Does a petition of 1000 signatures mean nothing to the BHS? I ask as after being presented with an online petition, against the treatment Barney (a one eyed horse) received by Parelli, you have chosen to associate yourselves with them. The petition finished before the display at the Royal Festival of the Horse so those repelled by Catwalk’s abusive treatment were not even given the chance to sign and voice their opinion.
Why have you chosen to link up with such a practice that advises you to hit your horse on the nose with a ‘carrot stick‘ to prepare for the next level. Parelli is cruelty masquerading as kindness, many are fooled but I though an organisation as large as yourselves would be impervious to the lies and propaganda.
I thought that the BHS was on the side of the horse, I thought the BHS was on the side of the rider, I most certainly didn’t think that the BHS was on the side of ‘big bucks’.
Does public view mean so little to you?
How much did Parelli pay for you soul BHS . . . was it worth it?
I have received a reply from the BHS the main points of which are as follows…
1) To confirm the page was paid for as part of an advertising package and the BHS are not endorsing Parelli
2) Whereas once the BHS had a reputation (deserved or otherwise) for intolerance bordering on arrogance, apparently believing that there were only two ways of doing things – the BHS way and the wrong way – we now very much adhere to the line that there are two ways of doing things – the way which achieves the desired ends safely, effectively and without detriment to the welfare of the horse, and all other ways.
3) Many BHS members have taken the view that there are, in Pat Parelli’s methods, elements which work for them and which conform to the “safe/effective/no detriment” imperative. We do also appreciate that many may have formed a contrary view.
4) The BHS view on Pat Parelli – as on every other trainer or advocate of particular training methods – is that, where the techniques conform to the “safe/effective/no detriment” imperative they are valid, and where they do not so conform, we depricate them.
Our values and hard work remain much focussed on improving all equestrian related areas, particularly Safety, Welfare, Access and Training and Qualifications.
In response to their points I make the following statements…
1) By allowing Parelli to advertise with the magazine using the phrase ‘British Horse has teamed up with Parelli’ associates the BHS irrevocably with their brand. Whether Parelli paid for the privilege or not is entirely irrelevant
2) The BHS’s supposed intolerance was far less objectionable than their new found apathy. To stand by ones principles is an admirable trait, to throw them out of the window is of no benefit to either equine or human associates.
3) I know that a 1000 signature petition was presented to the BHS expressing the distaste of the public at the training methods condoned by Parelli. Do mildly redeemable elements (which I hasten to add elude myself and many others) really counteract the more numerous repellent aspects that disgust a large portion of the population?
4) Is the BHS of the opinion that the advocation of hatless riding is safe. . . that to gum-line a bridle shy horse is effective. . . and that it is of no detriment to advise hitting your horse in the face for no other reason than preparation for level 2. If the BHS’s opinion is genuinely that of Parelli being safe effective and of no detriment, I am beyond belief.
How can the British Horse Society, a registered CHARITY justify calling yourself that in the wake of their approval of Parelli. I certainly will not become a member of any organisation that approves of such methods.
The BHS of times gone by would be ashamed of what it has become.