What does Clinton Anderson say about a horse that won't stand still after being asked to halt?

A horse that halts but immediately begins walking again — shuffling, fidgeting, or marching off after the halt — has not been taught to maintain the halt until released, and Clinton Anderson treats it as a training gap that is straightforward to fill with consistent enforcement. Anderson's position is that halt means halt until the rider releases, not halt for a moment and then decide when to walk. The horse that marches off after a halt has made a unilateral decision to move, which is the same leadership dynamic as the horse that breaks gait before being asked — the horse is deciding, not the rider. His correction is immediate and consistent: the moment the horse moves from the halt without direction, it is put to work. Anderson backs the horse actively several steps, or yields its hindquarters, or puts it into a trot circle — making movement without direction result in more movement that requires effort. The horse is then asked to halt again and stand. Every premature departure from the halt is met immediately with the same correction. The consistency requirement is strict. Anderson teaches that a single instance of allowing the horse to walk off from a halt — because the rider was distracted, because the departure was small, or because the rider did not notice immediately — sets back the training significantly, because the horse learns that departure from halt sometimes works. The enforcement must be every time to close the window of testing. He also uses the halt as a reward — asking the horse to halt after completing a task and allowing it to stand on a loose rein for a genuine rest period. This teaches the horse that halt is the place of rest and comfort, which builds intrinsic motivation to stand rather than producing a horse that stands only because departure results in work.