genuine question re barefoot
- Thread starter whisp&willow
- Start date
Holly Hocks
Well-Known Member
I've seen a few posts on here wanting scientific proof that barefoot/unshod - call it what you will - works
Why do you need scientific proof? Thalidomide, and clioquinol were marketed as "scientifically proven". I think we can all agree that science was wrong on both occasions....
Why do you need scientific proof? Thalidomide, and clioquinol were marketed as "scientifically proven". I think we can all agree that science was wrong on both occasions....
Clava
Well-Known Member
I don't have any issue with UNSHOD ......
...sorry, still confused. The emperors clothes analogy only applies to being barefoot - it is that which is a joke and a fantasy not being unshod?
Changes
Well-Known Member
And people believed Strasser because she was a vet.
Science has evolved and proven us wong time and time again. The argument works both ways.
The barefoot argument is not new, but it's only recently got beyond snake oil - hey, isn't the internet wonderful ........... you too can believe everything new you read without actual proof ............
Changes
Well-Known Member
Yes, you've confused me. You're reply/question is a bit incoherent.
To be VERY clear.
I have no issue with unshod farrier trimmed horses doing their jobs as they have done for many years.
Barefoot is the Emperor's New Clothes.
I hope that helps.
Holly Hocks
Well-Known Member
I totally agree and as per my earlier post, if my horse when shod didn't have problems, she would still be shod - I wouldn't have changed what wasn't broken. But I am prepared to look beyond farriers and vets advice - when their advice doesn't work. And I also pointed out that my vet is fully supporting my decision and will be keeping checks on my girl regularly.
And yes, the internet is wonderful - without it we wouldn't be able to research and form our own judgements so easily. As much as there is crap on the internet, there is also a wealth of information, some of which should be absorbed and some of which should be cast aside.
For now, I'm sticking with the Barefoot Taliban - I've heard more good reports about barefoot than I have about remedial shoeing - and that's what I'll base MY decision on. If it doesn't work, as my farrier said - we can always go back to shoes, but I want to try the least invasive form of treatment first.
Clava
Well-Known Member
Sorry for any confusion, it's been a long day. It just seemed a bit odd, some people prefer one term and it means one thing to them and others prefer another. My horses are barefoot but trimmed by a farrier, my liveries (3 of them) use both terms freely. The general principle is to not put shoes on their horses in order to have healthier hooves. To call one term a joke and not the other makes little sense, often the term barefoot implies a hardworking and performing hoof with diet in particular considered and the other a period of time when a horse is just not shod. So why attack the barefoot ideas (calling them the emperor's clothes) when all it is, is taking that farrier trimmed unshod horse doing his job a little further? Further towards an even better performing hoof.
Changes
Well-Known Member
No issue with a farrier doing his job at all, which is what you have. That's not barefoot.
TigerTail
Well-Known Member
The last few pages of this thread are an embarrassment to read to be quite frank. Im assuming everyone here is an adult?!
The most laughable point of all is that shoes are put on to mask a hoof with problems. If you had a healthy functioning hoof in the first place you wouldnt need the shoe.
There are loads of people competing shoeless, one of the biggest proof in the puddings are those who compete in endurance - nevermind poncing around a heated, 3 layer dragged arena etc these horses trek miles over all terrains without a problem!!!
Oberon dont get me started on those atrocities people are putting on their horses to 'enhance movement' Do we know why it enhances movement?? Because the horse has to alter its natural gait to throw the weight on the end of its leg forward - anyone who says thats acceptable needs their head examining (preferably by me with a mallet!)
http://www.rockcrunchers.co.uk/index.php?p=1_12_Barefoot-Endurance-Riding
http://www.thehorseshoof.com/success_Cartee.html
The most laughable point of all is that shoes are put on to mask a hoof with problems. If you had a healthy functioning hoof in the first place you wouldnt need the shoe.
There are loads of people competing shoeless, one of the biggest proof in the puddings are those who compete in endurance - nevermind poncing around a heated, 3 layer dragged arena etc these horses trek miles over all terrains without a problem!!!
Oberon dont get me started on those atrocities people are putting on their horses to 'enhance movement' Do we know why it enhances movement?? Because the horse has to alter its natural gait to throw the weight on the end of its leg forward - anyone who says thats acceptable needs their head examining (preferably by me with a mallet!)
http://www.rockcrunchers.co.uk/index.php?p=1_12_Barefoot-Endurance-Riding
http://www.thehorseshoof.com/success_Cartee.html
Changes
Well-Known Member
As much as you can gain information from the internet, in the case of well-being or health for any living being I have huge reservations.
I regard 'barefoot' as evangelism, any other self-imposed term is of no significance to me.
You are working with your farrier for the job your horse does, and I'm sure he will do the best for you.
Again, this thread started as a simple question about how many top level horses are barefoot, and as far as I could manage, the majority of my answers on here have been relative to that.
ETA, Hollyhocks, I do appreciate you are doing what you can for your horse!
Last edited:
Holly Hocks
Well-Known Member
Charmed, I'm sure!
Tinypony
Well-Known Member
There's something mad about this thread, I can't quite put my finger on it...
I didn't realise that there was such clear definition of the terms barefoot and unshod. I had my horses barefoot and trimmed by a farrier, I have also had them barefoot and trimmed by a KC qualified trimmer. I use the term barefoot over unshod because I feel that unshod implies that shod is the norm, so I prefer to use barefoot. I'd be just as happy with barehooved, but it doesn't run off the tongue so easily.
I always grin a bit when people bang on about "top level" horses. Top level at hacking for miles over varied terrain is just as valid to me as top level in an arena,and I suspect that's the case for many who are brave enough to admit how highly they rate their hacking horse. For what it's worth I think we are starting to see a massive change in thinking and attitudes, and we all know that can be a long process. I don't expect to see many, if any of our "top level" horses and riders abandoning shoes in the near future. What I do expect to see is a movement from the grass roots upwards, as young riders start to challenge and change the way things are done. It's happening already, I have a good friend who is out eventing, hunting and generally hurtling about on her horse regularly and doing very well. Others are competing in various disciplines and I think the fact that their horses have nekkid hooves is often not even noticed. Many of my friends are hacking out for hours on horses-that-don't-wear-shoes, and of course that gradually proves the point.
That's not an evangelical post, because if it was I'd be attempting to persuade and convert, and I'm not.
I didn't realise that there was such clear definition of the terms barefoot and unshod. I had my horses barefoot and trimmed by a farrier, I have also had them barefoot and trimmed by a KC qualified trimmer. I use the term barefoot over unshod because I feel that unshod implies that shod is the norm, so I prefer to use barefoot. I'd be just as happy with barehooved, but it doesn't run off the tongue so easily.
I always grin a bit when people bang on about "top level" horses. Top level at hacking for miles over varied terrain is just as valid to me as top level in an arena,and I suspect that's the case for many who are brave enough to admit how highly they rate their hacking horse. For what it's worth I think we are starting to see a massive change in thinking and attitudes, and we all know that can be a long process. I don't expect to see many, if any of our "top level" horses and riders abandoning shoes in the near future. What I do expect to see is a movement from the grass roots upwards, as young riders start to challenge and change the way things are done. It's happening already, I have a good friend who is out eventing, hunting and generally hurtling about on her horse regularly and doing very well. Others are competing in various disciplines and I think the fact that their horses have nekkid hooves is often not even noticed. Many of my friends are hacking out for hours on horses-that-don't-wear-shoes, and of course that gradually proves the point.
That's not an evangelical post, because if it was I'd be attempting to persuade and convert, and I'm not.
brucea
Well-Known Member
OK TigerTail - answer me a simple question?
Why are so many horses unable to walk on anything other than a soft conformant surface when you take the shoes off?
We probably HAD a healthy functioning hoof in the first place BEFORE we put the shoe on!
Shoes allow some horses who aren't coping to cope, because nailing a chunk of metal to the hoof has an effect on the circulation and the hoof mechanism.
Nailing a shoe on is not benign - it has an effect on the hoof.
The real question the barefooters are asking is "why the sensitivity and problem in the first place". Better to work out why you're getting sick, than take tablets to stop you being sick.
Clava
Well-Known Member
In what way are my horses not barefoot? They are not "unshod" because that would imply that the norm is for them to be shod. You have some very strange definitions going on in your head.
Edit - cross posted with tinypony who said the same.
criso
Coming over here & taking your jobs since 1900
Just wanted to point out here that my horse who went to Rockley was being shod by the in house remedial farrier at one of the top veterinary hospitals, he had also checked my own farrier's work and pronounced him 'beautifully shod', he had every treatment, supplement and nutraceutical my vet could suggest.
As for the term navicular (syndrome or disease) I find vets use it so loosely and so inconsistently that is is useless, my horse who was diagnosed with soft tissue damage by MRI does not according to my vet have navicular disease, another with a similar MRI does according to a different vet.
And as for the original question, there are horses mentioned who are doing well barefoot and I do remember watching one jump round Badminton barefoot but I suspect you do get fractions of a second with studs that could mean the difference between winning and losing which means they will be used even if there is a pay off long term.
TigerTail
Well-Known Member
Brucea - we seem to have got our wires crossed - that was my point that the shoe compromises the foot, or is put on when workload increases and owners either dont know any better or just bang shoes on 'cos thats they way we do it' rather than because the hoof they have originally is a problem.
Very good article on nails here and an excellent blog in general
http://barefoothorseblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/do-horse-shoes-hurt-horses.html
maggiesmum
Well-Known Member
I don't have any issue with UNSHOD ......
Right folks so we have to stop 'banging on' about barefoot and start telling everyone about our unshod rehab horses and it'll all be fine and acceptable!
Oh Please... !
Changes
Well-Known Member
You tell me when the difference originated then ................ would the difference between clipped and unclipped, or trimmed and untrimmed, or ridden or unridden, or handled or unhandled, or loaded or unloaded, or trained or untrained, or worked or unworked be as odd to you?
Clava
Well-Known Member
Just putting "un" infront of a word doesn't explain the state where shod is not applicable at all, barefoot implies that state where shoes are not part of the scenario.
Changes
Well-Known Member
Quite. So that immediately suggests something 'different',
For aeons (centuries) horses were shod or unshod - it's 'barefoot' that seeks an identity.
Congrats to the branding, Messrs, Ramey, La Pierre et al.
Love their big houses, btw .............
amandap
Well-Known Member
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
For aeons (centuries) horses were shod or unshod - it's 'barefoot' that seeks an identity.
Congrats to the branding, Messrs, Ramey, La Pierre et al.
Love their big houses, btw .............
Barefoot is not "seeking an identity". We use the term exactly as it is always used for humans. I get out of bed in the morning and pad around barefoot, not shoeless. The earliest recorded use of the term for horses that I can find is in the original True Grit film, where the heroine says (of a horse she is about to go on a VERY long ride with no prior conditioning whatsoever, she backs it shortly afterwards) "you'd better put some shoes on it, I ain't riding no barefoot pony". I assume that since it was in the script that the term was already in use in the US before that.
Changes why are you so hung up about a word? If you want to call a horse without shoes on shoeless, do so. But for ****'s sake stop making such a fuss about the fact that for many of us, the term barefoot, when horses are not born with shoes on, and which we have used all our lives about ourselves, makes a lot more sense.
If you cannot add more to the discussion than arguing about the use of a word and making snide implications about the size of houses that some Barefoot proponents live in, then you really don't have much to contribute, do you?
If we want to get sniffy about earning money, how about getting sniffy about farriers who are shoeing cobs and ponies who they surely must know can work perfectly well without them, (either that or they are negligent in not realising that a cob with great thick feet doing a little hacking and a bit of schooling does not need shoes). Those farriers are charging up to £80 a set when a £25 trim would be a better option for the owner and the horse (even if only to avoid nail holes in its feet). Now THAT's worth making a fuss about, surely?
Last edited:
cornbrodolly
Well-Known Member
Which came first - sore feet or farriers? It seems blindingly obvious to me that domesticated horses have wear on their feet that wild horses do not have. Also, there must be many wild horses born with poor shaped feet- and they dont survive , hence the so called wonderful feet on wild horses.
I wouldnt attempt to get our hunters fit without shoes - how can horn stand up to the abrasivness of roads?
BYW, cows were shod before they were transported by train/truck., if they had long jouneys to make. If you read the wagon train stories from the USA the oxen were left without horn after six months on the trail.This is the obvious reason for shoeing - protection!Somewhere along the line people have been persuaed that if the horse is shod it is going to be detrimental - hysteria re navicular, laminitis etc- yet I know of endurance horses sore and lame for weeks after a long ride barefoot. have to say, I just dont see any advantage. If the horse needs shoes - put them on. And of course human breeding for various horse types have altered the feet- think of the diiferent sizes and types of horse have been 'manufactured' by man ihn the last few hundred years. Tbs have flat feet with poor quality horn, ditto many ID s, Quarter horses,Hackneys have boxy feet, but many natives hardly need shoes,
Lastly I would ask why do these barefoot trimmers think they know more than farriers who have tarined for 6 years?
I wouldnt attempt to get our hunters fit without shoes - how can horn stand up to the abrasivness of roads?
BYW, cows were shod before they were transported by train/truck., if they had long jouneys to make. If you read the wagon train stories from the USA the oxen were left without horn after six months on the trail.This is the obvious reason for shoeing - protection!Somewhere along the line people have been persuaed that if the horse is shod it is going to be detrimental - hysteria re navicular, laminitis etc- yet I know of endurance horses sore and lame for weeks after a long ride barefoot. have to say, I just dont see any advantage. If the horse needs shoes - put them on. And of course human breeding for various horse types have altered the feet- think of the diiferent sizes and types of horse have been 'manufactured' by man ihn the last few hundred years. Tbs have flat feet with poor quality horn, ditto many ID s, Quarter horses,Hackneys have boxy feet, but many natives hardly need shoes,
Lastly I would ask why do these barefoot trimmers think they know more than farriers who have tarined for 6 years?
paddy555
Well-Known Member
Quite. So that immediately suggests something 'different',
For aeons (centuries) horses were shod or unshod - it's 'barefoot' that seeks an identity.
Congrats to the branding, Messrs, Ramey, La Pierre et al.
Love their big houses, btw .............
Changes,
I just thought I would comment on what I understand as unshod and barefoot. (not that it seems to matter to anyone but you)
For more years than I care to remember I have had unshod horses. Farrier may have trimmed some, I trimmed some and some trimmed themselves. No special diet, didn't contribute to anyone's fancy big houses. Life was wonderfully easy.
The horses just worked hard unshod. Nothing to this unshod lark I thought.
I was very lucky. None of them had problems. None were footy.
Then I met my first barefoot horse. He wasn't easy, he was the horse from hell. Diet wise he is hell. Trimming is not easy, in fact nothing is easy. If I didn't apply every single thing I had learnt from the "BAREFOOT BRIGADE" then he would be unable to make it barefoot.
That to me is barefoot. Unshod lacks any great degree of skill. Just leave the shoes off, farrier or horse trims and that is it. Works well for those lucky enough to have easy horses.
Barefoot means a considerable amount of skill to get it right for the difficult ones.
Some people would have got him shod. I did. He was far worse shod than barefoot. So I was left with no choice. I had to get him barefoot.
As for contributing to Ramey's big house (no idea if it is big) then I don't mind at all. Ramey actually trimmed him for me. He helped me far more that the farrier did and his work was considerably better.
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
My hunters get fit without shoes. So do the other five who hunt with my hunt with no shoes on.
If you study material science you will see that there are many examples where the harder material wears more than the softer one. My favourite example is that barbers sharpen their cut-throat razors on a strop of leather. This is part of the answer as to how hunters can be got fit with road work with no shoes on. The rest is that - good grief surely not - the hoof grows! And provided you build the work up over time, it grows and replaces exactly the amount that is being worn away.
Barefooters will tell you that tarmac is one of the very best conditioning surfaces for bare feet.
I will leave other people to answer your other points, which have all been covered time and time and time again on this forum should you choose to search for the answers.
Last edited:
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
OK I lied, here I am again
Because we do not put shoes on natives who do not need them, and farriers do? Most ponies are shod these days. It wasn't the case 50 years ago.
Because we are taking horses which farriers are telling us will never be sound again and should be shot or put out to grass and we are getting them back hunting and jumping and eventing?
Because we are taking the shoes off horses who farriers are telling us will never work barefoot and eventing them less than 8 months later?
By the way there are some great farriers and an increasing number are stopping shoeing or majoring on barefoot and shoeing only the exceptions. Moonman on here is superb in the advice he gives.
Last edited:
amandap
Well-Known Member
Why does this house thing or amount of money people might make matter anyway, it always gets trotted out at some point in arguments as if it's a sin or con?
Pete Ramey actually shares his knowledge freely in his articles on his web site and at a low cost for the content in his DVD's and books. Might be worth watching and reading. There is a DVD explaining clearly the mechanism of navicular 'disease' on one disc in his "Under the horse" 10 DVD set. Even I can understand it. 
http://www.hoofrehab.com/
Pete Ramey actually shares his knowledge freely in his articles on his web site and at a low cost for the content in his DVD's and books. Might be worth watching and reading.
There is a DVD explaining clearly the mechanism of navicular 'disease' on one disc in his "Under the horse" 10 DVD set. Even I can understand it. http://www.hoofrehab.com/
Last edited by a moderator:
Cluck
Well-Known Member
I'm not 100% convinced this is the case. I think some horses have been so intensively 'bred' for a specific purpose that they have lost this ability.
I do think we will see more barefoot horses in competition in the coming years though
The notion that some breeds of horses have 'genetically' poor feet is a myth.
Flame_
Well-Known Member
This always bugs me, unshod and barefoot mean exactly the same thing - they are the blooming definitions of one another! What you are describing is holistic horse care, which is very important to the individual parts of the horse, most obviously the hooves, and that goes for horses both shod and shoeless (again, meaning exactly the same thing, horse wearing no hoof protection, although ironically, "barefoot" according to plenty, means wearing hoof boots - er, no it doesn't!). I think the barefoot movement would have done better to promote themselves as a healthy hoof movement, the word "barefoot" means nothing more than wearing no shoes, look it up in the dictionary.
Last edited:
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
For the sake of balance I do want to say that I personally believe that there are some horses who have weaker feet than others, for genetic reasons. Those horses would be ones who would take longer to work comfortably without boots on, but it does not mean that they cannot go barefoot.
I do believe that TBs are an example of "more difficult" feet, as a generalisation (lots have great feet!), because they will often underrun given half a chance - even the ones which were not shod early, even the ones which have never been shod at all. But if the owners of barefoot TB's had £10 for every time they have been told that TBs can't go barefoot because of their weak feet, they'd be rich.