on horses he was working with to prove there was no undue stress caused. The heart rates went up, but only with what you would expect with a horse being exercised. The trouble is, once you start dealing with a horses issues, you can't just stop because some one might not like what they are seeing. You have to stay in the moment with the horse, until you reach a fulcrum change where the horse gives. To back off when a horse is showing undesired behaviour, is to reward that undesired behaviour. The tipping point to positive reaction from negative reaction is when you stop, and you back off from the horse and give it time to process (signalled by a blink of the eyes to mega yawns, licking and chewing). If you don't read your horse your horse won't read you, you have no partnership, no relationship, only a dictatorship.

At 19:06:17 on 18.07.10, plodalong wrote:
well said pony power.

At 16:30:11 on 21.07.10, Flicka wrote:
This shows a little bit of what happened but it still isn't very clear and unfortunately the people filming decided to leave as they couldn't bare to watch any more. I would love to hear from people who were actually at the event. Surely Pat Parelli would be better off showing everything that happened in his own video so that people could react to the facts rather than just hearsay. So, why isn't he? I think it is very difficult when you put on a 'show" for an audience because some horses just won't play ball. Surely he should have said "take the time it takes" and this could be a while so I'll show you what I would do over a period of days or weeks as this is a severe case. Or did his ego get in the way?

At 23:33:19 on 21.07.10, Em28 wrote:
Re Ponypower, Im not too sure you could say Pat Parelli read catwalk from the footage I have seen. Think maybe you would agree with this, hence raising the point?! Although, I wasnt there so cannot say for sure. Just I do not understand how my eyes could deceive me so bad. I also have an issue with the term natural being used. To me: Natural horsemanship = not forcing the horse into a situation through dominance and fear, but instead allows a horse to make a choice. Im actually starting to think the term natural horsemanship has no value in terms of practice and beleifs, but instead is used as a marketing tool. To me I find this quite sad as I had always liked the idea of natural horsemanship in theory. Well I am quite confused about this one, you may be able to tell!!! I can see what you mean about the point of a horse striking out, I think there are times where a twitch can actually be a very important device. For example if a horse is clipped it is better thay are twitched and imobilised than do rear up and strike out. I have seen one horse do this and cause a nasty injury. I have also seen a large number of horses twitched as routine, which resulted in no injury what so ever. I think it does depend on the situation; where horses are used as a business, it is not practical to desensitize a horse to a procedure over a length of time. Another point that concerns me about the Parrelli show is that the average person is not going to start getting lines strapped around the horse and through the top of their gums. I have never heard or seen a gumline used in the UK, not sure they are that common? Is this not a bad thing to promote? Would doing this to a stallion in the wrong hands invite the stallion to attack/defend/fight back? It is common sense that if you create a confrontational situation you are going to be met with negative behaviour.

At 21:25:51 on 22.07.10, Maddy xD wrote:
I dont think people should rule out methods copmletely just because people could use them wrongly. if the methods are there and can be used in a way so as to be beneficial to the horse as well as the person, they should be an option. im not actually sure what a gum twitch involves, and it doesnt sound veyr nice, but i cant see tying up a horses leg causing lasting damage. and if Pat Parelli managed to alleviate the horses obvious issues then the chances are he will have saved it from a great deal more hardship and even cruelty in the future. if the horse had already been subject to enough that it would not make the right choice of its own accord, then something needed to be done to stop it from being a danger to itself and others. so it does seem to have been for the benefit of the horse, whether or not the methods used are regarded as cruel. and i think that it is best that it was done out in the open, for people to make their own minds up about, and not hidden away.

At 13:17:40 on 19.08.10, LadyJennivieve wrote:
What a controversial subject! I'm getting sick of reading the massive paragraphs. What I read in the first post did not horrify me at all. Twitches seem to be misunderstood. Has anyone ever grabbed the skin between their thumb and first finger to stop themselves getting worked up? A lip or neck twitch is just the same (and can be done with the fingers - no need for an actual twitch that gets twisted). And tying the stallion's leg up is no big deal. I know that stallions should be handled with a great length of poly pipe so that you are in charge all the time. There's no abuse here, just Pat showing the horse that having the bridle on won't hurt and looking after his own personal safety at the same time while keeping the horse calm.

At 13:35:34 on 19.08.10, LadyJennivieve wrote:
Okay, I have now watched the video that Flicka posted, and yes, it is pretty horrifying. One does have to wonder what the behaviour of the stallion was like if he wasn't restrained in such a manner. No, I don't think it was appropriate for an exhibition to be made of this animal. BTW, Pat does have something to say about all this too. See the video.

At 18:49:43 on 26.09.10, chloeandlucy wrote:
I'm sorry, but; Parelli is supposed to be all 'connection' etc. but i don't believe the methods used on his horse were explainable at all. In fact they were discusting. I;ve always partialy believed in the Pareli methods and now i've been put of completely. absoulotely discusted.