Bew BHS-imposed weight limit on schools

[It's Me Megan]

to be honest probably if someone looks over 14/15 stone they may say i am sorry, you are too heavy. I very much doubt they will be dragging scales out!

We have a set of scales at my yard...

 

[nostromo70]

Isn't this a bit of discrimination against anyone over 13st. I'm 15.5st fully clothed 6'1" tall and not fat. why should i be deprived of having lessons at a BHS approved school just because of my genes.
If the school has horses capable of carrying these weights then why can't they be used. It's not as if there are as many 13 stoners and over as there are under 13st. It would be unlikely to have aload of us "over weighter" turn up in pick succession. Surely it's part of a business to take bookings and plan ahead, if your horses need a rest from being ride, then don't take bookings for them.
Hope this makes sense, even if you don't agree. I'm not the best at writing things down.

 

[ruth83]

Would people please READ the replies - if not all of them, at least the one from the BHS Official!

There is NO BHS imposed weight limit. Riding Schools set their own.

ETA - People complain that charities do not spend the time replying to people and explaining their position publically. The BHS is taking the time to do this and people are ignoring it!!

 

[nostromo70]

I'm sorry for not reading all of the replies to this thread ruth83. But i still stand by what i say, if you're over an average weight of 13st (going by over peoples comments) then you will struggle to find somewhere to give you
lessons.

 

[Sixteen Hands]

To clarify, the BHS does not impose weight limits for its Approved Centres to adhere to and there are no plans to do so.

Weight limits are completely at the discretion of individual Centres and will of course depend on factors such as horses available, types of lessons offered and so on.

Well done BHS for responding so quickly!

 

[Chopandchips]

I think if a RS wants a low weight limit it's up to them! true weight carriers are expensive to keep and not always popular with the clients .... its their business (individual RS) their rules I say.

I am grateful that my local RS has a choice of horses for me to ride (and I am 17.5stone) if they sold their weight carriers and didn't replace them then so be it, I would sort out an alternative.

My OH is 6'1' and 14stone and rides any of the horses at our local yard.

xx

 

[Natch]

Weight limits should be set by each individual riding school according to what horses they have.

...

BHS can be so stupid. Like most charities.

They do. Don't you think posters can be so stupid, not reading all the replies properly

Isn't this a bit of discrimination against anyone over 13st. I'm 15.5st fully clothed 6'1" tall and not fat. why should i be deprived of having lessons at a BHS approved school just because of my genes.

It is discrimination against heavier riders yes, what's wrong with that when the reason for the discrimination is the welfare of the horses? It's not to do with calling anyone "fat" if they are over 13 stone. It's to do with the welfare of the individual horses and ponies at the riding school. Why should they take beginner riders at 15-16 stone if their horses cannot cope with it? Not every riding school has a plentiful supply of cobs and heavies, and those who do may have health problems that mean that horse is better off without heavier riders, whether you're fat or all muscle

I'm sorry for not reading all of the replies to this thread ruth83. But i still stand by what i say, if you're over an average weight of 13st (going by over peoples comments) then you will struggle to find somewhere to give you
lessons.

It's not a God-given right to have riding lessons If you're too heavy to ride at a riding school that's a shame, but it MUST be the horse's welfare that goes first.

 

[3bh]

... Edited as I read further and someone had already said the same!

 

[nostromo70]

Nothing wrong with thinking of horses welfare obviously. Would a r/s put a 5'9" 13st onto a 11hh pony, hopefully not. No one's saying we should put people on inappropriately sized horses. I think that what i'm trying to get across is that, it would better if there was a greater amount of r/s that cater for the heavier rider.

 

[Littlelegs]

It's just economics. Bigger horses are more expensive to keep, I'm sure if it was financially worthwhile rs would all have a range of suitable horses. Same as anything really, it just comes down to whether there's enough of a market.

 

[Kat]

Nostromo, I am very sorry but at 6ft1" and 15stone you are significantly overweight. Obviously I have no idea of your body fat levels, you could be totally healthy but chances are at that kind of BMI you are not.

 

[Kat]

LL not necessarily, a 15.3hh maxi cob will probably hold weight better, eat less and be more hardy than a 16hh tb. It will also be a better earner for the rs as it is suitable for most clients.

One of the hardest working horses at the rs that oh and I went to was up to carrying 14st even jumping and doing things like half pass and flying changes. He was small enough not to intimidate a young teenager, but chunky enough to carry all but the largest adults. He was fit and correctly muscled, very well looked after, and even in fairly hard work was normally watching his weight.

I'm sure a 13hh native would be cheaper to keep but do kids spend as much as keen adults? And a 13hh native can't carry adults and children like the 15hh cobby job.

 

[Littlelegs]

Actually kat, it is possible. My boyfriend is 6' & 15stone. He isn't skinny, but has what I'd consider to be a healthy, average level of body fat. And although muscular, he's not a body builder type with massive muscles. He's just built like a brick **** house. But, its fair to say he is probably not the norm for that height & weight.

 

[tallyho!]

Nothing wrong with thinking of horses welfare obviously. Would a r/s put a 5'9" 13st onto a 11hh pony, hopefully not. No one's saying we should put people on inappropriately sized horses. I think that what i'm trying to get across is that, it would better if there was a greater amount of r/s that cater for the heavier rider.

Well I am sure there are schools who have some lovely draught breed to carry a heavy rider but there are limits to the species... Also not all riding schools can afford to feed a giant horse and find tack to fit well.

What others are trying to get across is, horse riding is a sport highly limited by the capability of the individual animal.

It's a privilege not a right.

 

[Littlelegs]

Definitely a maxi cob is cheaper to keep than a big tb, but I reckon a tb would be cheaper to buy. However, I was thinking more along the lines that a load of large natives & small cobs would be a lot cheaper than either, & would do kids & adults.

 

[Kat]

On the weight issue, I was talking BMI. I appreciate that BMI is not perfect and would have logged Matthew Pinsent as obese when he was in full competitive form, hence why I mentioned body fat. But *most* people at 6ft1 will be carrying a little excess fat at 15st, my oh is taller and lighter and much as he is a lanky streak of piss he also knows that he isn't at his fittest and could stand to lose a stone.

 

[Littlelegs]

I agree, most would, I reckon he could lose a stone in theory, but even that he'd be at zero body fat & not healthy. The maxi cob of humans! I just notice discrepancies in bmi easily because neither of us are in the healthy bmi range at opposite ends, yet both of us are healthy we are just very different builds. But, tbf someone of average build at 6' & 15 stone probably wouldn't be healthy.

 

[nostromo70]

Well thanks for implying that maybe i should lose weight.
I have a very physical job which involves using all of my body (arms, legs and core) eat healthily and have minimal body fat.
All this makes me weigh what i weigh, can't help that. Yes i could lose some weight, but that would just make me to thin.

 

[domane]

Just for the record, I'd just like to show you photos of my allegedly "significantly overweight" husband (Nostromo), with his 34" waist and his 42" chest....

He has trouble buying trousers because a 34" waist will not accommodate the size of the muscles on his thighs and still give him room to move, unfortunately (although not that you'd think so from that particular ridden pic!!!). I can confirm that there is not an ounce of fat on him. If the weight that is there is muscle, how WOULD you suggest he lose it????

 

[Littlelegs]

Interestingly, I'd say he looks lighter built than my boyfriend, so by comparison I would have guessed he weighed less. And I know mine isn't lying cos the rare occasions he rides (or plods along to be accurate) I've made him get on the scales beforehand, due to only having the use of one suitable for a heavy beginner.

 

[nostromo70]

Well thank you Littlelegs.
Like i said i don't carry any excess. The camera has been kind
Jack my horse, is 16hh Clydie/Welsh D so is on the big boned side, although sometimes he doesn't look that big next to me.

 

[sidesaddlegirl]

Goodness gracious, all this talk of maxi cobs and "weight carrier" horses is going to give my TB a complex as well as me!!

I only ride TB's due to hip problems (NOT weight related but genetics which run on my mum's side of the family) as I can't tolerate the wideness of cobs, hence the reason I ride side saddle most of the time. Sometimes, I just wish I could go and have a lesson at a school just to ride something different, tune up or get a different perspective on my riding but I can't as most schools round me have a very low limit despite the fact they have horses that are bigger than my own horse!

They get fixated on number and don't take into account the rider's skill and built. Being 5'9", 13.5 stone and having over 25 years riding experience and just wanting a tune up, is A LOT different that someone who is 13 stone, 4'11" novice but there ya go. It's not as if I sit around eating pies all day either! I cycle 8 miles a day as I don't drive, run 2.5 k a day and ride my horse nearly every day.

My TB does not have any back issues despite my "hefty size" and my side saddle which weighs a stone in itself, as evidence by the fact that the back lady always says that very little needs doing to my mare and only needs to come out once a year when we start getting back into work before showing starts.

I think weight limits per se, are a good thing BUT that riding schools should use their discretion maybe when it comes to the more advanced riding lessons as just because you are 13 stone or a bit above, doesn't mean you are mahoosive as shown by nostromo70's photo. I think tall riders are often penalized.

Here is what 13 stone and a bit on a tall person looks like in real life on a horse which is not a maxi cob . It was an SSA equitation class and we won so obviously the judge (and SSA judges tend to be strict!!) didn't think I was bouncing around like a sack of spuds

It shows how our perception of what a weight should look like and what it actually looks like, is skewed.

 

[Kat]

Sidesaddlegirl I agree that perceptions are skewed. People see my OH ride our lightweight horse, and she carries him easily and willingly and are then disbelieving when he points out that he is significantly over the weight limit for many riding schools even ones that have maxi cobs and IDs.

 

[Littlelegs]

Sidesaddlegirl, I don't think everyone over 13 stone should only ride maxi cobs. But, from a rs pov, if you are offering lessons to people over that, who may be complete beginners, or lying about ability, or 16stone rather than the 14 stone they claim to be, you would need something substantial to safeguard the horses welfare. My boyfriend is definitely at beginner stage, he rides a handful of times a year, & only when my daughter asks him. He rides a friends 15hh hw cob. But, the cob is very fit, & correctly worked the rest of the time, so a short slow hack is fine with a heavier rider. But, same horse in a rs wouldn't be suitable to carry beginners his weight on a regular basis for lessons. Same goes whether we're talking about a tb or anything else.

 

[Kat]

Just for the record, I'd just like to show you photos of my allegedly "significantly overweight" husband (Nostromo), with his 34" waist and his 42" chest....

He has trouble buying trousers because a 34" waist will not accommodate the size of the muscles on his thighs and still give him room to move, unfortunately (although not that you'd think so from that particular ridden pic!!!). I can confirm that there is not an ounce of fat on him. If the weight that is there is muscle, how WOULD you suggest he lose it????

I didn't say he needed to, and he doesn't look "overweight". What I said that many/most people at that weight and height would be overweight. According to the BMI, which I accept is not infallible, someone of 6ft is a healthy weight between 9st12 and 13st, is overweight at 13st - 15st11, and above that obese. As I have said my OH is 6ft2 and while he most certainly doesn't look fat, and is pretty fit he is in the overweight range for BMI, he was even when doing a very physical job, most people would say he is pretty thin, but he knows that there is some weight there to lose, and that he could do this without losing muscle.

Generally speaking unless you are following a fairly strict training and diet regime you would be unlikely to get to be 2 stone over the top end of the normal range of BMI without having any excess body fat. People train very hard to get genuinely low body fat levels. The only way to know whether someone could lose weight is to do a detailled analysis using calipers etc on various different parts of the body.

Anyway I'm totally off topic. Nostromo and his horse look happy and well suited and that is the main thing. Not sure whether I should add a picture of my OH to continue the debate, but he manages to be "overweight" with a 30" waist

 

[Wagtail]

I think the limit should be sixteen stone so long as there are horses at the school capable of carrying that weight. However, if I was running a school, I would probably charge more for riders over 13 stone because a) the horses capable of carrying them would cost more to keep, and b) I would not want a horse that has done an hour with a 16 stone rider to have to do as many hours a day as a horse that is carrying far less.

Remember 16 stone naked, is probably 18 stone when you add tack, clothes, hat, boots and BP.

 

[Goldenstar]

A proper wieght carrier is a big investment for a school you need a not to tall horse with a great temperament not too stuffy but not sharp with great back conformation and certainly when I was involved that meanlt you where buying the same horses as people looking for sensible gents hunters and that made them difficult to find and difficult to afford.
At the school I was at the horses had to work three hours each day or the owner was making no money .
Personally I would not use the a TB to carry thirteen stone plus tack in that job.

 

[Kat]

A proper wieght carrier is a big investment for a school you need a not to tall horse with a great temperament not too stuffy but not sharp with great back conformation and certainly when I was involved that meanlt you where buying the same horses as people looking for sensible gents hunters and that made them difficult to find and difficult to afford.
At the school I was at the horses had to work three hours each day or the owner was making no money .
Personally I would not use the a TB to carry thirteen stone plus tack in that job.

They aren't cheap to buy made. The yard DH and I rode at bought a most of their big horses young and green, this made them cheaper to buy, and provided a good supply of horses that weren't "typical school horses" for the staff to train on and for the more able clients to ride. They were then able to make them into what they wanted, as the horse's experience increased and it became more settled it would become suitable for more novicey riders.

They bought some "made" horses and had the occasional working livery too. Of the made horses they had at least two were former master's horses, and one came from a hireling yard.Ii think perhaps the key was that they buy when something suitable comes up rather than going out to buy when they need something. I know a few times they got a good deal because they could take a horse that needed to be sold quickly.

I agree that you wouldn't want a horse to be working at the top of their weight carrying ability in a riding school, or at least not for the majority of its working hours. But there is nothing to stop you from booking one heavy rider and two light ones a day for the horse, in the same way that you might ensure that a horse only does one jumping lesson a day or doesn't do all of its three hours back to back.

Those weight carriers might be expensive but used well they can really earn their keep and be worth their weight in gold. I remember someone asking to buy one of the weight carriers at the RS where I rode, he was nothing special, about 15.2 and a chunky hunter type. The YO said she wouldn't sell him for less than £10k because that is what he was worth to her in terms of his earning capacity.

What surprises me is not that RSs might chose not to have weight carriers, more that many have the horses but still impose a 12st weight limit. I agree that you might not want your horses working with 15 stone for all of their lessons, but surely better to book one heavyweight rider a day than to lose the business especially if you have some good chunky types.

 

[Littlelegs]

I still think it just comes down to market place. Even taking crap rs out of the equation, there are plenty of rs that don't have a horse that works above elementary, or could be a schoolmaster for jumping courses beyond 3' etc & I think whether or not they have weight carriers would be for the same reasons. I can't see any rs deciding they won't have weight carriers because they don't think people over a certain weight deserve to ride, it will just come down to economics. Giving a group lesson on natives under 12.2 will be far more profitable than a group lesson on 15.2's, & same again, a group of average weight adults on overheight/large natives has more profit than a group lesson on large horses.

 

[Kat]

I still think it just comes down to market place. Even taking crap rs out of the equation, there are plenty of rs that don't have a horse that works above elementary, or could be a schoolmaster for jumping courses beyond 3' etc & I think whether or not they have weight carriers would be for the same reasons. I can't see any rs deciding they won't have weight carriers because they don't think people over a certain weight deserve to ride, it will just come down to economics. Giving a group lesson on natives under 12.2 will be far more profitable than a group lesson on 15.2's, & same again, a group of average weight adults on overheight/large natives has more profit than a group lesson on large horses.

Yes, I think perhaps that many misjudge the market. Having been at a RS that has weight carriers, and horses that have decent level dressage schooling and horses that can tackle a course of jumps over 3ft and having seen how busy they were it surprises me that more don't want in on that market.