Hoofs & horrendous Loaners!

[edgedem]

So I sent my pony out on loan for 3 weeks, with specific instructions and agreements but alas the inevitable happened, my requests were ignored & a very angry me demanded her return! She had been very healthy barefoot for 3 years she has no need for shoes but they put front shoes on anyway! if I take these off in a week, after they've been on a month, will her feet be ok bare again?

 

[NellRosk]

Yeah I don't think a few weeks of being shod should compromise her too much. Silly loaners though!!

 

[dianchi]

Unfortunate, however whip the shoes off and all will be fine, diet might have changed whilst she was away so she go a bit footy but really shouldn't be too bad.
Finger x

 

[Meowy Catkin]

Take them off, but don't trim at all. Were her frogs, soles or bars touched by the Farrier?

 

[serenityjane]

So you loaned pony because you didn't have time for her, and demanded her return when you discovered that the loaners shod her in front so that they could work and enjoy her without the constraints of a barefoot horse (ie needs boots, can only ride on certain terrain etc etc), poor pony........but at least she can still return to being barefoot and doing nothing with no harm done eh!

 

[Buddy'sMum]

So you loaned pony because you didn't have time for her, and demanded her return when you discovered that the loaners shod her in front so that they could work and enjoy her without the constraints of a barefoot horse (ie needs boots, can only ride on certain terrain etc etc), poor pony........but at least she can still return to being barefoot and doing nothing with no harm done eh!

Would you trust loaners who broke a loan agreement almost immediately? This wasn't their decision to make.

 

[HaffiesRock]

So you loaned pony because you didn't have time for her, and demanded her return when you discovered that the loaners shod her in front so that they could work and enjoy her without the constraints of a barefoot horse (ie needs boots, can only ride on certain terrain etc etc), poor pony........but at least she can still return to being barefoot and doing nothing with no harm done eh!

This is a little harsh. It's more the principle that the loaners ignored what was told to them. I too would be horrified if any of my ponies were shod without my permission.

 

[Meowy Catkin]

This is a little harsh. It's more the principle that the loaners ignored what was told to them. I too would be horrified if any of my ponies were shod without my permission.

I agree.

 

[abracadabra]

Very harsh and petty.

 

[criso]

Presumably the loaners knew the terms when they took the pony on, if they didn't agree with the owner's approach and weren't prepared to respect it then it wasn't the right loan for them.

 

[ImmyS]

so that they could work and enjoy her without the constraints of a barefoot horse (ie needs boots, can only ride on certain terrain etc etc), poor pony........but at least she can still return to being barefoot and doing nothing with no harm done eh!

What a load of tosh!

 

[WindyStacks]

There's just so much ignorance surrounding managed barefoot (as evidenced on this thread) that this sort of thing will happen.

I got a sharer in who simply could not get her head around barefoot and kept whittering on about it. The final straw was when she booked a farrier - I think in her head she thought she was helping

There's so many more to educate. :/

OP I hope the damage is minimal!

 

[serenityjane]

Harsh and petty......... it wasn't meant that way, I apologise. But I am more than aware of how a horse owners personal beliefs can adversely effect the health and wellbeing of the horse. I did it myself, for many years, so no it is not tosh, just reality based on my own experience, and I have discovered through this experience that whilst the odd horse may occasionally be able to do as much work without shoes as with. Most cannot.
Please do not try and enlighten and educate me, Windystacks.
Loaner should have consulted with the owner first, that is a given, but owner could also have a more flexible attitude too, for the sake of the horse.

 

[Meowy Catkin]

SJ - I have three unshod. One was nearly PTS due to hoof problems, she's been ace since the shoes came off with my new farrier and we've worked so hard to get her right. You would have to drag me over hot coals before I put shoes on that horse again. The other two genuinely don't need them or special management and have never been shod. They go over any terrain and I include really stoney stuff here. Why would you shoe a horse that doesn't need them? Yet so many people still think that you have to shoe to do roadwork, it's just not true.

 

[ImmyS]

but owner could also have a more flexible attitude too, for the sake of the horse.

It was made clear by the owner that the horse had been happily barefoot and sound for 3 years...

 

[ester]

that and the horse may have had previous pathology which means the owner would be reluctant to shoe (I'd be one of those).

I wonder if many treat it as a small thing? Whereas it really should have been something only done with consultation with the owner if the horse was really struggling (and I'd want input on the farrier if so) Also I actually believe that lots of owners want the best for their horse and do not let their beliefs get in the way of good care and welfare.

 

[Goldenstar]

But it's hardly something to get into a sweat about , yes the loaners should not have done it but the shoes come off life goes on .

 

[ester]

I'd be narked if my frogs and sole had been touched though bit precious about them

 

[debserofe]

I'm with serenityjane here - yes horses can go barefoot and I have no problem with that but I don't expect to get grief because I shoe a horse - a horse that has thoroughbred feet on the ends of draft legs - brought about by humans breeding a sport horse! I have two other horses, one who is shod in front and one that is barefoot so I am no way biased one way or the other! A lot of people I have spoken to who are determined to go barefoot have told me that it is more 'natural'. Well, in the 'natural' world the horse would live, eat and die in the habitat he or she was born into, walking over terrain which generations of breeding had created and not being handled, driven or ridden or tarmac roads - 'natural' horses also tend to live much shorter lives and a 'natural' death is often not a nice one!! Nothing about the way we interact with horses is natural - if you want your horse to go barefoot, then please do so but, like any religion, please don't harp on about it!

I have loaned horses in the past and never stipulated whether it should be shod or not so long as the horse is looked after - sounds to me that if you are going to be that specific about how your horse should be treated then really you should not have loaned her out in the first place - perhaps get a sharer then you have more control!

 

[ester]

It is different if it is your horse, not someone else's though. If they weren't happy with that situation surely they shouldn't have taken the loan on rather than break the terms of the agreement?

 

[Meowy Catkin]

I'm with you Ester - breaking the terms of the loan agreement is a big deal to me. If I specifically stated that the horse was not to be shod and they did anyway, the loan would end immediately.

 

[criso]

I loaned a horse last year. The owner stipulated that I was not to use "tie downs" by which she meant martingales, draw reins and training aid or nosebands like drops or flashes.

I knew that from the outset, it might not be my opinion but I wouldn't have dreamed of going against her wishes.

 

[Leo Walker]

If my cob was shod while on loan I'd take him back, and thats coming from some one who has a fab loaner!

 

[Goldenstar]

Why on earth would someone waste their money to put a set of shoes on a horse on a three week loan , that makes no sense .

 

[Meowy Catkin]

I thought that the loan ended after 3 weeks, rather than it was for 3 weeks, but I could be wrong.

 

[ester]

I thought that the loan ended after 3 weeks, rather than it was for 3 weeks, but I could be wrong.

This, owner took horse back, loan was initially for longer.

 

[Goldenstar]

Ahh did not get that bit .

 

[cptrayes]

the loaners shod her in front so that they could work and enjoy her without the constraints of a barefoot horse (ie needs boots, can only ride on certain terrain etc etc),

Constraints? My horses do everything they have ever done in shoes. I've had a dozen barefoot horses, no failures, and other than in the first weeks after shoes coming off, there were no constraints. I don't use boots.

I have discovered through this experience that whilst the odd horse may occasionally be able to do as much work without shoes as with. Most cannot.
.

What you have discovered is that you probably could not give your horses what they needed to work without shoes. This is not a criticism, just a fact. It can be very difficult if you work full time and are in a livery stables. I have so far done BE with five different horses and hunted four different horses and will be hunting a fifth this year. It is not always easy, though not always difficult either, and it can be done with all sorts of horses.

 

[OldNag]

OP I would have done exactly the same as you. Not surprised you were livid!

 

[Boulty]

My take on this is that with loaning no matter how much you may love that horse and treat it as your own it isn't. It belongs to somebody else and they should be the one calling the shots on what is and isn't appropriate management for that horse. They have the right to dictate what work the horse is and isn't allowed to do, what yard the horse can be kept at and what tack is allowed to be used on it.. Why on earth shouldn't the owner of the horse be allowed to dictate to the loaner how they wish that horses feet to be cared for. If the loaner had concerns that the horse may not stand up to what they wanted to do without shoes then that should have been voiced before they took the horse. If they felt the horse was struggling they should have discussed it with the owner before putting shoes on, just common courtesy (esp if they had been told owner wanted horse kept barefoot). To me if they've disobeyed a direct order to keep the horse without shoes then I'd judge them to be untrustworthy (as in what else will they do and not do without telling me?) and I'd also be hurt that they'd not felt they could discuss issues with me.

If it's your own horse then it's yours to do as you please (as long as welfare isn't compromised) but if the horse doesn't belong to you then my view is that as long as it isn't going to harm the horse you should always follow the owner's wishes. (another example may be the use of say over-reach boots... I've booted horses to the eyeballs before that I've scrounged rides on when I never put any on my own!)