Downunder Horsmanship - Clinton Anderson - OMG

Allover said:
As it states in the article, we train horses to respect fencing with electricity, sometimes this is connected to the mains which is a damn sight stronger, i presume, than this collar. Rightly or wrongly people have used electric tape on top of doors to stop wind suckers.

Why is it ok then to stick sharp bits of metal in their sides to make them go faster, why is it ok to stick a lump of metal in their mouth to make them stop, why is it ok to strap their heads down and ride them off balance and confused?

And i have seen cases, with dogs only, where the e-collar has proved to be a life saver, literally.
Click to expand...

Yes you are so right ! I know exactly where you're coming from Allover, people just blindly follow what's been done for years without thinking why... seems to depend on whats "commonly accepted" as not cruel and people just don't think outside the box enough!

For example, I've noticed some younger vets these days don't use twitches anymore, it's like an old trend starting to die out.... which is good ! Also things like years ago (I was told by an old farrier), they used to put army horses in a type of "stock" to shoe them, horses that had never been really handled, horses going straight out to WW2, straight to battle and he said some died in these stocks the poor things ! I mean that was obviously acceptable back then... times change, thank god!!!

If Natural Horsemanship was here in England 30 years ago, I wish I'd been taught it then !!! Instead all I knew was BHS stuff ! Where has it been hiding for so long ???

Anyway, I don't usually post here at all, but I felt really dismayed at all the negative NH comments. There always seems alot more negatives than positives, but I feel that in time things will change... I'll bet my boots on it ...

Also I personally think stabling is cruel lol.... (only joking) ! :)

My mares a weaver... she definitely thinks it cruel lol !!!!!
 
Have there been some sort of strange experiments going on consisting of labotomising people and putting them back into society to see what the reaction is????

As if Mr and Mrs P aren't bad enough, there's a whole cult like following for this guy? He's a TOOL!

If any of you ever looked away from your DVD's for a minute and watched your horses socialise with others, you will see how they respond to very slight stimulous. I can back most horses up and move them around with just body language and eye contact, even new ones i've not met before. That's how they do it amongst themselves. You don't need to hit it with a whip (under whatever name you want to use) to ask it to do a simple thing like that.

I despair at the state of 'modern' society.

P.s: This is not an example of 'natural horsemanship' in the same way Parelli isn't. It's an example of pushing a horse beyond its limit until it shuts down. If it's HN you're after, then this is the wrong tree to bark up. Maybe find a dictionary and look up the terms 'natural' and 'horsemanship' individually. If you can look away from your dvds...
 
JanetGeorge said:
He's a performer alright! He performs acts of gross stupidity - accompanied by moronic commentary! If he was dealing with lumps of wood I could laugh at him! Sadly, he's dealing with live, sensitive animals! If that's the sort of thing that passes for horse 'training' in Oz these days, then I'm glad I left!
Click to expand...
Yes
I think he should be renamed The downunderhand horsebully ? but hey why let good horsemanship get in the way of fame and money, it worked for pp !!!
 
If you actually take the time to study horse behavior you will see that horses use several methods to make another horse do what they want... this can include kicking another horse and biting with extreme pressure which when applied to another horse can really hurt hence a horse will move quickly away when bitten or kicked hard.
Natural horsemanship uses the same principles with pressure and release techniques...to say it is cruel to use a stick to apply gentle tapping/whacking to a horses hindquarters is ridiculousness as a horse can hardly feel it...not only this but how about all you people that support horse racing now that is cruel to repeatedly hit a horse again and again and again to get it to win is completely beyond my understanding, how about all the race horses that have to be shot due to injury....how about the disposal of horses that do not make the grade as race horses..oh yes they are being put down simply because they do not have what it takes..so who is worse the race horse fans or clinton anderson fans..I rest my case
 
kinga said:
Horses are always taught by application of pressure and the release of pressure.
Click to expand...
Always? No, that's only one side of the coin. Learning is indeed achieved through pressure and its release, but believing that's all there is to it indicates a very skewed view of how horses learn.
 
not sure if it is him, but I saw a photo recently of a woman sitting on a weanling looking proud as punch with a "well-known Australian trainer" by her side....it was truly infuriating to see and the poor foal looked incredibly unhappy.
 
lucyjade2 said:
If you actually take the time to study horse behavior you will see that horses use several methods to make another horse do what they want...
Click to expand...
The fact that you are talking in terms of horses making other horses do things is rather telling. There is a lot more to herd life than just that, and many other kinds of lesson we can learn from studying horse behaviour - which, by the way, I have done extensively.

Natural horsemanship uses the same principles with pressure and release techniques...
Click to expand...
And that is where some (not all) of NH goes horribly wrong, imo. Just because horses occasionally behave aggressively with each other and may even come to physical blows does not mean that we need to be rough in our handling, the antics of the likes of CA and Pat Parelli notwithstanding.
 
Well I can't get rural tv it sounds that my blood pressure is better for that.
It took a week for it to recover from watching PP trying " to Train " that poor stallion who disliked being bridled ( my introduction to NH after reading a thread on here).
 
Faracat said:
I also saw this and was also horrified. My Dad (non horsey) asked why they didn't get a 'proper' trailer ie, a british one with a forward ramp for unloading. He couldn't understand why they only opened one of the rear doors and had the horse stepping out of the trailer down a step which was in the horse's blind spot, she couldn't see where the hell she was going!

I had no answer.
Click to expand...

When you use a 'step down' and back a horse out every single person I know, including myself, tell the horse "step" they are trained to back out and are used to the single door, which, when you think about it, is no more narrow than those godawful front unloads which I hate.

I can see both points of view, an awful lot of it is to do with what you are accustomed to. Some step-downs can be quite high, and yes a horse can slip, I don't like the high ones myself either, anymore than I like front unloads or very steep lorry ramps.

It is swings and roundabouts, because step downs are not usual in the UK people are suspicious of them, understandable, you should hear what North American have to say about ramps and front unloads because they aren't that common! ... and as for horse lorries!!!!!!:eek::D

I think that just because something is different does not mean it is wrong...and that applies to everyone whatever their nationality. :) (Please note smiley face, I am making an observation, not arguing)

As for CA, I haven't actuallly watched any of his videos so don't feel able to comment.
 
Last edited:
because step downs are not usual in the UK people are suspicious of them, understandable
Click to expand...

Im English and wouldnt mind a step down trailer. Im not so keen on front unloads either and have a trailer with just a rear ramp, if there had been a step option I wouldnt have been adverse to having a look at one.

Goldenstar, I dont have the channel either, makes my bp glad too :)
 
lucyjade2 said:
to say it is cruel to use a stick to apply gentle tapping/whacking to a horses hindquarters is ridiculousness as a horse can hardly feel it...

not only this but how about all you people that support horse racing now that is cruel to repeatedly hit a horse again and again and again to get it to win is completely beyond my understanding, how about all the race horses that have to be shot due to injury....how about the disposal of horses that do not make the grade as race horses..oh yes they are being put down simply because they do not have what it takes..so who is worse the race horse fans or clinton anderson fans..I rest my case
Click to expand...

A horse can feel a fly land on its body :confused:

Not sure about 'resting your case' as your argument makes no sense to me. What on earth does horse racing have to do with anything :confused: Trying to obfuscate the discussion on here with other things that may/may not be more cruel has no bearing on Clinton Anderson's methods in this context IMO.
 
I was aghast when I saw these postings.

I have attended 4 clinics with Clinton Anderson, the first in 2002. I'll take 4 more if he ever comes to the UK. In short, not one of you nay-sayers has a clue what you're talking about. One of you pompously spouts off that we who like Clinton know nothing of the long term effects, and yet you know nothing whatsoever of Clinton Anderson's techniques, short or long. I am 10 years on with his techniques and I'll go on with them until I no longer can.

It doesn't matter one jot to me whether or not you like the man. Opinions are a ha'penny a dozen. Many of you border on slander and libellous rantings, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that was exhibited recently when a prominent peer in the UK was accused of child abuse without any evidence whatsoever.

Love him or hate him, it makes no difference to me. But do so based upon fact. Judge people, if you must, by intelligent and accurate gathering of information derived from your own personal experience -- and not from your sitting room armchair blinded by your self-important musings with the bare bones of subjective evidence. Which nincompoop of you thinks giving a horse a wet saddle pad is cruel? And the unfortunate horse that fell during the trailer exercise was NOT INJURED. Shaken up, maybe a bruise on the bum, but not injured. Was it shocking? Yes. Dangerous? Yes. Which is exactly why he continued working with the horse to get it beyond its utterly hysterical fear. Had he stopped the training at that point, he would have only reinforced the terror this horse felt when getting into a trailer. Instead, the horse learned something… that the trailer is not a horse-eating monster… that going in and out of a trailer, calmly and slowly, was a non-event, no big deal. More importantly, by liberating it from its fear, it guaranteed that the horse would never again be at risk from a trailer-loading injury. In short, he made it SAFE for everyone. I would have been horrified if he'd quit that horse. But I know he would never have done that, because he is the consummate professional.

For the record: When the horse fell, Clinton was not inside the trailer, he was outside observing the behaviour the owner was very wisely seeking help for. Get your facts in order, and educate yourself. The trailer used was the owner's. It's a slant-load with a tack room at the back. That's why the doors don't open all the way and why there is no ramp. I hate them and wouldn't own one. But that's the owners choice, not Clinton's.

Treats and pony nuts don't work. If they work for you, great. Start training horses and prove Clinton wrong. The simple fact of nature is that a horse is a prey animal. You can only bribe predators; you can't bribe prey animals. Fear and instinct override food. It's flight or fight. A horse has to be shown it has nothing to fear. Pony nuts (food) can't do that.

First and foremost, Clinton Anderson is about safety, to both horse and human. In my observation of horse herds, when one horse wants another out of its space, it isn't communicated politely nor gently. It is done so through pressure, as fierce as the aggressor deems necessary. Nothing I've ever seen Clinton do has been remotely as fierce as what one horse will do to another. Before I purchased my gelding, I watched him run another gelding virtually into the ground, then back it into a corner and buck right into its chest three times. To my astonishment, the 'victim' wasn't hurt. But he was forever after submissive to my gelding. Fortunately, my gelding never pulled such antics with humans. But the point is obvious. A stick and a string, a whack or a bump are not acts of cruelty. Clinton Anderson does not use his tools with even a modicum of anger or frustration, much less cruelty. He uses them with precise rhythm and sensitive consistency -- to communicate and train.

I think it important to note that Clinton also is a generous trainer who makes his techniques about the horse and not about him. He often trains wild or rescue horses that are auctioned for charity. He trains people to be better partners to their horses. He is fond of saying that horses don't want to be bad; they are only being so because some human has taught them that it's okay to be bad. Humans reinforce that behaviour by treating horses like humans, like babies. To those of you who do, I challenge you to spend a month in a herd, living as a horse, under horse rules…

The gifts Clinton has given me through his clinics, his techniques, his kind personal advice, are unparalleled in my life with horses. When I greet them each morning, they nicker excitedly; they willingly, respectfully, back away from the door as I enter, giving me all the space I need to deliver that delicious breakfast/dinner. In the field, they come to me the moment they see me, eagerly. If I have a halter, they put their noses into it agreeably, or sometimes they just follow me in. Bes of all, they canter up when I whistle. Under saddle, they are my partners, my equals. And in that equality, they accord me Alpha status, trusting me to make the right decisions for our herd of 3. Farriers love to work with them; vets are impressed by their willing cooperation under often stressful situations. At riding events, people tell me how lucky I am to have such great horses. But luck has nothing to do with it. I would not have this relationship were it not for Clinton Anderson, full stop. Oh, I put in the work; but I couldn't have done so without Clinton's techniques.

I don't care what response this posting evokes, whether it produces support or indignation. What I do care about is people spouting off their subjective impressions and mis-interpretations as fact and compounding this injustice by passing judgement upon those utterly ignorant spewings. Whoever you are, if you passed judgement on Clinton Anderson -- or any other individual -- without FACTUAL, personal experience and knowledge, then hang your head in shame. You are what's wrong with our push-button society.
 
dartanyan said:
Treats and pony nuts don't work. If they work for you, great.
Click to expand...
First you say they don't work, then you admit they might work for other people. So which is it? Has CA definitely said that using food as reward absolutely doesn't work (or is somehow 'wrong')?

Start training horses and prove Clinton wrong.
Click to expand...
Lots of people have trained horses very successfully using food rewards. Type "clicker training loading" into YouTube for some examples of what regular folk have achieved. It clearly worked for them. (Btw, CT is just one specific way of using food rewards; it isn't the only one.)

The simple fact of nature is that a horse is a prey animal.
Click to expand...
So? Prey animals are also highly motivated to eat food.

You can only bribe predators; you can't bribe prey animals.
Click to expand...
Your use of the word 'bribe' betrays a fundamental misunderstanding that I have noticed is rather common in the NH community. It would appear that some trainers simply do not understand positive reinforcement - what it is (and isn't) and how it can be used to full potential. Prey and predators are really not so different when it comes to how reward works.

Fear and instinct override food.
Click to expand...
Extreme fear certainly does, I won't argue with that. Naturally, horses also have a food instinct.

It's flight or fight.
Click to expand...
You seem to be reducing all of equine behaviour and horse training to their reaction to frightening stimuli. If fear is avoided, bypassed or overridden (see below), teaching becomes a lot more straightforward. The temptation is to push a horse through its fear by 'flooding', but that is obviously more unpleasant for the horse, and the end results are often inferior to 'little at a time' applied with sensitivity and patience.

For example, I worked with a young Welsh Sec A pony stallion who was so fearful of having his feet handled that he was positively dangerous (rearing, striking and biting) and the farrier refused to trim his feet unless he was sedated. I used positive reinforcement first to train the pony to lift each foot to a cue. The use of food rewards dispelled the fear. It effectively short-circuited any bad feelings about people touching his feet and legs: a horse cannot be happy and eager to do something and be fearful about it at the same time. Once the pony had learned to lift feet on cue - to offer the behaviour himself - it was a straightforward matter to habituate him to having his feet held for longer and longer periods of time, manipulated, tapped, rasped and so on. The only reason he let me hold his feet in the first place was that foot-lifting had become an activity with positive associations. There was no confrontation, struggle or upset, no need for ropes or restraint, no chasing in round pens, and almost no pressure.

I don't know how CA would have dealt with this pony. Would he try to push him through the fear? What I am sure about is that any approach demanding 'respect at any cost' would have had disastrous consequences.

A horse has to be shown it has nothing to fear. Pony nuts (food) can't do that.
Click to expand...
What food can do -- if used properly and not merely as a bribe -- is create a positive attitude to learning, as described above.

And in that equality, they accord me Alpha status, trusting me to make the right decisions for our herd of 3.
Click to expand...
What exactly do you mean by 'alpha status', and are you aware of the difference between dominance and leadership in horse herds? Parelli appears not to be, and I am wondering where Clinton Anderson stands on this.

Farriers love to work with them; vets are impressed by their willing cooperation under often stressful situations. At riding events, people tell me how lucky I am to have such great horses. But luck has nothing to do with it. I would not have this relationship were it not for Clinton Anderson, full stop. Oh, I put in the work; but I couldn't have done so without Clinton's techniques.
Click to expand...
I am happy for you and your horses, but please remember that other people can say exactly the same things about theirs, in equally glowing terms, even though they use methods far removed from CA's. His is not the only way.

The horses I have owned and/or worked with, including stallions, nicker to me when I greet them; they willingly, 'respectfully', back away from the door as I enter, giving me all the space I need to deliver that delicious breakfast/dinner. In the field, they come to me the moment they see me, eagerly. If I have a halter, they put their noses into it agreeably, or sometimes they just follow me in. Yes, all of those things and indeed luck has nothing to do with it. Yet I have no connection with Clinton Anderson, and my methods are based more in learning theory rather than Natural Horsemanship (although imo what NH has to teach about body language, 'feel', timing of release, etc. is very useful; the stuff about hierarchy and 'respect', much less so).

I personally have no direct clinic experience of Clinton Anderson (but have 'audited' several other NH practitioners). My impression from what I have seen in video form is that he is overly rough, like Parelli if not more so, and needlessly hectoring. I know that can get results quickly. However, I also know that it isn't necessary to get results quickly, and often results are better gotten slowly.

The unwillingness to be patient and take things in steps small enough for the horse to assimilate without major fear or conflict - exemplified by the desire/demand for quick fixes in demos - may also be a symptom of our push-button society!
 
You say nothing to dispell my assertion that you are completely ignorant of Clinton Anderson's techniques, and have no experience of them. The pony you cite with fear of feet handling is a perfect example.

I only made one point: If you do not have the facts in hand, do not criticise, do not classify, and do not accuse.
 
dartanyan said:
You say nothing to dispell my assertion that you are completely ignorant of Clinton Anderson's techniques, and have no experience of them.
Click to expand...
I have been completely honest and open about my degree of ignorance.

The pony you cite with fear of feet handling is a perfect example.
Click to expand...
How is that?

I only made one point: If you do not have the facts in hand, do not criticise, do not classify, and do not accuse.
Click to expand...
Where have I done that?? I have stated that what little I have seen of CA gave me the impression that his handling was overly rough (and like Parelli in that respect). That is an opinion formed from what I have seen. Other than that, I have made general points in response to your statement that treats don't work - because I was aghast at that assertion - and asked a few questions. I haven't said anything about the alleged trailering incident as frankly I'm not that interested.

You know all about Clinton Anderson's horsemanship. So what does he say (if anything) about positive reinforcement? What does he say about dominance and herd hierarchy? My guess is that he sets store by the latter because NH folk tend to do so and because of what you wrote previously: "when one horse wants another out of its space, it isn't communicated politely nor gently". To my mind this is irrelevant to training; we don't want or need to emulate this action. I certainly don't consider it an excuse for getting rough with horses to any degree. Does Anderson? This is your chance to correct our misunderstandings and set the record straight!
 
Just saw this quote in CA's book. It is the legend for a photo of a horse with its ears pinned running towards another horse.

"A dominant horse demands respect from the herd."

I guess that answers one of my questions. *sigh*
 
First -- and most important -- I do not "know all about Clinton Anderson's horsemanship" and I do not now, nor will I ever, purport to. I only know that his techniques have transformed my relationship with my horses, and the horses of friends. I am not a trainer and never will be, and I do not speak for Downunder Horsemanship.

I will wager a guess, based on something I recall Clinton saying at a clinic but I stress emphatically that this is based upon a memory, not specific fact. So, expecting that everyone understands, what I recall is this: Someone asked Clinton about his techniques being NH. His reply was something along the lines of what's natural to a horse is to be with its buddies in a herd, being a horse. That there is nothing natural in what humans ask horses to do. I thought I detected a bit of horror in having been called NH. Just my impression, but, be it Clinton's, Parelli's, Roberts', or your way… it isn't natural. It is an imposition of our will upon them. How we do that is what differentiates us from one another.

You are, in effect, asking me to enlighten everyone to Clinton's techniques. I don't have that authority. Plus, it isn't of interest to me. He is not a Messiah and I am no one's Disciple. The entire crux of my original posting is about pronouncing judgements without being in possession of the facts. YouTube videos are rife with subjective, editorialised content and, as such, cannot be used in evidentiary support of any assertion -- positive or negative. If it is Clinton's own video, then he is solely responsible for that content. But even then, if the viewer has already made up their mind, or has decided their way is better than anyone else's, the end result will be the same. A closed mind is deaf, mute and blind. And dumb.

If you truly want to know about his methods, you have to start with an open mind and make serious effort. YT videos are not the way to do this. You have judged him and his techniques based mainly on YT and in making those judgements, you have accused him of being 'overly rough', criticised him and most certainly classified him. Are you saying it's okay to be rough but not 'overly' so? I come from the school of first-hand experience. If I don't have it, I keep my mouth firmly shut. In all candour, I didn't like him when I first saw him on tv. But I continued evaluating the pros and cons. I found far more pros.

It is very difficult to use written words to explain a technique. Even instruction manuals don't do it very well. Important things are missed accidentally. But, I will try to reply to your query about the pony's fear of feet handling because I hope will at least shed a crack of light on your steadfast opinion that CA doesn't 'do' positive reinforcement. However, that can only happen if you open your mind to it…

Here is what Clinton taught me to do: Approach pony with passive body language. As soon as you see pony react (e.g., tense up, head up, etc.), STOP! That's what he calls the 'red line' and it becomes the 'starting point' for training. But if pony moves its feet away from you, you must continue to approach passively until pony stops completely. Then do not move until it relaxes (licks lips, cocks foot, sighs, lowers head, etc.) or stands still for 10-15 seconds. When that is achieved, immediately walk away (retreat). Repeat approach/retreat scenario, going a bit closer each time until you can touch pony. Touch with firmness (like a good massage), and rub, rub, rub, and then rub some more. Retreat. Repeat. Retreat. Repeat. Rub pony all over body. Lets pretend we can now touch legs all over. Rub up and down the leg so pony is totally bored by the feeling. You can't lift its feet until it hasn't a care in the world that you're messing with its legs, so don't go to the next stage until that one is achieved.

To get pony to lift its leg, tap (with your finger) gently 3 times on the inside of the leg, below the knee. Nothing, of course, will happen because pony doesn't understand yet. Tap 3x, wait, if no response GENTLY pinch the chestnut, increasing pressure until pony shows the slightest reaction to lifting its foot, e.g., bending knee. IMMEDIATELY retreat. Repeat process, rubbing up and down leg, tap 3x, pinch chestnut etc. When pony finally lifts leg completely off floor with the tapping cue, hold foot very briefly and release (before pony gets tense and takes it away). When you can hold pony's foot, tap it gently all over and release when pony shows relaxation. Rub pony all over body. Depending on how long this takes, pony may need a break or a distraction of some kind. Return to training when appropriate, repeating same technique on all 4 legs, graduating to tapping pony's feet with hammer… and that will need to be very fierce tapping to emulate a farrier.

This technique, reiterated by me on this forum, may have changed or been adjusted by CA since I learned it. But the approach/retreat technique is the same. When the horse relaxes, the pressure stops. Or, when the horse relaxes, the scary object goes way, etc. No pushing, no fear, no aggression. I have never known Clinton Anderson to use those tactics.

As a trainer, one of CA's greatest attributes for me is his repetitive instruction. I've heard much of it thousands of times, but I still listen because this human learns by rote. As I said, I'm not a trainer. To do my best for my horses, I need that repetitive reinforcement. So, Clinton has countless favourite sayings and here are a few: As gentle as possible, as firm as necessary; It takes as long as it takes; make the right thing easy [work], the wrong thing hard [work], AND... respect without fear.

I think this is positive reinforcement. I don't, however, think it is how you view positive reinforcement. Fair enough, but because you don't see it that way, doesn't make it fact.

What I said about my horse's behaviour had nothing to do with other people's horses, nor their choice of training/trainers. It was a rebuttal in response to the person who spouted off that CA's techniques could damage horses in the long-term. However, because you have prejudged him, you think I am prejudging you. I am not the one who went on a forum to criticise your techniques and make misleading statements about you, with great authority. I stepped up to defend Clinton's techniques, and speak out against misinformation (he was being called 'cruel'). Your defensiveness is unwarranted, because you've not been attacked. It's not about bragging rights.

There are a multitude of ways to train animals and humans. I've no knowledge of your methods so I make no comments whatsoever, much less judgements. You have misconstrued what I said about food not being a way to get a horse in a trailer. I stand by that. But you changed the complexion of that statement. Of course food can be used in training. It's the training that is the key. If your horse liked a song and a dance and you did that whilst training, that would work, too. But standing on a loading ramp with a bucket of feed, inching slowly inside as a means to get a horse into a trailer won't work if it's not trained properly. Horses aren't stupid. Many know it's the best way to get their favourite treats, and when they're good and ready, or bored, they'll go in the trailer. I've witnessed that scenario countless times, and have marvelled at the cleverness of the horse… and the stupidity of their humans. That's not training; it's reinforcing bad behaviour. If the horse is sold on, its new owner will have a horse that won't load because no seller is going to say 'he goes into trailer if you bribe him for 45 minutes'.

Prejudice is sight-deprivation. It cheats us of the truth, of reality. You have blindly judged CA, and have now decided that I'm saying you're wrong and I'm right. Nothing of the sort. Your choice is yours. I am not responsible for you. I do not encourage anyone to make the choices I make in life. I don't take responsibility for anyone but me. My only point remains the same: Get ALL the facts in order from first-hand experience before passing judgement and making unequivocal statements. You can't pick and choose the bits you don't like, and then condemn the whole. And you have done this, because you accuse CA of using "quick fixes". Wow, if I had a quid for every time I've heard him shout at the audience "there are no quick fixes!!!", I'd retire and support my family, friends and end world poverty.

I'm not 100% sure, but it seems you want to think ill of CA (and perhaps many others you refer to as NH), and if so, there is nothing anyone could do to alter that. But even if that's not the case, I am not interested in changing you nor your training techniques. This is about drawing conclusions based upon flimsy -- and wrong -- information. You truly do not have a factual grasp on CA's techniques. And it troubles me that definitive judgements are made with strong assertions that create more prejudice. Clinton Anderson does not use fear to train a horse. Please change this way of thinking, if nothing else. You don't have to like him nor employ his techniques, but you are wrong about this. He does not use fear.
 
I've just seen your recent post with an alleged quote from a CA book. Why does this bother you? You even add a 'sigh' of exasperation. Why? What do you want from animals? To show them it's a kinder, gentler world? Well, me too, but.. it isn't! I mean, it's a fact of nature. Stallions will fight to the death for control of a herd. Dogs, cats, chickens (geez louize, my hens are monstrous to one another!), birds in general… they all use dominant energy to prove their worthiness. Females choose the dominant, strongest male to breed with. I can't bear to watch 'cuddly little chimpanzees' when they go into dominant mode. They will seek out the weakest link and kill it. Why do you seem to want to change the natural instincts of animals into something other than it is? It's anthropomorphic. Or is it that are you focusing the word 'demand' and misconstruing as aggression? Or… are you saying it's all a fake, horses aren't like that, and CA created the image of this aggressive horse in Photoshop to support his techniques?? Of course, you aren't, but that post says a great deal about your mind set. You've nit-picked yet another microscopic example to protect and defend your negative view. Why? To make you look better than him? Although you asked me to set the record straight, I don't get the impression you really want me to do that. Anyway, it doesn't need to be because it already is; it speaks for itself. However, you won't hear it if you are only listening for the detrimental 'gotcha' moment to distort the facts.

I don't anthropomorphise. Animals are animals. I owe them respect, and that means I must learn to speak, and understand, their language. Not the other way 'round. It distresses me when my gelding takes a chunk out of my mare's neck, but it doesn't bother her one bit. She goes back for more. They have taught me (not Clinton nor anyone else) how to use energy and pressure to communicate with them because they are 'black and white'. Any grey areas signify weakness and expose them to danger, attack. This is how the universe, as we know it, exists. If you want to buck that fact, go for it. Change the world, it needs it. But don't deny nature and insist it's not that way. It IS that way. I think your sticking point is in understanding that strong, intentional energy does not have to equate to aggression. I know there are a lot of humans who cannot say what's on their minds nor express their feelings without their anger to support them. This is not something I need. And I feel confident in saying that Clinton Anderson does not need it either.

May I ask what you mean by your statement "I have 'audited' several other NH practitioners"? 'Audited'? This suggests some 'official' capacity? Would you clarify?
 
Someone's got a bee in their bonnet! :eek::D

A new user digging up an old thread from years ago, to write huge lengthy essays on it! I'm guessing you're connected very closely to CA (who I admit to having never heard of), or are something of a fan?

Well... welcome to the forum. A very unusual way to start! :D
 
I believe this is what is called in some quarters a Zombie Thread. :-))

I've never met Clinton Anderson, but have friends who have. From what they say I don't think he'd give a monkeys what people on the H+H forum think of his approach.

Oh, I've read back, really funny to see someone arguing their version of "equine behaviour" with Fburton.
 
Last edited:
Ah, you know, I'm sort of under the "nh" ish banner and my horses are happy little souls that live pretty un-traumatic lives. NH covers a very wide spectrum.
 
FionaM12 said:
Someone's got a bee in their bonnet! :eek::D

A new user digging up an old thread from years ago, to write huge lengthy essays on it! I'm guessing you're connected very closely to CA (who I admit to having never heard of), or are something of a fan?

Well... welcome to the forum. A very unusual way to start! :D
Click to expand...

Not like you to suspect the unsuspicious? To my mind dartanyan speaks a lot of sense.

I don't actually care about who thinks what about NH. I have seen it 'used' by a very unassuming and unshowmanlike 'normal' person to good effect. I'm not sure what the ears pinned expression is all about in some of the CA videos, but the horse I saw was completely relaxed. It wasn't circus tricks but the basics put in place and used. It was effortless and all done on subtle signals.

Horses are not polite to each other and I'm not suggesting we bust straight in there all aggresive, but they use signals we can't hope to replicate (who can make an ear flick back?) and if that is ignored, a swift nip or kick might well be the next offering! How many owners have found themselves being walked all over because they have missed the pecking order being rearranged gradually, then realized that somehow, the horse is above them? And tried to attribute it to anything except ignorance and negligence on their own part to see and understand how it works in horses?

I'm not into the spectacular displays of horse control under saddle or on foot but for horses to be of any value to most people they have to be either edible or capable of fulfilling another role - usually under saddle doing VERY 'abnormal-for-horses' stuff. In fact, making them into a meal is the most normal thing we do to them, in terms of a horse's existence!

I'd mostly prefer sensible NH to get them to do the crazy stuff we want, to botched and half-baked BHS methods, very few of which apply any horse sense whatsoever.
 
Methinks Dartanyan (looks awful spelled that way) has an agenda here.

Nothing, no amount of preaching, video watching, or attempted brainwashing will ever convince me that Clinto Anderson should be allowed within 100 metres of any live horse.
 
Tinypony said:
Oh, I've read back, really funny to see someone arguing their version of "equine behaviour" with Fburton.
Click to expand...
... and it's not me for a change. :D

I do have some empathy with some views Dartanyan takes ie. re defining Nature but the little I have seen on video of CA is not to my personal taste so I have never bothered to investigate further.

Re NH, it depends on your definition but it has always been my foundation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top