No facilities to restrict movement?

[Honey08]

I am saying that horses have been out and not mollycoddled for much longer than they have been in.
I am a very laid back person - there are millions of healthy horses in this world who live more than 50yds away from a stable.
I can see times when you would need one, certain injuries etc, but then you can simply box up and take them to a stable, if you don't have one yourself. It is possible to travel with all but the most catastrophic injuries - how do you think they get to the horsepital?
I just don't think that it is right to make people feel bad for not having a stable, by calling them irresponsible. It is perfectly possible to care for a horse (which has been an outdoor animal for faaaar longer than it has been an indoor one) with just a well fenced field and a considerate owner.

For the record I have stables, grazing and transport of my own. But it has not always been this way, and I would certainly not want to make people feel bad for not having these things.

Plus obviously the dartmoor comment was tongue in cheek. I do not recommend we all release our horses into the wild.

That was pretty much what people were saying - that all horses should have some access to shelter if need be. I'd prefer my horses out too, and am more likely to go down the rest route rather than scans and x rays, but know that thats not always possible/best.

I'm not criticising someone who doesn't have a stable at all, but stand firm on the fact that it is irresponsible not to have a plan for the time when the worst happened... Perhaps because I'm one of life's unlucky gits that crap happens to!

 

[[59851]]

I'm not a fan of box rest TBH. But if it was really needed then I use the one stable I have available between my 3!