# Parelli vs Downunder--help me with the analysis?



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

to be honest, I can't enumerate it like that. that sort of list making and categorizing is what the Parelli camp does, and I haven't the energy to learn the whole new language and lists and all.

My impression is that CA is about getting the "job" done quicky to give you a rideable horse , soon. and his approach is more of "Making" things happen, on YOUR timetable. Parelli is more about doing things that might not seem to relate to your ultimate goal, but will bring your horse to the end stage, ultimately, if done correctly, of being a good partner/riding horse.

Parelli is more about the means are important, the journey is your goal

and CA is more about the means don't matter so much as the end , so the goal is your goal.

does that make sense at all?


----------



## ojzab (Aug 6, 2014)

tinyliny said:


> to be honest, I can't enumerate it like that. that sort of list making and categorizing is what the Parelli camp does, and I haven't the energy to learn the whole new language and lists and all.
> 
> My impression is that CA is about getting the "job" done quicky to give you a rideable horse , soon. and his approach is more of "Making" things happen, on YOUR timetable. Parelli is more about doing things that might not seem to relate to your ultimate goal, but will bring your horse to the end stage, ultimately, if done correctly, of being a good partner/riding horse.
> 
> ...


This is perfect, I think! I did the lists as a process, to start seeing the differences better. I really like how you put it all together in just a couple of sentences. Makes total sense.


----------



## ojzab (Aug 6, 2014)

tinyliny said:


> to be honest, I can't enumerate it like that. that sort of list making and categorizing is what the Parelli camp does, and I haven't the energy to learn the whole new language and lists and all.
> 
> My impression is that CA is about getting the "job" done quicky to give you a rideable horse , soon. and his approach is more of "Making" things happen, on YOUR timetable. Parelli is more about doing things that might not seem to relate to your ultimate goal, but will bring your horse to the end stage, ultimately, if done correctly, of being a good partner/riding horse.
> 
> ...


If they are both equally effective (are they?) does this mean the journey is important only to the human, not the horse?

One thing that I noticed right away is that CA doesn't wait for horses to lick and chew, and yet the horses seems to "get" it just as much. 

Would Parelli argue that the horses are missing something?

Does CA have "horsenalities" and different approaches to each? Or is he still effective without "horesenalities"?


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I don't know. I don;t think CA uses those categories to tailor his approach to horses.

Both seem to get good result from horses, themselves. both have some of the same background.

unfortunately, it's a fact that they are judged more on the results of the training done by their students, and Parelli, having more layers to his approach, ends up having more people getting lost in the "process", and the horse ending up not being very well trained. that's why he get's a bad name; because his students aren't as good as he is at reading and handling horses.

being a teacher of humans is much harder than just training horses. 

I used to totally poo-poo everything that Parelli does. but, when I watch him work with a hrose, with volume muted, I see a pretty good horse person, although he rides a bit . . h . m . m . m .m . . . but , then he isn't young anymore, and I am a pretty crummy rider, too, and he mostly focusses on handling horses, not so much teaching equitation. His wife does that, and she has been more often than not a liability more than an asset.


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

Originally my thoughts on Parelli were that they were a bunch of brainwashing corn flakes that took common sense and bottled it for marketing purposes...

I still think they took common sense and bottled it BUT... Here are my thoughts...

Clinton Anderson works great for a dominant or aggressive horse. BUT you have to be able to be a little bit aggressive as a horse handler. If you are not an aggressive person and when I say aggressive, I don't mean rough or physical, I mean assertive. If you are not an assertive rider but more quiet or slower moving, then you are better off with Josh or John Lyons. The thing with Parelli though, and when I talk Parelli, I talk Pat. His explanations are very elementary and for me, that is really helpful. I was able to get a lot of understanding from his verbiage alone. Example wise, I did better with Linda because she is sloppier and very animated, which made it easier for me to get an understanding of what she was showing us.

So... to me, it depends on the handler and the horse what works. I have pulled a lot of stuff from Clinton Anderson for my dominant gelding but for my weanling, I have done better with a more subtle approach. That is where I think people screw up, when they only drink one specific flavor of koolaide....

Thats' my thought anyway.


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

*6. Appeals to more practical, stable, goal oriented people*

In a nutshell I do not believe that shy people are very successful as horse owners. I suppose if you can afford to pay your trainer to "tune up Fluffy" every time he misbehaves and becomes dangerous, than that would work.

Horses do not remember you years after they have changed hands. They are similar to dogs to train, but, in this respect, they are nothing like dogs, who will pine for their owners.

The only emotions that a successful horse owner/trainer experiences are the joys when the training/showing goes well, and the frustration when it doesn't. All the "My horse is my best friend" is anthropomorphism and is not emotionally healthy. My dogs sleep on the floor of my bedroom. My horses live in the barn and they are not invited inside my house. They are my property and I have expectations for their behavior.

From everything I have heard about Parelli, and from watching some of their programming, I believe that they have invested in the crazy idea that you can "Play" with an animal 20x stronger than you.
MY play with my horses over the years was to teach them my hobby. When they got good at it, they, too, enjoyed MY hobby.

I am a horse owner bc I like to ride horses. I have worked VERY hard for 30 years to afford my horses, and I have worked VERY hard to care for my horses. They are utilitarian. CA's method, IMHO, is a distillation of top trainers and their results oriented training methods.

I am not wealthy enough to drop money on new equipment. I bought a knockoff halter and lunging line bc it was on super uber sale, and I was buying supplies online. I don't care for it, and I'd like to try HIS equipment. There is a difference between riding with sneakers and riding with those MADE for the horseman, riding with Payless "paddock boots", and riding with Ariat's.


----------



## greentree (Feb 27, 2013)

5. They are both about separating you from many of your $$$$$!


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

I think tiny hit a good point that these trainers are most often judged on their "disciples," whether fairly or unfairly. 

I am not a Parelli fan. Never have been, never will be. I've met more messed up horses who were trained using Parelli's methods than I care to count. I'm sure Pat himself is a decent trainer. I haven't watched him directly enough to form an opinion of him as a trainer. However, his method and "games" do not appeal to me whatsoever. His "horseanalities" and the fact that people who follow his methods concentrate more on the games than actually training their horse really bug me. I don't need fancy labels to tell me that my gelding is sensitive to correction, but can be bull-headed sometimes when he thinks he can get away with something. I can train him just as well without the labels and games.

CA's approach is more direct. No games, no fancy terminology. Control a horse's feet and you control it's brain. Plain and simple. 

Do I think CA is a horse training god? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Do I like his method? Sure...at least more than a lot of others. 

I think you need to pick and choose from different trainers and find what works for your horse. 

I do find it interesting, though, that the majority of the people I've encountered who have been Parelli disciples/fanatics and have had poorly-trained, or even dangerous, horses have all had Arabs. Not saying this is the case everywhere, but it's what I've noticed in my little corner or the country.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Hackamore (Mar 28, 2014)

Both these guys are TV personalities/business men with “making money” as their main focus. While there is certainly something that can be learned from both once you get past their circus acts, I think if a person’s goal is to be a fine horseman/horsewoman there are other people in the horse world that one should be paying attention to such as Bryan Neubert, Buck Brannaman or Tom Curtin to name a few. Just my opinion.


----------



## george the mule (Dec 7, 2014)

Hi All!

I don't know much about CA, but I _do_ have some exposure to Parelli and Parelli students.
About my only negative comment would be that the Parelli system does not seem to do a good job transitioning from ground work to in-the-saddle.
Well, and that at least a couple Parelli people I know are still scared sillly of their horses. I can't say if that is the fault of the program specifically, but it doesn't seem to successfully address the issue either.
They may be related; difficult to learn when you're about to pee in your pants 

Steve


----------



## BreezylBeezyl (Mar 25, 2014)

I have differing, and some would say unbiased experiences with both so thought I would share.

I have owned a total of three horses. The second was trained with Parelli by both the previous owner and myself, and my third is in the midsts of being introduced to the CA method after some failures with Parelli.

I'm not a big fan of Parelli myself. For someone with *my personality type*, his method has too much "beating around the bush", if you will. I find that while he does attempt to get into horse theory, it's really easy to get lost in translation. He compares apples to oranges, so to speak... A lot of _"Your horse is behaving this way because of obscure factor x"._ My second mare was trained using Parelli methods her entire life and had very good ground work, but she lacked bravery and confidence under saddle. The program encourages the rider to often get off the horse and get back on the ground to address an issue, but this ended up making me a weaker rider with less confidence in the saddle myself. And often the exercises you perform on the ground do not get used when you get in the saddle. So I do agree with a previous comment that Parelli does not translate from groundwork to under saddle very well.

Clinton on the other hand is very straightforward, blunt, and to the point. He doesn't mess around, and neither does his method - the steps are shorter and sweeter. Control the feet, control the mind. Get the horse using the thinking side of its brain. His groundwork gives you the tools you need to continue to keep control when you get back in the saddle as well, so they stick with me and make more sense. I can understand a point that Clinton is getting across in record time compared to Parelli so I spend more time doing instead of thinking/thoerizing, which I prefer.

Both methods require dedication and patience of course, but I find Clinton's methods easier to understand and my horse responds very well to them. I do think horses are different too. I've got a very reactive horse, so using Clinton's method I am able to get her paying attention to me which in and of itself helps a lot. She is one of those horses who will take a mile if you give her an inch, and CA's method does not give her the time to do this.

As many of you already know, I struggle with confidence - something which I find CA's methods really give to the rider in shorter amounts of time. To me, seeing is believing, and I find you really see results much quicker with Clinton's methods -- WITHOUT taking shortcuts to get there.

Just my two cents!

EDIT: I just wanted to add... About the two of these individuals being 'out for money': every horse trainer in the world expects a profit from their profession. Horse trainers RUN A BUSINESS, plain and simple. I actually applaud the both of them for creating their own methods that can be easily delivered to the average horse owner, and for hiring a marketing team to get the word out there. I have most certainly benefited from both of them at certain times, but never could have experienced that without their products being marketed. :? I respect them both for being where they are. It took a lot of work to get there.


----------



## ojzab (Aug 6, 2014)

george the mule said:


> Hi All!
> 
> I don't know much about CA, but I _do_ have some exposure to Parelli and Parelli students.
> About my only negative comment would be that the Parelli system does not seem to do a good job transitioning from ground work to in-the-saddle.
> ...


 Re transitioning to in-the-saddle: 
All I hear from Parelli students is "everything we do on the ground translates to in-the-saddle." Is the actual transition not as easy because it is poorly designed, or because it is difficult to apply properly?http://www.horseforum.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

I gauge my opinions about Parelli from being around long enough to have reading training advice from trainers who came Before Parelli.
Right now, over 80% of the American population live in or near ALL of cities. Only 20% is rural. Therefore, MOST Americans are learning from people who are city or suburbanites. They:
1) don't know that hens don't need a rooster around to lay an egg
2) believe that an overnight stall soiled by one horse is evidence of neglect
3) do not realize that dogs can have jobs
4) BELIEVE that every animal that you want to own will become your BFF (at least until you tire of the ownership)
--my list could go on for pages...
THIS is the mindset that Parelli is appealing to.
I grew up wanting those Hunters that the two men were sitting on when they talked to me in Pennsylvania...when I was 5yo.
I wanted those horses to ride all over the place and to enjoy.
I wasn't looking for a best friend in the form of a horse.
I bought my first horses to ride in my hobby and to enjoy training.
I wasn't looking to waste my time "persuading" any of my horses to obey me.
THIS is why I don't care for the Parelli method.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

Corporal said:


> Right now, over 80% of the American population live in or near ALL of cities. Only 20% is rural.
> Therefore, MOST Americans are learning from people who are city or suburbanites. They:
> 1) don't know that hens don't need a rooster around to lay an egg
> 2) believe that an overnight stall soiled by one horse is evidence of neglect
> ...


This is the funniest thing I have ever read.


----------



## STT GUY (Apr 23, 2014)

I would also say CA puts human safety first and foremost.


----------



## STT GUY (Apr 23, 2014)

greentree said:


> 5. They are both about separating you from many of your $$$$$!


Nothing wrong with asking a fair price to receive a well organized and well presented horse training system. Apparently the free market is ok with the price asked for the materials.


----------



## Justahorseguy (Mar 24, 2015)

This woman is in a competition to rescue and train a wild mustang. She's using natural horsemanship. It's sort of a mix between CA and Parelli. She's got video updates very often.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNIkbSDYtGdvZ8ArxuM-AAQ


----------



## STT GUY (Apr 23, 2014)

Justahorseguy said:


> This woman is in a competition to rescue and train a wild mustang. She's using natural horsemanship. It's sort of a mix between CA and Parelli. She's got video updates very often.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNIkbSDYtGdvZ8ArxuM-AAQ


I don't think the two mentioned above are always mutually exclusive.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

The one thing I have noticed about Parelli trained horses is that they look so miserable, bored out of their tiny heads!
I am sure this is because of all the repetition.
Let's face it, several Parelli followers have been playing the seven games for years and never ridden their horse! 

I do not agree with some things that CA does but I am sure that he would be just as able to adjust his method from a nervous horse to a bossy one.

As for personalities, horses do have them. As for introvert and extrovert, forget it. 

I follow neither. Have no reason to. I work my own way which is basically the old school English method. I adjust for each horse though the rules are the same. Ugh boundaries to start, correcting every little thing and as trust/respect grows so those boundaries widen.

Get the little things right and the big things never happen.


----------



## STT GUY (Apr 23, 2014)

george the mule said:


> Hi All!
> 
> Well, and that at least a couple Parelli people I know are still scared sillyof their horses. I can't say if that is the fault of the program specifically, but it doesn't seem to successfully address the issue either.
> They may be related; difficult to learn when you're about to pee in your pants
> ...


Interesting. We just took a CA fundamentals four-day clinic presented by Dale Cunningham. It was a very good and well presented clinic and well worth the investment in my opinion.

I was take aback to see two people refuse to ride their horses in at least half of the exercises. If ever there was THE time to do it, it was then and there. Then these same people argued with the clinician about elements of the course. "my horse doesn't learn that way" was the common remark.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Maybe it is just my own personality, but I have never been a "follower" or a groupie in music, politics, social situations or horsemanship.

I have a go-to method I prefer and that I find usually produces consistent results with my own horses. However....

If I run into a situation where it isn't working as well as I would like, it is time to engage my own brain to assess the specific experience and try a different approach. There is a saying that insanity, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Sometimes, while it can provide easy guidance, sticking within the boundaries provided by any one method places a limit on potential. 

Whether the ultimate approach closely mirrors Brenneman, Parelli, Hunt, Dorrance, Anderson, Cox, Lyons or some here-to not tried method of my own creation is of no consequence as long as it produces a willing, responsive, enjoyable, safe horse.


----------



## gee50 (Dec 31, 2014)

*Analysis is Paralysis*

In my never to be humble opinion, there is no difference between Parelli and Anderson. It's about selling a service by putting your best personality forward.

Let's be honest here. We as a community put horse trainers some where between the local contractor and roto-rooter guy. I mean what happens when your sink backs up. You call a guy out. He takes some information from you. Pulls his motorized snake out. Runs it down the clean out and walla... Blockage gone. You are happy. He was there in jiffy and it's only gonna cost you $49.95.

But wait, he hands you a an itemize bill for $148.58. You ask, “What the hell is this. :shock: Your add says $49.95 to clean out any clog?” He replies, “Ya that's for a clog that is within the 'waste line'.” You say, “waste line?” He says, “Ya. A waste line is any line within two (2) feet of an exterior wall. Your clog was fifty (50) feet down the main sewer line line, somewhere out in front by that tree. See the roots on the end of the auger. So that is a $99.00 charge. Then add the house call of $30.00, the $12.50 sewer line insurance protection fee just in case the augur busts through the old clay pipe and tax. Your total is $148.58: said with a smile. 

You are thinking, "Hey, my 10 year old could have done that in 10 minuets if we had just bought one of those roto-rooter things down at Harbor Freight for 75 bucks. What a ripe off!!!! :evil:

In short, we as a community don't value horse trainers, It's pretty much unregulated. So the guy that best suits your personality is probably gonna be the guy you like as a trainer. If you value, gentleness and psychobabble you probably like Pat Parelli. If you value, just gett'in the job done and a competitive spirit, Clinton Anderson is your guy.

Me I see horses as an animal that lives 40 years. They learn for most of their lives. I hate regressive behavior. I'm not a particularly competitive person, nor do enjoy hearing about my foibles and need for personal growth through horse ownership. To go off topic. If I had to choose a methodology. I like the personality of Warwick Schiller or Monty Roberts.

Note how methodology of training has nothing to do with personality. All the above names just dropped do about the same thing. Big, shows, clinics and clinician programs.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

PP and CA may both have a business model that is very similar, but as to their approach in training, I think it differs quite markedly.


----------



## gee50 (Dec 31, 2014)

tinyliny said:


> PP and CA may both have a business model that is very similar, but as to their approach in training, I think it differs quite markedly.


Hi tinyliny. I would have to concede you point to be true on the specifics of how the men approach their training. However, there are a plethora of anti PP videos of PP getting real up in a horses face like CA. Usually taken at an event by someone with a smartphone. I think everyone at one time has heard and or seen the video of PP's wife putting on a clinic. There is even a video of him and her being interviewed that made things all the worst.

The point being, in *general* and I bet behind the scenes ( being ranch life) PP can be or is just as aggressive with obnoxious horses as CA. Being more specific, PP has and dose train clinicians. If his wife is as ungainly as seen and purported. How does that speak to his over all, Natural Horsemanship methodology? I would say just as badly as it does CA. Again as I posted earlier, "Perception is everything."

What we see at an event/clinic is time sensitive and should in no way condemn a man for what he does as a living. However, good salesmanship and common scene would dictate not to get caught with your pants down. If you are gonna be a good showman. I would knock off the working with unknown horses with known dangerous attitudes. Be better than that. Like Buck Brannaman did in the documentary on him just after the _Horse Whisper_ movie.

A young woman that had several studs brought one that was nasty and dangerous to a clinic. The horse ran over a handler and bit him on the head. He had to get several stitches. Buck held his temper (quite visible though) and basically blew the woman off. But did help reload the horse and sent her packing. I know if a business arrange was made, Buck could have easily rehabbed stud. But he would have probably done that at his ranch in a controlled environment. Word has it that not long after that the poor horse was put down.


----------



## Remali (Jul 22, 2008)

I've watched a few Parelli instructors, and a couple of friends of mine have gone out to Colorado to the Parelli ranch for clinics, they do very well and my friends have done very well with their horses at the shows (one is showing upper level dressage). As for CA, I would avoid him like the plague, I find him abusive and too harsh.

I think, in general, people can take away some things, and leave the rest when it comes to these clinicians. Good basic ground work, and patience, (and no gimmicks) goes a long way.


----------



## 4horses (Nov 26, 2012)

My vote is for Clinton Anderson. I bought and resold his dvds on eBay and really enjoyed the information.

I know nothing about Parelli. I remember when I first saw parelli many years ago. I bought his book and couldn't make heads or tails of it. The most repetitive boring thing I have ever read. 

I must say Clinton Anderson's book is much better!

There is a Parelli club in my area. I tried joining, but haven't gone to a single event. It is $300 for this, $150 for that. I might go if they have something under $40... maybe. But it is too expensive for most people.

Why pay that kind of money when I can go riding at the beach for free? Or trail riding? There is a lady giving western dressage lessons for $30. It still is cheaper than a one day parelli event!

With satellite tv I can watch monty roberts from the comfort of my own home! We don't get parelli though, but several other trainers...


----------



## WildAtHeart (Jul 17, 2013)

gee50 said:


> I like the personality of Warwick Schiller


Best. Trainer. Ever.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

Both Clinton and Parelli were horse crazy kids. Both of them were training horses for the neighbors for money by the time they were in their early teens. Both of them hired out to start colts for professionals, and both of them probably started thousands of colts before they ever did their first clinic. Both of them are born workaholics.

Parelli had a rough start, bouncing around starting colts for different guys while he competed successfully in rodeo as a bareback rider. That ended when his rigging slipped one day and he ended up under the horse. At the beginning of his clinic business he drove a lot of miles for years without making any real money. He's my age, more than 20 years older than Clinton Anderson. He was more of a pioneer in the clinic business. When he found out that people at his clinics wanted hand-tied halters like his, he started tying them on the way to clinics while his wife drove the rig. He discovered yacht rope when a clinic participant showed up with some, and the clinician halter business was born.

Clinton had a faster, smoother ride to the top. He had better mentors early, and by the time he arrived on the scene in the US, people like John Lyons and Monty Roberts as well as Parelli had already created the model of attracting a crowd to a clinic. Clinton Anderson was able to look at what everybody else was doing and tweak it. He once said he buys DVDs from every trainer and believes if he gets even one idea on how to explain something more clearly, the price of the DVD is justified. Clinton Anderson was the first trainer to have a TV show.

If you attend one of their tour events, the biggest difference is the Outback tour is all Clinton Anderson. He is out there every session from early Saturday morning until late on Sunday. In the most recent one I saw he had his apprentices out to do some of the riding, but he did the narration. A Parelli tour is part Pat, part Linda, part students, and part Neil Pye, and Pat is nowhere to be seen for part of the weekend.

As far as their methods, I would suggest you reread post number 12. I can't say it any better than WillowNightwind. CA is just a lot easier to follow.


----------



## 4hoofbeat (Jun 27, 2013)

I have watched Parelli, and Clinton, in person. Their personalities differ so much, and I think that also translates to how they handle the horses. 

Parelli is what got me into handling my horse a different way. Then I stumbled onto other "natural" horse trainers.

I think, as with anything in the horse world, you take what works. A Piece from here A piece from there. 

I also really like Warwick Schiller. I like his personality and the way he explains things. 

Just my .02 cents.


----------



## gee50 (Dec 31, 2014)

STT GUY said:


> ....
> I was take aback to see two people refuse to ride their horses in at least half of the exercises. If ever there was THE time to do it, it was then and there. Then these same people argued with the clinician about elements of the course. "my horse doesn't learn that way" was the common remark.


In the above _common remark_ makes me thing back 30, maybe 40 years ago. Folks my age may remember Barbara Woodhouse. She had a PBS show on dog obedience. Probably the first of it's kind. My favorite episodes was the first of each season. The name of the show was “The Woodhouse Way”. Okay maybe that was the name of her book, but you'll get my point in second.

She would line up all the new folks and there dogs in a line facing her; like 20 people. In her 6 foot or so tall stature and with the command of a Sargent Major, she would say and I paraphrases, “I don't train dogs. I train people!”

The truth be know, that's 90% of what I do. But I call it _sharing my knowledge_. I think that's really what guys like PP and CA are doing.

The above folks at your 4 day clinic seem not to be teachable. To bad, because it's the horse and others that will someday come in contact with their horse's that suffer.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

gee50 said:


> The above folks at your 4 day clinic seem not to be teachable.


Funny you mention that in the context of dogs. Years ago I took a dog to a 6-session dog obedience class. Some of us were too rough with our dogs, and some of us were too wishy washy, and we all struggled to catch on to get the timing right to release and reward. But there were 2 or 3 people in that class that just couldn't seem to follow instructions at all, not verbally and not visually. I'm glad they cared enough to attend the class but I felt hope for their dogs was limited. I was glad I wasn't the instructor. I'm sure horse trainers have the same experience.

And I should admit I had no right to my smugness, because at the time I had a Doberman and if you can't train a Doberman you probably shouldn't own a dog. She might have understood more English words than my youngest child.


----------



## lostastirrup (Jan 6, 2015)

> And I should admit I had no right to my smugness, because at the time I had a Doberman and if you can't train a Doberman you probably shouldn't own a dog. She might have understood more English words than my youngest child.


Yes. Sometimes I think the dogs have caught on a little too much. I was lucky when I took my dog to Obedience- she was a shy rescue who was so driven by affection and so attentive she was easy as pie to train.


----------



## STT GUY (Apr 23, 2014)

People CHOOSE to be unteachable. Granted we all learn differently. I'm an example..tell me I HAVE to do something and I am going to fight you every step of the way. Challenge me to do something and I'm off to the races 100%. 

I HAD to go to school, these people at this clinic paid to be there. There were at least two ladies and one man there who I know for sure had scrimped and saved for this opportunity. This was a HUGE investment for them and they deserved to get the most from it. The one "unteachable" lady was very disruptive and frequently argued and/or challenged the clinician. This took away quality time for the rest of us. The clinician offered her a refund if she wanted to leave, she declined feigning being offended. 

I'm pretty blunt and call it like it is so the next time she acted up, I very nicely but also quite firmly asked the one lady to please stop being a disruptive element, because unlike her the rest of us WANTED to learn. I'm off her Christmas card list for sure, but she did STHU and stopped arguing with the clinician.


----------



## gee50 (Dec 31, 2014)

Joel Reiter said:


> And I should admit I had no right to my smugness, because at the time I had a Doberman and if you can't train a Doberman you probably shouldn't own a dog. She might have understood more English words than my youngest child.


Actually the smarter dog as with horses can be the most challenging. Why? because that can't tell you, "Okay I got it. lets move on. I'm getting bored here." But I get your point.

Also just recently I saw a piece (I think on 60 Minuets) about a retired psychologist that has taught his Australian Shepard over a 1000 words. He spends 6 to 8 hours a day working with his dog. Proof that dogs and I think horse, never stop learning and love it!

I have never understood this concept that_ I should only have to have my horse trained for a month and the horse is *trained*_. :-(


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

Agreed. I think that those of us who have owned horses for a long time should be able to recognize the usable vs the unusable from any trainer. My experience with trainers were the bullies who bought a problem horse at an auction and then, one month later, bullied the horse into submission, and then sold it at the next auction. Of COURSE, that horse wasn't going to listen to anybody who wasn't just as tough as the trainer who turned around and made a small profit, so all of the problems would return when the novice brought the horse home, but one at a time, hence great frustration.
What I have gotten from the clinician trainers is how to approach my young horses. I have only broken one young horse in, "Corporal" (1982-2009, RIP), who I bought as a green 4yo. I had 5 other broken horses in the herd. I started by teaching lessons and leading him around in the middle, kinda like exposing a monkey to the other trained monkeys. Then, I put an English saddle on him and rode him in the middle on the arena and taught. Within two months I was riding him at a small local CW Event and he was fully broken in by 5yo, and in my lesson program. After that, he was ridden far more hours than I could have possibly put in on him throughout his lifetime, and thus hangs a horse "tail." (read, tale)
This is where dog training and horse training merge--provide incentives. I turned out my 3 on my big pasture for a few hours. It's short, but still Spring grass, and I will need to retrieve them soon, so I haltered them all. I found some leftover corn on the cob, 3 ears, so I decided to walk the pasture and give each horse one. I showed them the ear, and stood far enough away so that the horse had to walk to ME to get it, reinforcing an incentive to come to me, making it easier to catch them, as they will NOT be anxious to leave this pasture this afternoon.
It is similar to CA's method, making the right thing easy. They are all easy to catch. Why not perfect the things that they do well to even better? ALL handling is important.
There was a post a page back about maintaining a "Signature Horse". I wouldn't have that problem. I would always retrain any disobediences that occurred from being ridden by my students.
This is why I always recommend GOOD lessons before you buy your horse. You NEED to know what a good horse will do and what you can reasonably expect.
SO MANY THREADS here are sad for me. I can see all of the signs of great frustration bc a green rider bought a green horse and will tire of it. Poor horse to be sold off in the near future. Poor owner if they are seriously hurt before that happens.
This is the audience for these clinics.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

gee50 said:


> I have never understood this concept that_ I should only have to have my horse trained for a month and the horse is *trained*_. :-(


Clinton Anderson says there are only three ways to get a trained horse. Buy it trained, pay to have it trained, or train it yourself. Most people can't afford the first two options and aren't capable of the third, which is why most horses aren't trained.

I feel sorry for farriers. He's at risk for getting hurt and the owner is mad at him for being too rough. All the time the problem is the horse has never learned to relax and yield his feet. Tough way to make a living.


----------



## WildAtHeart (Jul 17, 2013)

There are more ways to train than there are trainers.
I do not think there is one perfect system. I pull bits that I like from everywhere and create my own mish-mash.


----------



## TimberRidgeRanch (Mar 6, 2012)

*First of all forgive me if I repeat someone. I got tired of reading the threads on this topic lol. Okay heres my Opinion on Parelli and Clint Anderson.*
*1st as my likes and dislikes of Parelli. Ya he can train a horse Ya he may use a lot of circus bs to waste time. etc etc But what ails me with him is How he allowed his wife to use his name and show all what she is really about and him to sit beside her and not say a thing about it. His wife was taped actually beating a horse WTF is that method?*
*Now for Clint Anderson*
*He is not one for circus bs Like he has said so many times. This is a horse and we as people need to remember that. Hes not about games hes about getting it done. I prefer CA then Parelli hands down. But I pick and choose the methods I want to use. I have yet to see CA or anyone that represents his name beat a horse PERIOD*
*JMHO*


----------



## javi (Sep 12, 2010)

I would like to add that if I had $5000 laying around, I would send my Liir (mustang) to be an academy horse with CA. Of course I dont have that much of a disposable income


----------

