I'm sorry you're disappointed in me, Rosemary, but certain aspects of PNH horsemanship teachings give me greater cause for concern, I'm afraid.
The four phases of pressure used in the so-called 'porcupine game', which is the (Parelli) preferred method of teaching a horse to back-up, are a constant source of concern for me. I cannot understand why it is taught, as it is very difficult for the student to master, and gives many horses cause to become very resistant to pressure.
A horse's introduction to pressure must be very subtle, and any pressure used must be applied very carefully lest the horse be encouraged to resist. The amount of pressure applied must be in correspondence with the potential for resistance in the horse. If too much pressure is applied, the horse may be forced to give a counter-response. This may simply result in a slight movement away from the stimulus, but could cause a horse to exhibit a more extreme reaction. A previously unhandled horse will have a very strong tendency to be flighty, as that is his main form of defence if he perceives his safety to be compromised, but, if his ability to flee is prevented, either by lack of space to do so, or by physical restraint, he may be forced to fight for his life.
All good horse trainers are aware of the benefits of teaching a horse to yield to pressure. This basic lesson, when learned correctly, will set the horse up to be inclined to move away from pressure, rather than lean into it, which is what his instinct dictates he do. Throughout his life, the horse will be required to respond to various forms of pressure, such as the handler’s voice, touch, or body attitude, for example, and often a quick response will be required of him.
If the correct amount of pressure is applied, correctly, and the horse allowed to seek relief from it, and he is rewarded by the removal of the pressure each time he offers something, the horse will learn to be willingly compliant. That is the difference between training and coercion.
However, if too much pressure is applied, and the horse’s ability to flee blocked, his instinct to lean into the pressure will come to the fore as his only means of self preservation, and a bargey horse is made. Thereafter, the horse’s education becomes a matter of damage limitation and retraining.
The ‘porcupine game‘, advocated by PNH for teaching a horse to back up, gives the horse an opportunity to learn to step back when presented with a waggling finger as a cue. Having never seen this cue before, the horse is highly unlikely to give a correct response, if he actually tries anything at all, because he simply does not understand what is being asked of him.
The Parelli student is then instructed to give the horse a totally different cue, the gentle swinging of the rope, in the hope that the horse may recognise that this means he must step back. Again there is much potential for the horse to fail to make the connection required for him to be able to comply with the handler’s wishes. The wiggling of the rope is taken to the next level, or phase, and again to its fourth level, which involves violent swinging of the rope; so violent, in fact, that it often causes the heavy clip on the end of the rope to hit the horse on its lower jaws and muzzle with some force.
This is the point at which the horse either backs up, albeit with his nose pointing in the air as he swings his head around to avoid the pain, or he tries to run into his handler to achieve relief.
My problem with all that, lies in the use of four different cues, and increasing pressure to teach a horse one simple task which may be much simpler taught by other means, using more subtle pressure, by repetition until the horse gives the desired response.
Horses must be free to want to offer a response of sorts to every cue from their handler. If a horse misunderstands the meaning of the cue, yet offers a measured response to it, even if it is not the desired response as required by the handler, he must be rewarded, otherwise he may be loath to try something else when cued again. If he is punished for not offering the correct response to the cue, his willingness to offer compliance will be compromised, and so his training will be adversely affected.
It is my belief that the use of the ‘porcupine game’ has such an adverse affect on the horse’s ability to learn, because he is not given a fair chance to learn, by repetition of a single cue, how to seek and execute the correct response. This is detrimental to his willingness to try.
Under no circumstances must a horse in training be punished for his failure to understand what is being asked of him, as this will definitely have the effect of preventing him seeking to relieve himself of the pressure, and therefore he only has resistance to offer.