Clicker training is an OPTION for horses ... IMO not the best option!
Pro clicker training people IMO (as a neutral party on the whole deal, I don't subscribe to any one method) are the ones who push it as "the one, only & BEST way" to train any animals when for some ppl & animals, it is not.
I just wanted to say that I disagree with ^this. I am pro clicker training, for both horses AND dogs. However, it is not the only tool I use for either. When you talk about not being close minded to new options, that means you have to be open to anything (within reason). Have you tried clicker training with horses? Would it work for every situation? No, it wouldn't. However, it could work very well for teaching to accept the halter, teaching to lead, teaching to square up, teaching to accept a bridle, a saddle, probably a lot of desensitization. There are so many options for teaching everything! As long as you are creating a positive environment, there is no reason that more than one thing cannot work. One size does not fit all with ANY animal.
And on the subject of working breeder and not health testing. I agree with crazed. Just because a dog comes from working parents does NOT mean the dog shouldn't be health tested for things that COMMONLY GO WRONG IN THE BREED. For example, ACD's. Since they are "my" breed, and I've done hours and hours of research on them, I will hit them. Progressive Retinal Atrophy, hips, knees, and hearing are ALL things that should be health tested. Just because a dog can work it's a$$ off with cattle doesn't mean that it is healthy in all these areas. He could have super poor hips, but because the breed is tough as nails, never really show it until they fail miserably. He could be a carrier for PRA, and be bred to a carrier or PRA, but because they didn't health test for PRA, NOBODY KNEW and now you are going to end up with a litter stock freakin' full of carriers and PRA affected dogs. And guess what? YOU CAN'T WORK CATTLE EFFECTIVELY WITH A BLIND DOG. Also, just because a dog can work cattle fantastically doesn't mean they have a stable temperament. Good breeders breed to better the breed in all aspects, and choose dogs who bring something to the table that the mate doesn't excel in, or has a compliment to a conformation weakness.
I'm not saying that every single breeder who breeds un-tested dogs are terrible and should end up in hell and can't produce a good dog. However, they are still BYB, and if you are dog knowledgeable, it is still pretty darn unacceptable in most cases to buy from them. Also, it is not impossible (in the breed I am specifically talking about especially) to find a breeder who has stellar working dogs who are health tested.
Sorry this became a book.