Shoeing evangelism?

Some horses need shoes.

Some horses don't.

Horses are not a homogenous group of identical individuals.

Horses need different care to meet differing needs.

At the moment, cptrayes thinks that what works for one horse, must work for all of them. I think it's quite sweet, really - if only a 'one size fits all' approach worked with horses, life would be much simpler.
tongue.gif
grin.gif
laugh.gif


S
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Yes - agree - the horses welfare must come first. I wonder why he was so sore on anything but he softest ground? <font color="green">I would imagine all the gravel/ stony ground and hard paths hurt his feet. shoes fixed it </font>
<font color="blue">And it was easier to shoe than address what the underlyign problem might have been of course</font>



"really lame on rough ground and his/her frogs are bleeding but my trimmer says in another 6 months it will be fine!!! "

I can't imagine any concientous trimmer taking that approach to a horse that is sore and has bleeding frogs. You must have come across a really bad trimmer. <font color="green"> This is purely some of the bare foot speil I have heard I would never use a trimmer I would only ever use a fully qualified farrier </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">Yes, that is probably the right thing for you to do. </font>
 
[ QUOTE ]
There you go again...*Pulls hair out* ... Same line, over and over...jesus!! Are you a qualified vet? Qualified farrier, or just qualified to spout utter bollox?

[/ QUOTE ]

And you certainly seem to have a qualification in "being offensive".

Actually CP is very well respected in her field, and you might just learn some insightful things from her if you were less rude and inclined to listen.
 
Which field is this please?

I have known happy horses which were unshod and shod - my interest lies with the welfare of the horse, not either 'camp'.

I do automatically distrust anyone so closed off to the views of others, so insistent that their way is right and all others are wrong as the OP appears to be.

All I see here is an post written in such a way that was certain to provoke, and a complete lack of willingness either to accept the views of others or to back up claims with reference to research papers or anything else.

Since you seem to know, can you tell us - what qualifications does this person have? Is there scientific, peer reviewed evidence to back up the claims made here on navicular etc?
 
I do find it rather sad that grown ups cant either see that both sides (barefoot and shod) can work for some horses and not others. Yes there are a lot of long distance horses that are barefoot, but guess what there are a lot that are shod as well! There are great dressage horses that are barefoot and guess what great ones that are shod as well, I would imagine you can say much the same for any discipline. I find it a bit sad that the elite barefoot is the only route people cant accept that simple fact just as I find the elite it must be shod or nothing people equally blinkered.

I feel most sad for people like me though who go down the route of barefoot, find that there animal is in significant discomfort (thats pain)to the point of lameness and are told that they are wrong/wicked/cruel by some online expert if they go back to shoes cos if they wait god know how long the foot fairy might come and magic up super perfect rock crushing feet. Sadly it doesnt happen for every horse. Didnt for my boy anyway.
 
Not read the thread.

I led a newly barefoot (has been barefoot for a few months I think) darling rescue ex-hunter up a lovely smooth drive yesterday for its owner. I winced with it at every step. I know not a lot about it, and I'm sure that for many it's great. But for an aged horse that has worked hard and well, shod all its life, I found it upsetting.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I posted it because I want people to stop shooting horses that get navicular.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'll shoot my horse if i want to....its really none of your business.

if a horse is in pain, has a low recovery prognosis, and is unlikely to do the job it was bought for post treatment, then yes, it will be shot.

with or without bloody shoes!

[/ QUOTE ]

jmo7 - make sure they are barefoot first tho! good money for scrap ;-)
tongue.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
No, to cure this condition in the vast majority of cases, you take it barefoot. I can find you x-rays of cures in a 24 year old horse. And MRIs of cures in many others. The problem is people like your vet and farrier, if that's where you got your information from, who, in the face of increasing evidence, still insist that navicular cannot be cured. It is being cured.

[/ QUOTE ]

My information comes from my personal knowlege. If you can show me a horse with navicular syndrome, and then an xray of the same foot, on the same hoof after you 'miricle' cure, I will bow down and kiss the ground you walk on. As this is unlikly I will not be bending and flexing my knees in readiness.

People like you are going to struggle to fit into this forum if Im honest... Your attitude stinks.. your people skills seem to stink and all you have managed to do is annoy a hell of a lot of long standing members.

You dont know what any of us on this forum have experience of. You dont know what we trained as, and what we work as. And I find you approach very narrow minded. Barefoot best.. Barefoot.. thats another thing.. horses dont have feet, they have hooves.. there for they are not barefoot. They are UNSHOD or PAIRED!

Lou x

PS.. Ranting over.
 
[ QUOTE ]

I feel most sad for people like me though who go down the route of barefoot, find that there animal is in significant discomfort (thats pain)to the point of lameness and are told that they are wrong/wicked/cruel by some online expert if they go back to shoes cos if they wait god know how long the foot fairy might come and magic up super perfect rock crushing feet. Sadly it doesnt happen for every horse. Didnt for my boy anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no magic foot fairy - I know that from hard won experience. But what I also learned in my own barefoot journey was to try ask the right questions of myself.

A horse is born without shoes - designed to work without shoes - Nature designs animals to work as they are delivered, not to need adaption to work by nailing metal on!

So if a horse cannot function without shoes on normal surfaces that would indicate that something is fundamentallly wrong with the whole animal wouldn't it? If we look at a compromised hoof as only one outward symptom of things gone quite wrong on the inside?

So ethically - what are we to do? Slap a shoe on the horse and just accept that it is a sticking plaster?

Or, what I feel is the ethically correct approach, and try very hard to identify why THAT horse has compromised feet and identify what dietary and environmental changes are needed for it to function normally - using his hooves as nature intended.

Now is it ethically acceptable to leave a horse in discomfort with bare feet when it cannot cope? No one I think would say "yes" to this - especially those in the barefoot commuity. So we now have boots and pads that we can use to give the horse comfort and allow them to exercise and develop the hoof.

Now in the end of the day - if we have made all the dietary changes and management changes we can for the animal, and given the time it takes to build a naturally firm and pliant hoof capsule - and they are STILL in discomfort - then shoeing is absolutely the right approach and I would have no ethical concerns about shoeing.

What is ethically questionable I feel, is the shoeing of young horses de-rigeur, because it is "the done thing". These horses have not been given a chance to be unshod and develop their feet as nature intended.

Things have moved on in the last 10 years and very few vets or farriers would now dispute the growing weight of evidence from globally recognised experts such as Prof Bowker and Dr Pollit and others that describe the harmful effects of shoes on the development and integrity of the hoof and column of leg.

Given this, it is a challenge to the horse owner to rethink the way that we view shoeing, and see it as a prosthesis for the horse who cannot grow an adequate hoof capsule despite changes to the environment and diet - rather then the "norm".

Sorry to have written such a long post and well done to get to the end of it! But I wanted to try to set out the way that I see the whole barefoot/shod argument and why my ethical perspectives on shoeing have changed over the last few years.

I shod all my horses for years believing it was the right thing to do, and would shoe again if it was the only way to make a horse comfortable and alleviate his discomfort.
 
[ QUOTE ]
My information comes from my personal knowlege. If you can show me a horse with navicular syndrome, and then an xray of the same foot, on the same hoof after you 'miricle' cure, I will bow down and kiss the ground you walk on. As this is unlikly I will not be bending and flexing my knees in readiness.

People like you are going to struggle to fit into this forum if Im honest... Your attitude stinks.. your people skills seem to stink and all you have managed to do is annoy a hell of a lot of long standing members.


[/ QUOTE ]

Lou - the whole way that Navicular is viewed as a set of symptoms has changed in the last few years and navicular horses are being rehabilitated by allowing the back of the foot to develop. Nic Barker at Rockley farm is in the midst of a study about how caudal heel pain (which includes navicular) can be managed by removing shoes and allowing the foot to remodel in a supportive environment.

The evidence is supported by MRI and xrays - and by observation of the horse's movement and performance.

So the whole approach is still in its early days - but the evidence is there and you can read all about it on her site. The study is being conducted in conjunction with vets and the University of Liverpool - so it certainly isn't barefoot quackery - http://www.rockleyfarm.co.uk/research.html

People like us are always going to struggle to fit in - you never do when you begin to question "the way it has always been done" - especially in a forum like this which is profoundly "traditional".
wink.gif
The OP's intention was, I think, to stimulate discussion, not to "annoy a lot of longstanding members"...
 
So, what exactly are the optimum conditions(nutritional and environmental) in which a 'barefoot' horse should be kept, because, as yet, no one has clarified this point? I fail to see where i've been either personal or offensive...imho someone preaching the my way or the highway line is offensive. I also fail to see why barefooters insist on creating a them and us environment by conducting their arguments in this fashion.
smirk.gif
 
"what exactly are the optimum conditions(nutritional and environmental) in which a 'barefoot' horse should be kept,"

Again - I think we are asking the wrong question here - a barefoot horse should be capable of being kept in any environment and diet that a shod horse can survive in - and may are.

The problem is where a horse has tender feet in that same environment &amp; diet - it's an indication that that environment or diet is not right for them - and it almost certainly wasn't right for them when they were shod - but the acion of the shoes in restricting circulation of the feet allowed the horse to cope, or at best mask the symptoms.

Thee is no "optimum environment" as such - nothing as simple as a "do this and it will be all OK" - if only!

But many owners have found - by watching the effect of making the changes - that measures such as restricting grass access, removing grains, increasing mineral supplementation...all help a horse who is showing discomfort in their feet.
 
Ok, but there have been several references made on this thread to owners being unable to provide the conditions necessary to ensure the comfort of a horse should it's shoes be taken off, hence my question. Are you saying that every horse that becomes footsore on, say, sharp, gravelly terrain is being managed incorrectly, hence the pain?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, but there have been several references made on this thread to owners being unable to provide the conditions necessary to ensure the comfort of a horse should it's shoes be taken off, hence my question. Are you saying that every horse that becomes footsore on, say, sharp, gravelly terrain is being managed incorrectly, hence the pain?

[/ QUOTE ]

In my , limited, knowledge I would say yes they have been managed incorrectly if you want them to do well barefoot

From what I have been reading, in order to condition a horses hoof, it need regular exposure to all terrains which is what most people find difficult. ie most of us keep our horses in a soft bed, ride in a soft school and hack on either flat tarmac or grass/dirt. So when we come across a stone or a rock our horses wince. A bit like we would if we threw off out shoes and ran down the road barefoot all of a sudden.
I've read about Paddock Parradsie which is a track system which incorporates different terrains into your paddock to condition the horses hooves on a daily basis.
 
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">And it was easier to shoe than address what the underlyign problem might have been of course</font>

Pain caused by being foot sore was the problem.... Shoes fixed it. one phone call and a pain free sound happy horse


<font color="blue">Yes, that is probably the right thing for you to do. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

You are very self righteous and TBH its this kind of attitude that gets peoples backs up. Horses are INDIVIDUALS and should be treated as such.... What is right for one is not correct for them all
 
That's an interesting comment. ".if we want them to do well barefoot." You see, the problem I have with the OP was the inference that the ONLY ethical way to keep our horses is barefoot...YOUR comment is far nearer to my train of thought, which is that each horse must be assessed as an individual and managed accordingly.
 
[ QUOTE ]

the successful completion rate for barefoot horses was 75%, including two top ten finishers. You really can't argue with that
smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

So 8 top 10 finishers were shod?! You're right, you can't argue with that
smirk.gif
 
I think the whole 'barefoot is what nature intended' argument is a little misguided, and shows a lack of understanding that horses are not wild but domesticated.

Horses evolved by a process of natural selection to cope with their environment - so roaming over different terrains, escaping predators, efficiency in body systems, etc. Think of the Prezwalksi's horse as the most obvious example.

But the horse was domesticated, and humans bred for different traits; the ability to run fast (Tbs), power for farming (heavy horses), survival in cold conditions (Shetland) and so on. Unfortunately, the genes for hooves able to cope with hard wear and tear were often secondary.

What I am trying to explain is that my Tb mare was not 'designed by nature' to cope with her environment. She was 'bred by man' to run fast in a straight line on manicured turf. She can't walk without shoes on, so needs shod.

Native ponies/those originating in a country with poor terrain/no history of shoeing may thrive without shoes on.

But many riding horses no longer have the genetic make up for strong hoof horn so need shod - and to deny them this care, after breeding them to need it, is the height of stupidity/cruelty and ignorance.

And if I see one more 'barefoot' horse which is 'just a bit footy' (i.e. lame on all four) being touted as an advert for shoelessness, I shall scream.
S
grin.gif
 
QR - I don't it's true to say that all horses with navicular do better without shoes.

As I said above my horse has navicular (amongst other issues) and I read so much about going unshod that I really wanted to try it. A lot of the information out there does suggest that it is the only way forward and to use the word in the OP, there is a lot of evangelicanism about being unshod. (I am not saying barefoot because I actually agree with Nailed's opinion on this).

A lot of desperate owners including me, will try anything to help their horses and when I heard that taking shoes off and balancing hooves (which my farrier was doing in any event) would provide a cure for navicular, I was determined to try it.

As said above, my horse was uncomfortable. I spent a bloody fortune on easy care boots which really helped, but he still wasn't right. I perservered because I believed the hoof had to harden up. I kept him trimmed every month by my farrier.

I took him to the vets for xrays last month and both the vet and farrier said that he would be helped by having shoes on. His shoes (special ones) have been put back on and he is far more comfortable. It is an amazing transformation.

I welcome continuing research into horses hooves and the shod/barefoot approach but in my opinion - the most evangelical attitude has been by the barefoot brigade.

I am not for one minute suggesting that all horses should wear shoes and I agree that the more research and debate there is, the more people can make individual decisions about what truly is best for their horse.

I do agree that some horses are badly shod which does seem to cause damage to the feet and I have no problem accepting that some horses do better without shoes but it is not as clear cut as some people suggest.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think the whole 'barefoot is what nature intended' argument is a little misguided, and shows a lack of understanding that horses are not wild but domesticated.

Horses evolved by a process of natural selection to cope with their environment - so roaming over different terrains, escaping predators, efficiency in body systems, etc. Think of the Prezwalksi's horse as the most obvious example.

But the horse was domesticated, and humans bred for different traits; the ability to run fast (Tbs), power for farming (heavy horses), survival in cold conditions (Shetland) and so on. Unfortunately, the genes for hooves able to cope with hard wear and tear were often secondary.

What I am trying to explain is that my Tb mare was not 'designed by nature' to cope with her environment. She was 'bred by man' to run fast in a straight line on manicured turf. She can't walk without shoes on, so needs shod.

Native ponies/those originating in a country with poor terrain/no history of shoeing may thrive without shoes on.

But many riding horses no longer have the genetic make up for strong hoof horn so need shod - and to deny them this care, after breeding them to need it, is the height of stupidity/cruelty and ignorance.

And if I see one more 'barefoot' horse which is 'just a bit footy' (i.e. lame on all four) being touted as an advert for shoelessness, I shall scream.
S
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]



At last some common sense!
grin.gif
 
What's your view on the relative completion rates? Don't you think a 70+% completion rate as compared to the average of 54% is impressive?

Additionally the newly crowned USA National 100 mile champion Lindsay Graham and Monk are barefooters. They completed the tough 100 mile course round the mountains and valleys of Indian Valley in California in 9 hours and 58 minutes.

Plus only this week in Kentucky at the trial event for the WEG the feature 100 mile race - three in the top ten were barefoot. The race was shortened to 75 miles on the day because of the atrocious weather conditions (wet/cold/deep mud/extremely slippy). Reports are that the shod horses were slipping all over the place whereas the barefooters were coping well with the terrible conditions.

This has been the most successful year so far for barefoot endurance horses in the US. And as people hear about the successes more and more people are taking their horses shoes off. As the ratio of barefoot to shod horses increases (there are still more shod horses than barefoot) then the number of barefooters in the top ten at the Tevis (and other competitions) will also increase. The tide is turning as barefoot horses prove themselves again and again.
 
Gedenskis_girl - why do you think that it is great that more horses are going unshod? Surely each horse should be treated like the individual it is?

I cannot accept that going unshod is the way forward for every horse, sorry.
 
[ QUOTE ]
What's your view on the relative completion rates? Don't you think a 70+% completion rate as compared to the average of 54% is impressive?
<font color="blue"> In what? You need to clarify this. </font>
Additionally the newly crowned USA National 100 mile champion Lindsay Graham and Monk are barefooters. They completed the tough 100 mile course round the mountains and valleys of Indian Valley in California in 9 hours and 58 minutes.
<font color="blue">That's great - but what does it prove? That 'Monk' has good feet (thanks to his genetics), and can work without shoes, that's all. </font>
Plus only this week in Kentucky at the trial event for the WEG the feature 100 mile race - three in the top ten were barefoot. The race was shortened to 75 miles on the day because of the atrocious weather conditions (wet/cold/deep mud/extremely slippy). Reports are that the shod horses were slipping all over the place whereas the barefooters were coping well with the terrible conditions.
<font color="blue"> Three in the top ten were barefoot, thus I am assuming that the majority (seven of ten) were shod - a great advert for shoeing (if we followed your flawed logic)!
tongue.gif
</font>
This has been the most successful year so far for barefoot endurance horses in the US. And as people hear about the successes more and more people are taking their horses shoes off. As the ratio of barefoot to shod horses increases (there are still more shod horses than barefoot) then the number of barefooters in the top ten at the Tevis (and other competitions) will also increase. The tide is turning as barefoot horses prove themselves again and again.

[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> This last paragraph is just a rant. How are you qualifying success? How did you gain the data which led you to this conclusion? How many horses are shod/barefoot (I bet you don't know!)? One could equally say that shod horses prove themselves again and again...
grin.gif
tongue.gif

You barefoot advocates need to stop ranting and start discussing things seriously, based on evidence, not evangelical zeal if you want us to think you are worth listening to.
S
grin.gif
</font>
 
Dear Shils

Could you please refrain from putting each of your posts far more eleoquently than mine please. It is quite irritating
mad.gif
grin.gif
 
Beautifully put Shilasdair.

I am neither pro nor anti-barefoot - my current horse has been barefoot for the past 18 months after 18 years of being shot, but the tracks to my fields have had a stony surface laid on them and he is not coping with it. He will be having fronts on again tomorrow for his comfort. In my experience, barefoot zealots do tend to forget that humans started putting metal on the bottom of horses feet for a reason.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Gedenskis_girl - why do you think that it is great that more horses are going unshod? Surely each horse should be treated like the individual it is?

I cannot accept that going unshod is the way forward for every horse, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.
Out of mine, my Shire x Tb will probably never need shoes - she has feet of granite.
grin.gif

My Tb mare will always need shoes to be comfortable...she's hitting 21 now, and has been shod since she was 5yr old (before that she was a very footy youngster
tongue.gif
).
And my third one, a Bavarian x Tb has quite good feet, but may need shod if in hard work - time will tell. She is unshod at the moment, and not footy.
Horses are individuals - and their genes determine their hoof strength - if your horse is on a balanced diet, then the feet are probably the best they are going to be.
S
grin.gif
 
It's great because it's healthier for the horse - provided that the owner is prepared to address diet and environment too. It's not the inidividual horse that isn't suitable for barefoot - it's their owner, if they can't or won't address the overall management of the horse.

Seventy years ago doctors believed smoking was good for you - cigarettes were even advertised as having health benefits. The small number of people who started connecting lung disease to smoking were shouted down as wackos and idiots.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Dear Shils

Could you please refrain from putting each of your posts far more eleoquently than mine please. It is quite irritating
mad.gif
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Dear A1fie,
I posted my 'well said' comment before I read this - we appear to be having a mutual appreciation party
grin.gif
tongue.gif
grin.gif

S
grin.gif
 
You sound a lot more ranty than me. Why does it upset ypu so much?

To answer your questions - the stats in the first paragraph are the official Tevis Cup stats.

Genetically all horses have the potential to have great feet. Monk is not an exception by any means. He's just been managed correctly, trimmed properly and had the right conditioning to produce the sort of feet that you will see on every single wild mustang in the US.

But in the event at Kentucky this week more horses competing were shod, so statistically the fact that any barefoot horses were in the top ten is significant.

Everything in my post is based on evidence from the Tevis Cup results, from the AERC Championship results and from the Kentucky Cup results. I'm not sure if you think I've made these results up?
confused.gif
What better evidence can you get than cold hard results?

The post I was answering stated that barefoot was only good for horses in light work. I think I answered that sensibly, backed up with evidence. Not sure how else to reply to you than that but you don't seem to want to discuss anything sensibly yourself so I guess whatever I say you'll just dismiss me as a zealot. Que sera
 
It can't be as simple as making sure diet and enviroment are managed well. I appreciate the importance of both but neither can cure diseases and injuries to feet and legs.

My horse needs the support that shoes give him. It is quite scientific how his shoes are helping him. He has breakover at the fronts and the sides and both the fronts and sides are rolled too. He has heel supports which support his broken back axis and also help him to land heel first.

If shoeing is said to be just in the owners interest - then for this owner it would be far more cheaper for my lad to be unshod. His monthly farrier bill is more than my yearly one!

I think many owners would resent the implication that they lack the correct management skills and don't do the best for their horse because they keep it shod. That's unfair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top