Some horses need shoeing, some don't [Archive]

Estelle

Sep. 2, 2004, 05:47 AM

He is doing what he is accusing others of doing making his OPINION fact...find me the studies, preferaably new studies that show a horse with a good balanced trim and a good roll can not jump as high or run as fast as a shod horse!! I have never seen any studies done on this personally. (I dont like strassur one bit myself, much to agessive!) I dont beleive that EVERY horse can go barefoot, but I do beleive with a good balanced trim with a good roll and the advent of old macs MOST horses can go barefoot with a dedicated owner...notice I said a dedicated owner, one truely dedicated to doing what it takes once those shoes come off to make the the transistion work...now there are studies and proof that nailing a shoe on a horse does cause damage, that it holds the foot static, etc. I know when I got my mare misty, she had recently foundered before I got her and had pretty bad rotation and I did tons of studying on the subject...went with a farrer who specialized in this issue and went with barefeet trimed every 3-5 days the first 4 months, every 7 -10 days the next 4 months and every 10-12 days for the next 4 months, and made sure the mare had good consistant movement on soft ground...she is 100% sound, coffin bone is right back where it should be, actually it was fairly quickly, I had xrays done every 3 months while the work was going on and you would never know that she had foundered in her life. So I take that article with a grain of salt, he was just stating opinions not facts.

CHJoker

Sep. 2, 2004, 05:55 AM

I agree Estelle. Most of us are not Anti SHOE, or 100 percent barefoot, BUT,

We just want to know why barefoot is not presented as a viable option by most farriers, and why are there so many GOD D**%& BAD farriers out there?? Why do I have to hire a specialist for a good barefoot trim, as many of the farriers either refuse, or lame the horse??? Why isn't this common knowledge, and how come everyone, VETS included, have a different opinion? How come no one wants to go barefoot until the horse has NO OTHER OPTION? How come, story after story (mine included), when the shoes are removed, things are MUCH BETTER??

This Tom reminds me of everything I hated about my old farriers. Always right, couldn't listen, aggressive when not agreed with immediately.

For folks just tuning in, read the "pulling horseshoes" thread. Regardless of your stance on the barefoot/shoe issue, in my opinion, Mr. Tom has a real tendency to be aggressive and mean about things, prefering to put down and ridicule rather than explain his positions.

Color me... "NOT IMPRESSED".

But this is an important point. YOU CONTROL THE FATE of these farriers. Without your horses to work on, they are out of a job fast. If you are persistent and educate yourself on what you want, you will find the right person.

How many of you REALLY know how the hoof functions? Who can name the parts of the hoof? Who keeps up with all the current literature on the subject (admittedly exhausting!!) and does a bit of critical thinking?

I am so sad to say, I never bothered to learn these things. Too complex, too hard. BUT, I was forced to learn, because I risked losing my horse. And it has been such a rude awakening. BUT it is just so sad it was as a result of considering having to retire my horse. It was getting that bad.

AND, for those that say the top don't go barefoot, that is not true. They ARE out there, and they do well. There are GP dressage riders, there is a classical dressage trainer (forget his name) in Spain that has all barefoot, and I believe there are many others. MANY horses compete sucessfully barefoot, and the numbers are growing.

There are quite a few endurance riders now who ride barefoot, or with boots. Old macs were developed by one (endurance rider), in Tasmania, I believe. It's pretty rough out there, from what I have heard.

C'MON, realistically, how many hours per day does your horse work? All day? Over rocks? Mine doesn't. He runs around in his pasture all day, and then we train one hour 4-5x per week, and hack out the rest.

He is doing beautifully, and he probably never even needed shoes.

So, as I said, I let my money do the talking. I pay alot for the specialist, and he deserves it. He does a great job. The farriers in my area will never get another cent. That makes a pretty loud statement, and they do hear, regardless of what they tell you. It may not hurt much, but they notice it.

ThirdCharm

Sep. 2, 2004, 06:18 AM

"find me the studies, preferaably new studies that show a horse with a good balanced trim and a good roll can not jump as high or run as fast as a shod horse!!"

Gosh, Estelle, I would settle for just seeing a handful of barefoot horse proving they could jump as high or run as fast as a shod horse.... I'm sure since barefoot is so beneficial there is a Grand Prix jumper or Advanced eventer out there that is barefoot. You would think the barefoot PR folks, since they are quite good you must admit, would realize what a tremendous benefit it would be to mention these horses by name on their websites and in their literature.

Unless they don't exist. Hmm, now that is a problem. Might also explain why such a study hasn't been done, since a control group of ZERO members makes the accumulation of meaningful data difficult.

The article clearly states that BOTH approaches can be suitable, and only condemns those whose religious adherence to ONE approach leads to lamed or crippled horses. At least, that's the way I read it, but I'm not a zealot of any sort unless you count the wellfare of the horse.

JenniferS

Estelle

Sep. 2, 2004, 06:23 AM

OH I totally agree with you...too many old school farriers left out there...it's frustrating trying to get a good one and one that has bothered to keep up with what is new out there as far as barefoot goes...just stuck in their old ways refusing to move forward and advance...do you know the royal lippazaner stallions are barefoot, always have been, but IM sure their farriers dont have a clue right? *LOL* at least according to the ones stuck and refusing to see how good barefoot really is for almost all horses. There are also baredfoot jumpers, barrel horses and endurance horses taking home the ribbons time after time, but that cant be, oh my, they have no shoes! The guy that wrote that article was simply stating HIS opinions and trying to make them fact...what ticked me off is that he was accusing barefoot proponants of doing exactly what he is doing in that article...

Estelle

Sep. 2, 2004, 06:30 AM

I dont need studies I see it all the time at shows, barefoot horses beating shod horses in jumping, dressage, barrels....that's the study I use the cases I see with my own eyes...A horse does not need to be a world class show hores to prove this point, horses that are basically equal in talent and build for their discipline at regular shows in every state speak as loudly to this issue as any other horse out there. Although Im sure there are world class competitors out there winning with no shoes also.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ThirdCharm:
"find me the studies, preferaably new studies that show a horse with a good balanced trim and a good roll can not jump as high or run as fast as a shod horse!!"

Gosh, Estelle, I would settle for just seeing a handful of barefoot horse proving they could jump as high or run as fast as a shod horse.... I'm sure since barefoot is so beneficial there is a Grand Prix jumper or Advanced eventer out there that is barefoot. You would think the barefoot PR folks, since they are quite good you must admit, would realize what a tremendous benefit it would be to mention these horses by name on their websites and in their literature.

Unless they don't exist. Hmm, now that is a problem. Might also explain why such a study hasn't been done, since a control group of ZERO members makes the accumulation of meaningful data difficult.

The article clearly states that BOTH approaches can be suitable, and only condemns those whose religious adherence to ONE approach leads to lamed or crippled horses. At least, that's the way I read it, but I'm not a zealot of any sort unless you count the wellfare of the horse.

JenniferS <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMH

Sep. 2, 2004, 06:32 AM

Hey Tom, if I write an article does it become reality as well?

And this is coming from a man that thinks the way to impress women is to show your arse?

http://web.wt.net/~stovall/impress.htm

I guess if THAT is the truth/reality as well-then you should have QUITE a harem from this BB http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 2, 2004, 06:45 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Estelle:
He is doing what he is accusing others of doing making his OPINION fact...find me the studies, preferaably new studies that show a horse with a good balanced trim and a good roll can not jump as high or run as fast as a shod horse!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Horses wearing shoes have established the benchmarks of performance in racing and jumping. All the "barefoot is best" folks need to do in order to demonstrate their fantasies of barefoot superiority are somehow related to reality is set a few track records, win a few stakes, grand prix, go-rounds at the NFR - and perhaps the odd puissance.

J Swan

Sep. 2, 2004, 06:45 AM

The Royal Lippizans never work outside the manege. (no accent available on my keyboard)

So though they work very hard and are majestic animals expresing an almost lost art - they ain't galloping a gravel road with 80 horses and 15 couple hounds for 3 hours 3 days a week.

It's unfair to a horse to make that comparison.

You gotta compare apples to apples.

I don't like prima donna farriers any more than the next person. As a matter of fact, I've seen more machismo, posturing and blustering in the farrier profession than I see in the rest of the population. I'm happy to work with a prima donna or jerkoff farrier if he does a good job with my horse. Shoes or not.

I don't hire a doctor based on his bedside manner - I hire him based on a set of criteria; licensing, board certification, education, experience. In most professions those are quantifiable - although not a guarantee of competence - it's something.

Any wacko in the horse world can set up a website, advocate some crazy notion of training or shoeing and immediately have a host of loyal followers groveling at their feet and lambasting any mendicant who doesn't worship at the alter.

Knowing that - I don't jump on bandwagons. If there is any study performed by a scientific or educational institution anywhere in the world that has followed horses throughout their lives and can show in what circumstances a horse should be shod or not - show me.

Otherwise - y'all are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

CHJoker

Sep. 2, 2004, 06:45 AM

LMH,

TOO FUNNY!!! I hope he wears underwear now!

In my opinion, it was sweet justice,

"after all, I had just done a pretty good job of spurring a finals horse in the fat neck."

I bet the horse enjoyed that one Tom. Nothing turns a woman on more than watching a horse get spurred in the neck.

YiPPEEEE Yiiiii AYYYYY!!!!

OHHH, and for the record, in case anyone gets confused, I am not saying to hire your farrier because he is a nice guy, no more than I am saying to fire your farrier because he is an ASS.

Hire him because he is educated, does a good job, and makes your horse sound and happy. Fire him if he is incompetant and hurts your horse.

BUT, when I started researching, I found out that I had not been judging my farriers properly, because I didn't know what to look for.

Life for me and my horse dramatically improved when I decided to do some critical thinking.

I have read many different arguments, explanations, from many different sources. I suggest that every horse owner do the same, and make their own informed decisions.

LMH

Sep. 2, 2004, 06:50 AM

I don't think there is ANY way to make a legitimate argument that horses perform better JUST because of shoes....the last time *I* looked several "performance" horses HAVE been known to have a little chemical assistance now and then as well...whether it is within legal dosages or not http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif from race horses on large amounts of bute to joint injections to other pain relievers,etc...

NOW I am NOT saying any of this is bad or not-but it is not so simple as to say OH they win because of shoes or because of being barefoot-for a man so insistent on double blind studies with a summary paper available for peer review, surely that makes sense to Tom?

Flash44

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:10 AM

http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif How much do I enjoy writing a monthly check to the farrier that is equivalent to a car payment? Mine are in shoes only when they must be in shoes.

My new horse had been barefoot all her life (5 years). She is so much better in shoes.

Dune

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:13 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't most (if not ALL...more likely) of the horses that competed in the Olympics shod? I would think that they get the best of the best of everything in horse care. Just a thought....

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Estelle:
I dont need studies I see it all the time at shows, barefoot horses beating shod horses in jumping, dressage, barrels...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do tell? If that's true, can you name a single barefooted horse that has ever won a race at any parimutuel track in the United States? A grand prix or puissance at any USEF "AA" or "A" show? A PRCA or WPRA barrel race? If not, why not?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
that's the study I use the cases I see with my own eyes...A horse does not need to be a world class show hores to prove this point, horses that are basically equal in talent and build for their discipline at regular shows in every state speak as loudly to this issue as any other horse out there.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You appear to be saying that the mere participation in an activity at the lowest
levels is somehow equal in significance to winning the same activity at the highest levels. One hates to burst your bubble, but neither all horses, nor all contests, are created equal. The horse that wins first in an open jumper class of one at the Lower Podunk Annual Playday is most assuredly not the equal of the horse that wins a grand prix at an "AA" rated show.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Although Im sure there are world class competitors out there winning with no shoes also.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Alas, I fear your confidence is misplaced.

CHJoker

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:18 AM

Flash, I know what you mean.

I don't see a cost savings in trimming vs. shoeing here, because I have to pay someone to come from France, and I have to have it done more often than with shoes (to address the long toes).

My horse has had shoes since the age of four, and now he is so much better without them.

My point? Find what works!! I am glad that you found something that works!! I am glad I found something that works!!

Now, let's get rid of the idiot farriers that don't know how to shoe, and make sure they DO NOT WORK.

ChampionMercedes

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:19 AM

Great article. If only I could send it to the barefoot only person that nearly ruined my horse.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> She's created a cult of hoof butchery <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. The person that did my horse chopped off his toe, and half his foot. He was a mess. Went from being sound for 14 years to dead lame in an hour. She told me it had to get worse before it got better http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif But she couldn't tell me what was wrong in the first place.

I found a great farrier that was able to fix the mess. Two hours of work later I had a sound horse. Some horses really can't go barefoot.

slb

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:20 AM

Ohhhh Tom....thanks for the link...another vanity publication I can add to my list http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LMH

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:24 AM

"You appear to be saying that the mere participation in an activity at the lowest
levels is somehow equal in significance to winning the same activity at the highest levels"

Ummm yes Tom it actually IS unless you are in this to make a living at any cost---I dare say for some people, it is even more significant-Those involved in the highest levels make choices-every day-about weighing and balancing what they do with the well being of the horse. Push him today one one time? One more weekend so he can qualify for year end status? Bute him so he can pass the jog?

This discussion just left the world of shoes and barefoot.

Considering not MANY people on this BB are going to the Olympics, sometimes long term soundness, a partner for life is more important than a disposable commodity that can be replaced in a year or two---and FYI this point has NOTHING to do with shoes vs. barefoot-it has to do with overall care and concern for the animal.

JUST because someone is at the top today on one animal is NO guarantee that horse is getting the BEST care for his well being-it might just mean he is having done to him whatever it takes to get him to the ring today.

Tell me Tom what IS more significant-a horse that wins Grand Prix or a pony that is safe and carries a child around in a therapeutic riding program, perhaps allowing her to develop muscles and coordination that could improve that child's life...that pony may not be papered or pretty or have done anything else in his life...

Do tell me WHICH animal has the more important job? Could that be subjective?

CHJoker

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:26 AM

ChampionMercedes,

While I understand you are upset that your horse was lamed, your rationale is a bit like saying

" I went to a holistic healer (no qualifications, operating out of a van down by the river), and she gave me some herbs, and I almost died". Now, I hate all holistic healers, and am sure all herbs are dangerous."

Yikes, surely you don't think that all the barefoot trimmers are like this, do you?

It didn't work with a wacko, so you immediately decided the horse can't go barefoot?

That is why it is so important to do some critical thinking for yourself, before you go either way!!!

AND, I do think that horses can be shod sucessfully too!!! BUT, How many of us are going to the Olympics? Does your horse NEED shoes, is really the question. And, in my case, unfortunately, I had to pull the shoes because the farrier messed up the feet so badly, I had no CHOICE.

But, honestly, he is staying barefoot because he moves so much better!!

Estelle

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:30 AM

Uh guess you did not read the rest of my post this is what it said:
I dont need studies I see it all the time at shows, barefoot horses beating shod horses in jumping, dressage, barrels....that's the study I use the cases I see with my own eyes...A horse does not need to be a world class show hores to prove this point, horses that are basically equal in talent and build for their discipline at regular shows in every state speak as loudly to this issue as any other horse out there. Although Im sure there are world class competitors out there winning with no shoes also.

Or Tom are you stating that the only horses shoes help in the showring are the ones in the TOP jumping and showing classes? *LOL* Now that wouldnt make a bit of sense would it...sorry Im just not too impressed by you, what can I say. But then again you are impressed enough by yourself for all of us!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Estelle:
He is doing what he is accusing others of doing making his OPINION fact...find me the studies, preferaably new studies that show a horse with a good balanced trim and a good roll can not jump as high or run as fast as a shod horse!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Horses wearing shoes have established the benchmarks of performance in racing and jumping. All the "barefoot is best" folks need to do in order to demonstrate their fantasies of barefoot superiority are somehow related to reality is set a few track records, win a few stakes, grand prix, go-rounds at the NFR - and perhaps the odd puissance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

slb

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:33 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:
Horses wearing shoes have established the benchmarks of performance in racing and jumping. All the "barefoot is best" folks need to do in order to demonstrate their fantasies of barefoot superiority are somehow related to reality is set a few track records, win a few stakes, grand prix, go-rounds at the NFR - and perhaps the odd puissance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Horse with shoes win simply because the odds are in their favor...that is there are so many more of them. There are plenty of trainers that would like to race barefoot, but will not chance it because their rules say that if you start the season barefoot, you must finish it so...if you had a large purse at stake...and your job...would you take that chance....no on would.

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:34 AM

Don't bother, Estelle. Tom won't believe anything you say that you are seeing, because you don't have pictures (and even they would be questionable http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif) and no scientific study and nothing written down and you don't have a working knowledge of farrier work and and and... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif so unless you want to get as frustrated as I have gotten, save yourself now! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Estelle

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:34 AM

Uhhh neither are the majority of horses out there? So who is comparing apples to oranges here?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by J Swan:
The Royal Lippizans never work outside the manege. (no accent available on my keyboard)

So though they work very hard and are majestic animals expresing an almost lost art - they ain't galloping a gravel road with 80 horses and 15 couple hounds for 3 hours 3 days a week.

ChampionMercedes

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:37 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by CHJoker:
ChampionMercedes,

While I understand you are upset that your horse was lamed, your rationale is a bit like saying

" I went to a holistic healer (no qualifications, operating out of a van down by the river), and she gave me some herbs, and I almost died". Now, I hate all holistic healers, and am sure all herbs are dangerous."

Yikes, surely you don't think that all the barefoot trimmers are like this, do you?

It didn't work with a wacko, so you immediately decided the horse can't go barefoot?

That is why it is so important to do some critical thinking for yourself, before you go either way!!!

AND, I do think that horses can be shod sucessfully too!!! BUT, How many of us are going to the Olympics? Does your horse NEED shoes, is really the question. And, in my case, unfortunately, I had to pull the shoes because the farrier messed up the feet so badly, I had no CHOICE.

But, honestly, he is staying barefoot because he moves so much better!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry I came off like that.

I think people need to be more honest on what is best for the horse. I've ridden horses that were sound and working fine without shoes. It's too bad a barefoot trimmer OR a farrier can't be honest enough to say "I don't think what I do is best for your horse."

jester1113

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:
Reality check for True Believers:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sleepy.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sleepy.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sleepy.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sleepy.gif

CHJoker

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:41 AM

Tami,

http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I agree one hundred percent. I wish someone had done that for me too.

At the end of the day, I really think we all want what is best for our horses.

Honestlyhttp://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I even think Mr. Tom, bare ass and all, really doesn't want to have lame horses.

He just is too easy a target, I guess http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

the sad fact is, the really bad farriers are still out there working, not typing. And, the best defense is a good offense....ie, get yourself a hoof education. Then decide what your horse needs. Otherwise, I get the feeling sometimes it is a "blind leading the blind" situation.

Wellll....Unless you're Mr. Tom....then it is "all cheeks bared".

sorry, I couldn't resist. (***Slaps self for discipline***)

Estelle

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Estelle:
I dont need studies I see it all the time at shows, barefoot horses beating shod horses in jumping, dressage, barrels...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do tell? If that's true, can you name a single barefooted horse that has ever won a race at any parimutuel track in the United States? A grand prix or puissance at any USEF "AA" or "A" show? A PRCA or WPRA barrel race? If not, why not?
now who is taking things out of context, put in the rest of my post mr high and mighty, I said in local shows, I dont go to the tracks, hate racing, dont go to the grand prix either....so what are you saying that only the world champ horses need shoes to win, guess so, now that makes sense, IM talking local horses of equal confirmation and talant doing barrels in the MBRA races, Local Class B dressage shows and jumping shows...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
that's the study I use the cases I see with my own eyes...A horse does not need to be a world class show hores to prove this point, horses that are basically equal in talent and build for their discipline at regular shows in every state speak as loudly to this issue as any other horse out there.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You appear to be saying that the mere participation in an activity at the lowest
levels is somehow equal in significance to winning the same activity at the highest levels. One hates to burst your bubble, but neither all horses, nor all contests, are created equal. The horse that wins first in an open jumper class of one at the Lower Podunk Annual Playday is most assuredly not the equal of the horse that wins a grand prix at an "AA" rated show.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Again, what does that have to do with a barefoot horse winning over a shod horse, are you saying only expensive, world class horses benefit from shoes?? *LMAO* Geez your a real scream...You know what your problem is dont you? Your old! Youre stuck in your ways and you refuse to see advancement if it doesnt agree with your Old fashioned feelings on the subject, again, IM not impressed
Although Im sure there are world class competitors out there winning with no shoes also.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Alas, I fear your confidence is misplaced. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I dissagree, I have absolutly NO confidence in you, but surely do with the farrier doing my horses feet.

Jsalem

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:44 AM

Good grief- what is all the fuss about?!!

Some horses are fine barefoot, some require shoes to do their jobs and stay sound. Big deal.

Estelle

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:48 AM

*LOL* JB...he is something isnt he? Mostly Im getting a chuckle reading his outlandish, snobby posts...hey someone has to be impressed by him, too bad he is the one impressed! *LOL* Not to worry if I start getting frustrated by his closed minded, prejudiced, old fashioned thinking and posts I will definitly stop reading him! Right now Im enjoying the chuckles and down right belly laughs Im getting from his posts... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by JB:
Don't bother, Estelle. Tom won't believe anything you say that you are seeing, because you don't have pictures (and even they would be questionable http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif) and no scientific study and nothing written down and you don't have a working knowledge of farrier work and and and... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif so unless you want to get as frustrated as I have gotten, save yourself now! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMH

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:48 AM

Ohhhh Jsalem-actually I don't think the fuss has anything to do with barefoot or shoes anymore at all! LOL....just a man, with an ego and the ability to wind up the mares http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

CHJoker

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:53 AM

Well, it certainly has been a lively chat!

So, I am ending my day here, and I am going to ride my CHJoker. (CH is the country code for Switzerland, and Joker is the name of my horse) BUT, tonight I think I'll call him Tom.

KIDDING!!

Seriously, all have a good night!!! Ciao!!!

J Swan

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:57 AM

Estelle - you don't have to be snippy or defensive. I merely make the statement that if a high school horse works without shoes in the manege it merely indicates that in those conditions, with those horses, in that footing, shoes are not a requirement.

You are the one who used the example of the Lippizan as a barefoot working horse. It is an example but not a universal truth.

If a field hunter stays sound and safe with no shoes - in that instance - with that horse - shoes are not a requirement.

But since many breeds, types and sizes of horses hunt, and they all hunt in different conditions, with different riders, in different parts of the world - that also cannot be a universal truth.

The theories postulated can only be true if there are constants. Constants would be - same breed - or same footing - or same work.

The problem is that you can take two similar horses, put them in the same conditions, and you may get 2 results. Or the same results. But if you keep repeating the experiment what you find is - no constants and too many variables.

So what results is a loosely defined set of parameters.

And that - in the end - should be the guiding force. A thorough understanding of the parameters and the application of methods customized to the individual.

Absolutes are rarely applicable in animal husbandry.

If everyone can grasp that statement, I think the result would be a less strident and zealous discussion.

trailblazer

Sep. 2, 2004, 08:20 AM

Is it any surprise a farrier is biased in favor of shoes? Where do you think they make their money? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif

I think that only the very extreme "barefoot is best" people believe that NO horses need shoes. I believe that you should put shoes on your horses if they need it. And I'm not going to judge what other people's horses need. But none of my Morgans wear shoes, and they have done just fine. We do long trail rides (with rocks!), dressage, and eventing. Give me one good reason why they need shoes.

Heather

Sep. 2, 2004, 08:34 AM

I am now using three, god help me, three different farriers for my herd.

They are all good, and are good at different things, and are working towards different goals with different horses.

All can have their prima donna moments, but nothing un manageable.

Every single one of them says the same thing--that they wish it were possible to quit shoeing horses, that in a perfect world, a barefoot horse is better off. And every single one of them, and every vet, says if they pulled the shoes off of my horses and expected to keep them at their current level of work, they'd be crippled.

Olympic horses? No, but mid level eventers, who gallop and jump and are just hard enough on themselves that they need shoes. Not a philosophical beliefe, not an absolute. Just a fact for me and them at this time. But I don't see a bnch of farriers propping up the shoeing industry just because. In fact, I see a bunch of people who dream of the day when all they'll need on their truck is a set of trimming tools.

trailblazer

Sep. 2, 2004, 08:43 AM

Are they TBs by chance? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

People always tell me that once my horses are "worked hard enough", they WILL need shoes. Then I tell them that I just got back from a 4 hour trail ride through the mountains. That usually keeps them quiet for a couple of days.

I think people should do what they think is best for their horses. I just resent when people (who don't even know my horses) tell me that shoes are inevitable. I've been hearing that since before my horses were broke...

I don't know if this BB's farrier is thinking about money, but he seems to have some sort of agenda.

P.S. The guy who wrote that insightful http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif article is just another Strasser. The title of the "article" claims that some horses DON'T need shoes, but then he goes on to say that "horses can pull more weight, run faster and/or jump higher when correctly shod in accord with the individual's needs relative to its particular environment than they can barefooted." Yeah, right. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif He believes that shoeing is always beneficial, so how is he any different from the person who says that shoeing is never beneficial?

Sep. 2, 2004, 09:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by trailblazer:
I don't know if this BB's farrier is thinking about money, but he seems to have some sort of agenda.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ack, please don't call him THIS bb's farrier! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif He is just somebody with a website who apparently knows more than everyone else here put together http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

As for "...when correctly shod in accord with the individual's needs relative to its particular environment than they can barefooted." - funny how my TB, previously shod all around, would slip at times when ridden in his pasture, regardless of how hard, soft, or just right it was, but my WB who's never been shod has NEVER slipped unless the ground was too wet.

Don'thca just love the "oh, just wait, you'll have to shoe him pretty soon" comments? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif It's too funny to see the looks and hear the comments about my 6yo who is barefoot - "You mean he's SIX and you STILL haven't put shoes on him? And you're JUMPING him? Wow!" That to me is living proof that there are too many people who are never even presented with the option of barefoot as a viable treatment for their horses.

Bea

Sep. 2, 2004, 09:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by J Swan:
And that - in the end - should be the guiding force. A thorough understanding of the parameters and the application of methods customized to the individual. Absolutes are rarely applicable in animal husbandry. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Really well said, J Swan.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>If everyone can grasp that statement, I think the result would be a less strident and zealous discussion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 2, 2004, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by LMH:

"You appear to be saying that the mere participation in an activity at the lowest
levels is somehow equal in significance to winning the same activity at the highest levels."
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Ummm yes Tom it actually IS unless you are in this to make a living at any cost---I dare say for some people, it is even more significant-Those involved in the highest levels make choices-every day-about weighing and balancing what they do with the well being of the horse. Push him today one one time? One more weekend so he can qualify for year end status? Bute him so he can pass the jog?...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nonsense. One compares shoeing/trimming methods of the most successful horses in various endeavors in order to determine the most efficient methods of shoeing/trimming individuals within that endeavor - simple as that. The balance of your digressive diatribe appears to be some sort of illogical, apples to oranges, defense of mediocrity.

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 2, 2004, 09:43 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by slb <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:
Horses wearing shoes have established the benchmarks of performance in racing and jumping. All the "barefoot is best" folks need to do in order to demonstrate their fantasies of barefoot superiority are somehow related to reality is set a few track records, win a few stakes, grand prix, go-rounds at the NFR - and perhaps the odd puissance.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Horse with shoes win simply because the odds are in their favor...that is there are so many more of them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One can only wonder why all those dumb trainers choose to jump and run with shod horses when there's money on the line.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
There are plenty of trainers that would like to race barefoot, but will not chance it because their rules say that if you start the season barefoot, you must finish it so...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You know almost as much about racing as you do farriery. The rules of racing require plates in most parimutuel jurisdictions, but any trainer who wants to run a horse barefooted has only to obtain permission from the stewards for an equipment change.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
if you had a large purse at stake...and your job...would you take that chance....no on would.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
More likely, it's because few trainers want to handicap their horses by running them barefoot in a shod field.

Estelle

Sep. 2, 2004, 09:47 AM

God you really are an egotistical, elitist, old man Tom...*LOL* but I do thank you for the laughs you are giving me and the ones Im sure my farrier (master farrier, by the way) will get from your posts too...so thanks! Keep up the good work, the world needs to laugh more, even if we do shake our heads at you while we do it.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:

Nonsense. One compares shoeing/trimming methods of the most successful horses in various endeavors in order to determine the most efficient methods of shoeing/trimming individuals within that endeavor - simple as that. The balance of your digressive diatribe appears to be some sort of illogical, apples to oranges, defense of mediocrity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MeanderCreek

Sep. 2, 2004, 09:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by trailblazer:
Is it any surprise a farrier is biased in favor of shoes? Where do you think they make their money? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mine makes more $$/hour trimming at my place than he does shoeing. I'm sure he'd love to just drive up in a little cheap car and set up with a hoof knife, nippers and a rasp but our horses work for a living and most of them do eventually NEED shoes. They all start out barefoot, but the demands we place on them necessitate shoes for the majority. Out of my ten in work right now, four are just being started and are still barefoot. Two of those are looking like they'll need at least front plates next time. Four are shod all the way around and two are shod in front only. The twentyish weanlings, yearlings and broodmares are all barefoot and do fine that way. They don't need shoes to walk around the fields and eat grass.

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 2, 2004, 10:03 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by slb:
Ohhhh Tom....thanks for the link...another vanity publication I can add to my list http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been meaning to point out a major difference between me and most other members of this forum: I sign my posts, every one of 'em, with my real name and anyone with an interest can check my bona fides and get hold of me if they choose to do so. Agree, disagree, whatever makes your heart thump, no le hace. You will further note that I'm not so lacking in intestinal fortitude that I feel the need to hide behind a pseudonym.

I find one's credibility takes a major hit when one hides behind the cloak of anonymity. One can excuse the nonsensical twittering of the intellectual lightweights who infest this forum, but one can only wonder why anyone of your self anointed stature finds it necessary to seek shelter behind a pseudonym.

Sep. 2, 2004, 10:10 AM

You know what Tom? Most people here use a pseudonym because we don't want every pervert out there knowing who we are and therefore how to find us. You would be VERY surprised to learn who and what sort of people lurk on public bulletin boards. It is a simple matter of PM'ing anyone on this board to find out more about them, so don't even go down the path of criticizing anyone for choosing to remain anonymous.

And for that matter, I don't believe I have seen any of your work - I certainly can't find anything on your site besides drawings. Why don't you lend some credence to yourself and post pictures of horses you have "saved" by properly trimming and shoeing them?

And if you feel we are all "intellectual lightweights" infesting this forum do yourself a favor and go elsewhere where you can get some intelligent banter http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LMH

Sep. 2, 2004, 10:12 AM

"The balance of your digressive diatribe appears to be some sort of illogical, apples to oranges, defense of mediocrity."

Ummm no Tom-you have just once again proven you can use the words but can't follow the logic and once in that position only have the tool of name calling or derogatory comments.

Try again.

LMH

Sep. 2, 2004, 10:15 AM

I actually do agree that it WOULD be nice to see examples of your work...give us something for review http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Also-it wouldn't take much to find the name of most on the BB-half of us post an email---can easily track someone from that information.

jester1113

Sep. 2, 2004, 10:19 AM

Of if you're POLITE, personal information is generally offered.

slb

Sep. 2, 2004, 10:38 AM

I do not find most people's initials to be "pseudonyms"....they are simply a short way to state a name. Most people here who are interested in horses' hoofs are familiar with who I am.

But, just to humor you, I will follow my posts to you with my name and creditials.

Susan L. Baker, AAS, BS, MS
plus assorted minors and certificates to numerous to mention.

ChocoMare

Sep. 2, 2004, 10:50 AM

Ah SLB, I knew there was a deeper reason why I liked you (besides respecting your knowledge)... We "Susans" are a rare breed nowadays.

Susan E. Auten - Open minded, moldable student to the Hoof Fetish Clique Instructors.

RAyers

Sep. 2, 2004, 10:53 AM

Tom,

You woke up this morning spoiling for a fight, didn't you? A word of advice, this is a hard group to gain respect from regardless of who you are. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Reed

slb

Sep. 2, 2004, 11:08 AM

Chocomare http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif
Yes, we Susans are definately a rare breed...but since Mr. Stovall, CJF has lifted this board to a place of self-purportment, I will also add...gifted, mentally stimulating and quite cute to be sure! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

J Swan

Sep. 2, 2004, 11:18 AM

I am NOT an intellectual lightweight.

ThirdCharm

Sep. 2, 2004, 11:24 AM

How could I have gone to the barn when this is so interesting....

Estelle--YOU are the one who wanted proof that barefoot horses CAN NOT jump as high or run as fast as shod! How about the fact that despite large numbers (apparently) of unshod horses competing locally as barrel racers, jumpers, etc., NONE OF THEM are making it to the top levels of competition? Surely ALL their trainers (since they are smart enough to compete barefoot) aren't incompetent?

JenniferS

Sep. 2, 2004, 11:30 AM

You can't simply lay this all or nothing on the trainers. It's also about the quality of the horse, the rider, the desire of the rider AND the horse, and the depth of the pocketbook of said rider or parents. I consider myself a pretty good rider, probably capable of successfully competing at the A/O level with my Rio who definitely has the potential. Will I ever get there? Probably not - not due to lack of talent on either our parts, but lack of time to train to that level and lack of funds to progress to that level. That doesn't say one thing about the ability of Rio to compete over fences that size barefoot or not.

Estelle

Sep. 2, 2004, 11:30 AM

Because the are making it as far as they want to, the 3 top MBRA horses are all barefoot, so they are state champions in Maine...high enough for me and them too I guess....not everyone has enough bucks or interest to take their horses higher then that, only person that would have a problem with that would be snob, you have a problem with it? Also the local class B dressage shows have several barefooters and guess who is placing 1st and 2nd in those shows?
The status of the shows is not the issue, it's if a horse can perform as well barefoot as shod, answer that I see all the time is yes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ThirdCharm:
How could I have gone to the barn when this is so interesting....

Estelle--YOU are the one who wanted proof that barefoot horses CAN NOT jump as high or run as fast as shod! How about the fact that despite large numbers (apparently) of unshod horses competing locally as barrel racers, jumpers, etc., NONE OF THEM are making it to the top levels of competition? Surely ALL their trainers (since they are smart enough to compete barefoot) aren't incompetent?

JenniferS <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pocket Pony

Sep. 2, 2004, 12:03 PM

Another Susan checking in here! That must be why I like both of you, slb and Chocomare....aside from your thoughtful posts, of course. Now, are either of you Libras? That would just top it off!

http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

slb

Sep. 2, 2004, 12:05 PM

OMG....me...me http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bea

Sep. 2, 2004, 12:17 PM

Wheee . . . it's a public outing of Susans!! And now Libras!!! Back, kind Susans, back I say, before you overwhelm the Toms and take over the world of farriery. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 2, 2004, 12:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Originally posted by JB:

You know what Tom? Most people here use a pseudonym because we don't want every pervert out there knowing who we are and therefore how to find us. You would be VERY surprised to learn who and what sort of people lurk on public bulletin boards. It is a simple matter of PM'ing anyone on this board to find out more about them, so don't even go down the path of criticizing anyone for choosing to remain anonymous.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
IME, folks choose to be anonymous for a variety of reasons: some, as you state, out of fear; some because they fear exposure of their intellectual shortcomings; some simply because they haven't got the guts of a garden slug.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
And for that matter, I don't believe I have seen any of your work - I certainly can't find anything on your site besides drawings.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not the least bit shy and I'll be quite happy to show you several examples of my work (not pictures, the real thing), but you'll have to leave the happy confines of your bailiwick and venture out into the world of USEF and USDF shows.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Why don't you lend some credence to yourself and post pictures of horses you have "saved" by properly trimming and shoeing them?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you ever see a post with my name on that claims I've "saved" a horse, you may assume it's a forgery.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
And if you feel we are all "intellectual lightweights" infesting this forum do yourself a favor and go elsewhere where you can get some intelligent banter http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you find the polysyllabic stuff too stressful, you have only to quit reading.

Ghazzu

Sep. 2, 2004, 12:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by CHJoker:
AND, for those that say the top don't go barefoot, that is not true. They ARE out there, and they do well. There are GP dressage riders, there is a classical dressage trainer (forget his name) in Spain that has all barefoot, and I believe there are many others. MANY horses compete sucessfully barefoot, and the numbers are growing.

There are quite a few endurance riders now who ride barefoot, or with boots. Old macs were developed by one (endurance rider), in Tasmania, I believe. It's pretty rough out there, from what I have heard.

. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the vast majority of endurance horses are shod.
Even some of the more vocal proponents of barefoot endurance horses will shoe their horses when the footing at a ride makes it a prudent course of action.

And no matter how much people seem to want to think otherwise, a horsae wearing boots is not "barefoot", it's booted.

As for all these alleged "top" competitors who are barefoot, please name names.

No, I'm not opposed to barefoot horses. All mine are currently. If the occasion arises that I feel shoeing would be appropriate, I will do so.

But I find it stretches credulity beyond the breaking point to think that so many top competiors in different equine athletic endeavors shoe mwerely from ignorance of the purported advantages of a naked hoof.

Somehow, I suspect that optimum performance may just have something to do with it.

Do I think a lot of the shod horses out there could do just fine barefoot? Yup.
Do I think that the fact that they are nonethless shod is in and of itself detrimental? Not at all.

And, while lots of you may find Tom to be as abrasive as his rasp, I find him refreshingly to the point.

Sep. 2, 2004, 12:40 PM

Once again, avoiding all questions.

It is testament that I am still here that I DON'T find your polysyllabic "stuff" too stressful, but apparently you feel we are not up to par with you, hence my comment.

And for your information, I DO attend USEF and USDF shows and I pay attention to feet - shod or not, wedged or not, bar shoes or pads or whatever - saddle fit, snaffle bits vs pelhams or double bridles, and countless other details of a horse's well-being. How in the world does that give me any insight into your actual work? Do you have clients in North Carolina? If any of them are going to be at the Breed Show in Raleigh on Monday, by all means tell me and I will look them up.

"Saved" was a loose term and you know it. You claim that you are making horses who walked lame onto the mat, sound by applying whatever method of shoeing it is that you do. I simply asked to see an example of that. I, and undoubtedly others, would consider that "saving" a horse. It doesn't have to mean you saved him from slaughter because he foundered so badly he sloughed 3 hooves but you fixed him right up.

I still don't understand what exactly your problem with me and others is. Apparently it has something do with not being formally certified in farrier work and therefore have no credibility in your eyes whatsoever. It's pretty sad when someone with apparently as much experience as you have feels we are so far beneath you that all you can do is criticize and demean us and assume we live in a little hole in the wall.

slb

Sep. 2, 2004, 12:40 PM

Oh goody....I am glad you showed up Ghazzu...
Could yol explain what exactly his point is? So far, except for a couple of serious statements, all I have seen is circles fostered in rhetoric.

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 2, 2004, 12:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by slb:
I do not find most people's initials to be "pseudonyms"....they are simply a short way to state a name. Most people here who are interested in horses' hoofs are familiar with who I am.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are doubtless familiar with the binomial (Linnean) convention of nomenclature common to English speaking countries in which one's given name(s) is followed by a family name. In reality, signing one's post with a monomial or initials is indicative of one's wish to remain anonymous.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
But, just to humor you, I will follow my posts to you with my name and creditials.
Susan L. Baker, AAS, BS, MS
plus assorted minors and certificates to numerous to mention.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ms. Baker, I admire your willingness to shed your cloak of anonymity, but try as I may, I don't see anything in you curriculum vitae that would indicate any particular expertise relative to a horse's foot. Did I miss something, or are your credentials long on classroom and short on experience when it comes to farriery?

Lisa Cook

Sep. 2, 2004, 12:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ghazzu:
And, while lots of you may find Tom to be as abrasive as his rasp, I find him refreshingly to the point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The timing of this thread is interesting, as I just happened to remark to a friend this morning that I wish Tom could shoe my horse.

Tom - anytime you're ready to move to New Hampshire, count me in as a client!!

LMH

Sep. 2, 2004, 12:44 PM

I am wondering if I had an AFA CJF shoe my horse and he did a crappy job if I would then be allowed to voice my opinion? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif

I think this boils down to you can't criticize shoe-ers unless your horse HAS shoes...if you got fed up and took em off, then you MUST be quiet child!

the ole, if you ain't a blonde don't go making no blonde jokes http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ya Ghazzu what IS he saying? The lack of intellect in this group needs some help!

Sep. 2, 2004, 12:45 PM

Oh good lord you are being so picky. I have a degree in Computer Science, spent 6 years working and programming. I write system and business requirements now, and have for 15 years. Does the fact that I don't have a degree in writing requirements mean I must suck at it?

Sep. 2, 2004, 12:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
I am wondering if I had an AFA CJF shoe my horse and he did a crappy job if I would then be allowed to voice my opinion? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>\

Only if you could prove he was certified AND that the "crap", which is undoubtedly your opinion http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif was doing harm to your horse http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Do I understand that right Tom?

LMH

Sep. 2, 2004, 12:46 PM

What about me me me??? Double major undergrad, Phi Beta Kappa and cum laude (dang missed magna and summa)....dean's list and JD... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And I AM Blonde too!!!!

Do I qualify as smart now? or at least not mediocre???

Sep. 2, 2004, 12:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
Do I qualify as smart now? or at least not mediocre??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, still intellectually lacking - no farrier degree http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 2, 2004, 12:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by JB:
Oh good lord you are being so picky. I have a degree in Computer Science, spent 6 years working and programming. I write system and business requirements now, and have for 15 years. Does the fact that I don't have a degree in writing requirements mean I must suck at it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No ma'am, but a degree in computer science and experience writing requirements wouldn't magically imbue you with the expertise necessary to wire a barn, plumb a toilet, or trim a horses foot. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LMH

Sep. 2, 2004, 12:52 PM

No Tom but working with a professional trimmer, farrier, shoer, hoof care provider would http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif and we done that to! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sep. 2, 2004, 12:52 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by JB:
Oh good lord you are being so picky. I have a degree in Computer Science, spent 6 years working and programming. I write system and business requirements now, and have for 15 years. Does the fact that I don't have a degree in writing requirements mean I must suck at it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No ma'am, but a degree in computer science and experience writing requirements wouldn't magically imbue you with the expertise necessary to wire a barn, plumb a toilet, or trim a horses foot. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You soooo missed the point...

LMH

Sep. 2, 2004, 12:55 PM

OOOO and and and as an ah-tor-ney, we get ALL this cool training on how to research stuff, ya know AND look at the results AND read real fancy papers and figure em out ALL on our own.

SO by reading different research studies on hoof care we can sit down and make that stuff ALL make sense.

So even someone like ME can read and look at pictures and then determine if a hoof is balanced. Cool!

To be very honest and serious for a moment Tom, those committed on this BB to foot care are probably more versed in the teachings than many farriers out in the real world...just maybe not as much hands on experience-but for a basic trim and balance-I think the fellows of mediocrity can even manage.

Sep. 2, 2004, 12:57 PM

And Ghazzu - just for the record - I don't think anyone on these threads is having any issue with the fact that some horses need shoes. I totally agree with that. It is simply the fact that Tom has disregarded the statements, opinions, questions, and facts presented by countless posters as insignificant because we are not "real" farriers, and indicated that any pictures presented by myself or others is hearsay and not to be believed. He has poo-poo'd that some of us think there is value in investigating opinions as maybe, perhaps, having some truth to them, when in fact he presents an article written by HIMSELF, based somewhat on his opinions and experiences, as gospel, though he is not willing to ante up and show his work.

slb

Sep. 2, 2004, 01:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:
Ms. Baker, I admire your willingness to shed your cloak of anonymity, but try as I may, I don't see anything in you curriculum vitae that would indicate any particular expertise relative to a horse's foot. Did I miss something, or are your credentials long on classroom and short on experience when it comes to farriery? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh dear....I don't have any of them thar letters behind my name. I forsook going to horseshoein' school so's I could larn some stuff that would fill my pea brain and disallow me from takin' in any more knowledge.

However, although it would not satisfy your criteria for attaining knowledge of anything to do with a horse's anatomy...my list of mentors includes several farriers with CJF, RJF and one with the distinction of AWCF with honors.

As a lowly, lack-knowledge farrier's wife, I have quite obviously never taken the opportunity to read the shelves of books and current trade journals that belong to my husband, to attend seminars, to ask questions of the experts or to even look at the disections in my freezer. And above all else, I have never watched as he worked.

Perhaps, I would satisfy your expectations of a woman better if I were the one that was barefoot...in the kitchen and pregnant. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

swampgum

Sep. 2, 2004, 01:25 PM

The MAJORITY of horses are able to go barefoot. It is proven around the world by horses of all breeds and running in ALL conditions. A friend of mine who owns a trail riding business was told by many farriers that she could NEVER keep her horses barefoot especially the thoroughbreds in her herd. Well for a year and a half she has had 20 perfectly sound horses that can go anywhere. Initially she used Old Macs in the early transition but now she hardly ever needs them. Injuries , lost shoes and hoof problems are a thing of the past. Going barefooted is all about wanting to. Race horses only need to be shod because of the conditions they are kept in. If these horses did not have to stand around in manure and urine all day long their hooves would be strong enough to race barefooted and would achieve far better results. And that goes for all performance horses. Anybody who says shoes improve performance over properly functioning barefeet is "Full of it "

LMH

Sep. 2, 2004, 01:34 PM

OH but swampgum, it will soon be pointed out to you that these are simply lowly trail horses and not high performance horses http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

BUT you point about the conditions in which race horses are kept should actually be addressed. A key factor to barefoot success is NOT being stuck in a stall all day.

chitowncd

Sep. 2, 2004, 01:55 PM

Now all we need is for TvG to show up, and things would be complete.

Michele

Ghazzu

Sep. 2, 2004, 02:01 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by chitowncd:
Now all we need is for TvG to show up, and things would be complete.

Michele <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Somehow, I think there's a higher probability of snow in Gehenna...

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 2, 2004, 02:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by JB:
Once again, avoiding all questions.
It is testament that I am still here that I DON'T find your polysyllabic "stuff" too stressful, but apparently you feel we are not up to par with you, hence my comment.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Kind lady, please be aware that you, like others on this forum, appear more concerned with the wrapping of the package than the contents. If you don't like what I have to say or the way I say it, for heaven's sake, save your digestion and quit reading.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
And for your information, I DO attend USEF and USDF shows and I pay attention to feet - shod or not, wedged or not, bar shoes or pads or whatever - saddle fit, snaffle bits vs pelhams or double bridles, and countless other details of a horse's well-being. How in the world does that give me any insight into _your_ actual work? Do you have clients in North Carolina? If any of them are going to be at the Breed Show in Raleigh on Monday, by all means tell me and I will look them up.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm in Texas, no clients in NC - but I used to work occasionally with very nice lady who lives there now. Last I heard, Kay Dahms, DVM, was living in Raleigh and a partner in a small animal clinic. I haven't seen her in years, but if you run across her, please give her my best.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
"Saved" was a loose term and you know it. You claim that you are making horses who walked lame onto the mat, sound by applying whatever method of shoeing it is that you do. I simply asked to see an example of that. I, and undoubtedly others, would consider that "saving" a horse. It doesn't have to mean you saved him from slaughter because he foundered so badly he sloughed 3 hooves but you fixed him right up.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There ain't no free lunch. Since you appear to be harboring some doubts as to my veracity, if you're willing to back those doubts with cash, I'll be happy to take your money. For several years, I've had an offer on the table for the barefoot folks and I'll be glad to include you if you can get them to take me up on it. It's just a simple test of what works and what doesn't: I'll furnish a horse diagnosed with navicular syndrome and wearing bar shoes for veterinary evaluation (i.e., a lameness exam) to be conducted on a hard surface by several veterinarians who are either instructors or former instructors at the TAMU Veterinary School.

After the horse is evaluated, anyone of the barefoot contingent's choosing can remove the shoes and trim the horse. Immediately after the horse is trimmed, the horse will again be evaluated on the same surface by the same veterinarians. I - and a group of like minded farriers and veterinarians who are tired of hearing of wonders of barefootedness and the evils of farriery - are willing to match any sizable sum the barefoot contingent is willing to risk on the proposition that the horse will not grade as well barefooted as it did shod.

We're also willing to give the barefoot contingent a chance to get even: Immediately after the barefoot horse is evaluated, I'll apply bar shoes and whatever pad(s) and packing I feel the horse needs, then have the vets again evaluate the horse on the same surface. Before the third exam, we'll cover all the barefoot bunch cares to risk on the proposition that the horse will again grade better shod than it did barefooted. Mind you, I'm not going to "save" the horse, I'm not even going to do anything remarkable, I'm just going to keep the horse from hurting by mechanical means while we relieve the True Believers of their excess chump change.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I still don't understand what exactly your problem with me and others is. Apparently it has something do with not being formally certified in farrier work and therefore have no credibility in your eyes whatsoever. It's pretty sad when someone with apparently as much experience as you have feels we are so far beneath you that all you can do is criticize and demean us and assume we live in a little hole in the wall.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Since you asked, I find it pretty sad to find a public forum chock full of disinformation, misinformation, and willful ignorance - Ultimately, ignorance hurts horses.

LMH

Sep. 2, 2004, 02:41 PM

Well Tom you have shown that you don't quite grasp long term soundness vs. short term fix...anyone who advocates that barefoot works will agree that at that moment your shoe may show the horse as more sound that immediately yanking off the show and having the horse barefoot.

Heck even a good footed horse is going to need a day or two to adjust to the lack of shoe.

HOWEVER given time, you wedging and barring and such might very well fail...I would say probably will ultimately fail...so soundness today but for how long?

BUT given the horse some time to adjust, and not cripple as walking adjustment, but discomfort-and a little temporary discomfort for long term soundness is a tradeoff I am willing to take-then that horse might very well end up MORE comfy for life.

At the end of the road I am going to bet the barefoot horse wins on soundness.

So again we prove mask pain for now vs. having a long term solution.

Waddya know, we have come full circle.

DMK

Sep. 2, 2004, 03:05 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
BUT you point about the conditions in which race horses are kept should actually be addressed. A key factor to barefoot success is NOT being stuck in a stall all day. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So we are arguing about the number of angels that dance on the head of a pin? Because "being stuck in a stall all or most of the day" is a fact of life for many horses. Some by owners' choice, a great many more by the increasingly urban environment that horses live in and/or the financial constraints associated with owning enough grazing land. I would also add that the last thing I would want to do is compete on grass in the jumpers without studs. I'm awfully fond of my bones and I'm pretty sure they would break when the horse fell on me in a turn.

But in reading the various foot enthusiasts threads with sort of a distant amusement, I have seen an element of a) if your horse goes barefoot, you must be a Strasser Idjit or b) if your horse "needs" to be shod, your farrier must be incompetent and you really need to become a better horseperson (sometimes this involves embracing the True Light of Strasser, sometimes not). Bullshit to both groups - you are both whack jobs and you know it. Say hello to the folks that know that going barefoot is possible for some horses, impossible for others, downright dangerous in some disciplines and the vast majority (as Ghazzu so astutely pointed out) are pretty much neutral - they aren't made inherently worse or better by virtue of being barefoot/shod as long as a good farrier is involved either way.

Tom's not saying much other than that best I can tell. All he is adding to it is a nice red cape that some people can't resist charging. But it makes for nice electron entertainment, so drop that head and CHARGE!!!

CHJoker

Sep. 2, 2004, 03:08 PM

Well, just got in from riding.

Not all horses need shoes to perform well. Some need shoes just to walk down the road. Why is that? There are so many factors. Educate yourself, and decide what will work for your horse.

I must say, I was thoroughly convinced that my horse could NOT go barefoot!

It was out of complete desperation that I pulled the shoes, and to my utter shock, he is doing better than I could have possibly imagined. But, he IS barefoot. If it makes people feel happy think that he is booted, hey, glad to make your day. But, I ride him 70 percent of the time without those boots. I only use them on the really tough ground...you know, like what you would normally need the shoes for.

I am not sure how the idea got started that any of us are saying barefoot is best for all horses! Geez, all that has been said is.... Barefoot is a viable option for some horses. In my opinion, because of my own experience, I am wondering whether it is possible for more horses than previously thought. It was absolutely the best choice for me.

Really, my point is this, and has been this all along. Educate yourself, and then make decisions on whether or not to shoe. And hear all the sides...do some critical thinking.

For those who find Mr. Tom "refreshing" I am glad to hear he is serving a purpose. I am sure he will continue to entertain. Lucky you!!

But, really, as far as a test that would prove MY point...why don't you take a few properly trimmed barefoot horses, and see how many develop navicular? Take a few horses with bad shoeing jobs, underslung heels and long toes, and see how many develop navicular?

Hmmmm, it seems there is a saying that goes something like "ounce of prevention, pound of cure"....

I don't find it impressive that a shoer can quick fix the very disease that bad shoeing creates over a long period of time. It certainly does not prove superiority over a good barefoot trim.

I really think that there are a few great shoers out there!! I just, very unfortunately, haven't been able to find anyone near me. BUT, I am in a pretty small country. No one here is saying that all farriers are idiots and are ruining horses. But, the BAD ones ARE. JUST as the BAD BAREFOOTERs are. I am not getting why this is so hard to understand (YES TOM, this is directed at you!)

I have a feeling Mr. Tom likes to say "some horses need it, some don't...but in reality, he keeps saying.... more like " all horses need shoes, and I can shoe better than a horse can go barefoot". Oh, and " I am the master of the horse shoeing universe". Glad to see he is mastering something!!

Good night folks!

DMK

Sep. 2, 2004, 03:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
Heck even a good footed horse is going to need a day or two to adjust to the lack of shoe.

BUT given the horse some time to adjust, and not cripple as walking adjustment, but discomfort-and a little temporary discomfort for long term soundness is a tradeoff I am willing to take-then that horse might very well end up MORE comfy for life.

At the end of the road I am going to bet the barefoot horse wins on soundness. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, what if that time to adjust equalled a few months? And what if in that few months the horse compensated by rocking back on his hocks? And what if that compensation resulted in a deterioration of the quality of synovial fluid in said hock? And what if this led to a horse who was now significantly more lame behind but pretty ducky up front?

Sore feet leading to sore hocks and all sorts of other compensatory lameness is pretty established (if not highly undesirable) routine, and it usually results frome a horse who was not really "lame" up front but mildly off.

When training horses, the idea that one bad step leads to two bad steps is critical here. The more you remodel your horse for taking ineffective, incorrect movement, the harder it is to undo the damage.

Now this doesn't mean (in my book) that there is no good to going barefoot. Far from it. But if you are looking at a horse who is going to be taking bad steps for 2 or more months, then you damn sure better be looking at the whole horse, because treating sore hocks, spasms in longissimus muscles, F*ed up S-I joints and brachiocephalic muscle soreness isn't anyone's idea of fun times either!

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 2, 2004, 03:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
[...]
So even someone like ME can read and look at pictures and then determine if a hoof is balanced. Cool!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your concept of balance might improve dramatically if you quit looking at pictures of hooves in books and start looking at legs on horses. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
To be very honest and serious for a moment Tom, those committed on this BB to foot care are probably more versed in the teachings than many farriers out in the real world...just maybe not as much hands on experience-but for a basic trim and balance-I think the fellows of mediocrity can even manage.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Returning honesty for honesty, I'm not nearly as high on the collective knowledge of the barefoot folks as you appear to be. To me, it appears many of them are so infected with barefoot zealotry, they fail to recognize there are some circumstances under which some horses need shoeing.

To reiterate: Some horses need shoeing, some don't.

Lookout

Sep. 2, 2004, 03:42 PM

How does one do that if shoes are required to enter the race?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:
Horses wearing shoes have established the benchmarks of performance in racing and jumping. All the "barefoot is best" folks need to do in order to demonstrate their fantasies of barefoot superiority are somehow related to reality is set a few track records <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lookout

Sep. 2, 2004, 03:45 PM

But that is exactly what a high level dressage horse does too (or less), so it's a valid comparison there. But shoeing proponents insist an upper level horse needs shoes because the heels get "crushed" with collection.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by J Swan:
The Royal Lippizans never work outside the manege. (no accent available on my keyboard)
So though they work very hard and are majestic animals expresing an almost lost art - they ain't galloping a gravel road with 80 horses and 15 couple hounds for 3 hours 3 days a week.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMH

Sep. 2, 2004, 03:52 PM

I have never said that all horses must go barefoot---I do believe more could and many would benefit from barefoot as opposed to bad shoeing.

to respond to DMK-you quoted my comment regarding stall life-all I said was stall life and going barefoot do not often go hand in hand-so yes urban life and lives of race indeed might require that horse to need shoes...not anything new there. Of course that can open up a whole new debate http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As one trimmer has said-barefoot isn't for all horse owners-meaning some aren't in the position to stable a horse, etc as might be needed.

I have said repeatedly that I don't know if shoes are inherently bad-had horses with shoes on and they did fine for years (Polo being one and actually all of my adult horses wore shoes until a year ago)-however I do have one horse now that is better without shoes than with shoes.

There are some things written about the absolute cruelty of shoes-and yes most of that stuff is written by those supporting the Strasser camp-and since I am not a fan of that camp, I tend to not agree wholeheartedly with conclusions that all shoes are always bad...so not a zealot barefoot one on that issue either. But it does make me think...that's all just think and consider-not a bad thing to do the last time I looked.

Regarding traction and barefoot vs. studs-I have ridden my shod horses in my hilly pastures and my barefoot horses on hilly pastures-so far the barefoot horses have better traction.

When I had shod horses and barefoot horses I used to watch them run like fools around my farm (and DMK can confirm I have some pretty steep hills)---again, the barefoot horses had better traction.

I don't ever plan on jumping my horses higher than 3'6"--and it is going to take awhile to even get there (I have young horses)...and once there it will be hunters and not jumpers...and most of the places I have shown in my life are sand arenas as opposed to grass...so again I don't think traction would be an issue for the level of riding *I* am talking about.

I have had discussions with barefooters about traction at high level jumpers because to be honest I just don't know about that one-BUT since that isn't on my plate for this year, I guess I would cross that bridge if I ever got there....so shoes for need? Perhaps...just not any need at this particular moment.

Next topic-what if it took months or shifted his weight, etc etc...well what if that improper trim job caused the horse to have back pain? I repeat (since for some reason this part of my posts never gets read)...I don't have a problem with farriers-I don't think because your horse needs shoes it means your farrier sucks...what I HAVE said is that there are a lot of bad shoe jobs/ trim jobs out there...and someone should step up to the plate on that one.

Also, if you simply talking about foot sore, etc boots do wonders to make a horse comfortable during the transition.

If you want to have some fun on the other side, post a picture of a Strasser trimmed horse-45 deg toe angle, paired out sole and bars and all else that goes with it-I would be the first to gag at that piece of work as well. And that is a barefoot trim-of one kind.

Funny thing is I have had extensive talks with owners that have sound horses with the Strasser trim-although I always wonder if they have tamed it down a bit to make it work. Seems you hear more about months and months of lameness going hand in hand with this method.

Heck look at all the threads LOOKING for good farriers---then factor in reliable and not with an attitude. If the number of wonderful farriers out there was unlimited, there would never be any of those threads.

Now for Tom-silly man, I do look at feet out there-all the time all over...the majority of horses I see have long toes and underrun heels, flares and cracks...but when JB pointed that out, you replied something to the effect that she didn't consider conformation,etc so I guess that means long toes and underrun heels can be a good thing...news to me.

And for your last comment I have no idea what your collective knowledge is-all I know is that you don't respect the work of Bowker, Pollitt, Jackson or Ovnicek

(another side note-you don't seem to be a fan of Redden either-when I didn't bow down to his methods awhile back, got me in big trouble so I would tread caerfully if you question his methods)...and you shoe horses for a living, have a CJF certification and like big words...other than that I can't tell you one thing about how you go about trimming a foot to balance-what landmarks you use (for lack of a better phrase)...how you consider breakover, or hoof wall length (assuming a barefoot horse...since it seems they are trimmed a bit different if you are going to add a shoe), whether you think bars should be actively weight bearing, passively so or nonweight bearing.

I don't if you think the hoof wall is the sole weightbearing element or if it is a shared load with other parts of the foot...I don't know how you determine correct heel height or determine correct angles for a horse...though I would guess some of the questions are addressed on your website? You have never offered your position on any of these factors in your responses here (that I recall at least).

So there we are...again.

Lookout

Sep. 2, 2004, 04:02 PM

Or maybe some horses just can't deal with a horrible trim, which is what you obviously got. If you've ever had or heard of a bad shoeing job, did that make shoeing bad?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ChampionMercedes:
Great article. If only I could send it to the barefoot only person that nearly ruined my horse.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> She's created a cult of hoof butchery <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. The person that did my horse chopped off his toe, and half his foot. He was a mess. Went from being sound for 14 years to dead lame in an hour. She told me it had to get worse before it got better http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif But she couldn't tell me what was wrong in the first place.

I found a great farrier that was able to fix the mess. Two hours of work later I had a sound horse. Some horses really can't go barefoot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMH

Sep. 2, 2004, 04:03 PM

OH just wanted to add there is nothing more "whacky" about having this debate than discussing drawreins, rust breeches, cheap sweet feed or any of the other endless discussions that go on in these forums...it just seems this particular topic gets emotions stirred up like asking someone to change his religion.

I will also say, this is all quite a shame-Tom has lots of letters behind his name, and if he is 1/10th as good as he says he is, I would have enjoyed asking him questions about things that don't make sense to me-to get it explained from someone that has handled thousands of horses...sadly with the attitude he presented, the opportunity just wasn't presented---but then again ask your farrier to teach you to rasp a foot and you often get the same shut door.

I was always taught there are no stupid questions-but I guess if you have all the answers you don't see it that way.

Sep. 2, 2004, 04:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
[...]
So even someone like ME can read and look at pictures and then determine if a hoof is balanced. Cool!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your concept of balance might improve dramatically if you quit looking at pictures of hooves in books and start looking at legs on horses. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Obviously you haven't listened to one flippin' word she has said in these various threads http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

To reiterate: Some horses need shoeing, some don't.
Once again, nobody on this thread or the several others these last couple of days has said otherwise, but then again, if you acknowledged that you might just run out of things with which to validate yourself
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

J Swan

Sep. 2, 2004, 04:26 PM

Uhhh - LMH - what's wrong with rust breeches? I wear them for cubbing. Am I a fashion faux pas? Egad.

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 2, 2004, 04:27 PM

Horses wearing shoes have established the benchmarks of performance in racing and jumping. All the "barefoot is best" folks need to do in order to demonstrate their fantasies of barefoot superiority are somehow related to reality is set a few track records...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Originally posted by Lookout:
How does one do that if shoes are required to enter the race?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In most parimutuel jurisdictions, any trainer who wants to run a horse barefooted has only to walk into the stewards office and request permission for an equipment change. Similar, in that respect, to blinkers on/off, ear muffs on/off, stick/no stick, bar shoe on/off, sticker/no sticker, etc. Before giving permission, the stewards may require the horse to be worked out of the gates to determine the effect, if any, on the horse's performance; after receiving permission, each time the horse races, it will be inspected in the saddling paddock to insure it is barefooted. This regimen exists to protect the bettors.

One can read 10 year's worth of Forms without finding a single instance of it happening - but the mechanism is there.

Lookout

Sep. 2, 2004, 04:31 PM

And THAT'S why they "need" shoes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by DMK:
So we are arguing about the number of angels that dance on the head of a pin? Because "being stuck in a stall all or most of the day" is a fact of life for many horses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMH

Sep. 2, 2004, 04:35 PM

OK Tom, now that we have you directly answering questions, try this one-this is not a sarcastic request but is something I do NOT understand...please explain to me...in small childlike words....humor me...show you have a heart.

WHY do you wedge a navicular horse...once you have done that, in summary form, then please explain to me why the "other guys" feel you shouldn't.

Since you know both sides, could you possibly present them to me, straight forward without biased.

I have read Bowkers position on this and his papers makes sense...so if you would PLEASE try to explain both sides("yours" and "his") nicely...the answer to this question is the ONLY reason I ever got interested in the other thread in the first place.

(this is a little old fashioned exam type question---number 1, argue for plaintiff, question 2-argue for defendant http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

If we get through this one, I have another.

Lookout

Sep. 2, 2004, 04:36 PM

The Jockey Club requires shoes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:
Horses wearing shoes have established the benchmarks of performance in racing and jumping. All the "barefoot is best" folks need to do in order to demonstrate their fantasies of barefoot superiority are somehow related to reality is set a few track records...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Originally posted by Lookout:
How does one do that if shoes are required to enter the race?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In most parimutuel jurisdictions, any trainer who wants to run a horse barefooted has only to walk into the stewards office and request permission for an equipment change. Similar, in that respect, to blinkers on/off, ear muffs on/off, stick/no stick, bar shoe on/off, sticker/no sticker, etc. Before giving permission, the stewards may require the horse to be worked out of the gates to determine the effect, if any, on the horse's performance; after receiving permission, each time the horse races, it will be inspected in the saddling paddock to insure it is barefooted. This regimen exists to protect the bettors.

One can read 10 year's worth of Forms without finding a single instance of it happening - but the mechanism is there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DMK

Sep. 2, 2004, 04:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
OH just wanted to add there is nothing more "whacky" about having this debate than discussing drawreins, rust breeches, cheap sweet feed or any of the other endless discussions that go on in these forums... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all. I only see whack jobs in the absolutist camps. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But I will say that I have a totally different feeling on the traction and grass thing, at least as far as my big horse goes. My hunter was barefoot for a year and he was fine for traction (he was also 100% happier when he got his shoes back on, but I will be the first to admit his foot is the better for being barefoot). But after leaving my big guy barefoot behind for many years, I finally added shoes on behind because it was getting a little treacherous on the turns to a fence when the grass was wet. It really sucks to totally (and dangerously) lose your distance to a combination because the horse slipped. I do enough of that on my own, I don't need nature contributing thank you very much.

Txfarrier11

Sep. 2, 2004, 04:43 PM

Wow, whats really amazing is that MY name is Susan, too.
Now you understand the "Dutch" thing. My knuckles would never heal up right.

LMH

Sep. 2, 2004, 04:50 PM

DMK-perhaps it just depends on the horse? Or how wet the grass is? Honestly I don't know--I will tell you though the first time I DO actually get to canter down a line in those conditions! LOL.

Now I have not experienced this yet, BUT I have been told that there are things you can do to a barefoot horse to increase traction in those conditions-things like leaving a little extra bar and heel to increase traction...there is something else (don't recall exactly as haven't done it) that you can do at the do...again I have NO idea to what height and slipperiness this would be effective...

Ghazzu

Sep. 2, 2004, 04:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lookout:
The Jockey Club requires shoes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't believe the J.C. is the regulatory body in charge of TB racing in any state in the U.S.

They are in charge of pedigrees, but I don't think they have any say on pedicures.

Lookout

Sep. 2, 2004, 04:53 PM

Whatever. You still can't get a TB onto a racetrack without shoes.

LMH

Sep. 2, 2004, 04:53 PM

Assuming Tom plays nice, I have another question for you based on the point I made earlier about living conditions that Lookout followed up on...

We talked (sort of) about how you reject barefoot theories because many of the studies were done on horses living in dry, arid conditions...

so would you agree or disagree that living conditions do contribute to a horse's ability to go barefoot...in other words perhaps the reason you DON'T see race horses or high level jumpers competing barefoot has nothing to do with the feet or need for shoes at all, rather could have something to do with the fact many live in stalls where they don't have movement or ability to condition the feet over all terrains.

In other words, if this horses had that opportunity could you see the horse then being able to develop a foot that could endure (and succeed) at that level of performance.

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 2, 2004, 04:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by slb: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ms. Baker, I admire your willingness to shed your cloak of anonymity, but try as I may, I don't see anything in you curriculum vitae that would indicate any particular expertise relative to a horse's foot. Did I miss something, or are your credentials long on classroom and short on experience when it comes to farriery?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Oh dear....I don't have any of them thar letters behind my name. I forsook going to horseshoein' school so's I could larn some stuff that would fill my pea brain and disallow me from takin' in any more knowledge.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's said that honest confession is good for the soul.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
However, although it would not satisfy your criteria for attaining knowledge of anything to do with a horse's anatomy...my list of mentors includes several farriers with CJF, RJF and one with the distinction of AWCF with honors.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
AWCF? Do you mean "FWCF"?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
As a lowly, lack-knowledge farrier's wife, I have quite obviously never taken the opportunity to read the shelves of books and current trade journals that belong to my husband, to attend seminars, to ask questions of the experts or to even look at the disections in my freezer. And above all else, I have never watched as he worked.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You seem to place great emphasis on watching - and none on doing.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Perhaps, I would satisfy your expectations of a woman better if I were the one that was barefoot...in the kitchen and pregnant. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No disrespect intended, but if you got pregnant, one could only wonder how the child came to be conceived. Conception doesn't happen by watching, it requires doing. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DMK

Sep. 2, 2004, 05:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
DMK-perhaps it just depends on the horse? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it most always does! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I can tell you the most serious time it happened, I have a) never had my life flash so painfully before my eyes (and it was a sucky life) and b) was eternally grateful that RV managed to develop a heretofore unknown 5th leg and prop it out, catching himself and somehow save me from being crushed under a fairly large animal.

And this is the horse I have seen repeatedly play "slip and slide" on his side down a hill for what appears to be no other purpose than shits and giggles. So I was grateful that he made an exception that time. But now that he has shoes on behind I have noticed HUGE decrease in the frequency of "turn, slip, damn there goes that distance" effect. Unfortunately I do all my jumping/schooling on grass and a great deal on not 100% flat ground (the good news is all distances come up incredibly easy when we are faced with level ground and all weather footing).

Bea

Sep. 2, 2004, 05:29 PM

And -- and LMH, you were the one who bought them up -- then there's reiners. If I pulled the sliding plates off my reiner and continued to expect her to do her job, it would just be plain cruel. And she would get hurt. Yes, I know someone might say, well then reining should cease to exist as a discipline. But I suppose I'm in the camp that feels the life of horse became 'unnatural' the moment the first one was domesticated. Along with the unnatural life now being lead by cats, dogs, dairy cows, guinea pigs -- and pretty much every other animal we humans have taken a liking to.

slb

Sep. 2, 2004, 05:38 PM

Oh Dutch...I knew you were a good guy...you're not a Libra too are you? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

Oh, and could you please keep protocol on this thread and sign your full name with attached appropriate letters so that Tom can sort out the good guys from the bad....

Bea

Sep. 2, 2004, 05:49 PM

If this really is the new requirement, someone needs to call Tom Stovall and check it really is him posting here on the BB. Maybe it's an evil alter and the real Tom Stovall would be horrified to hear of it. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

LMH

Sep. 2, 2004, 05:52 PM

Bea-I am not going to even go down that road! LOL....

Still waiting on Tom to play nice...part of being able to defend your position is succesfully explain that of the opposing side!

And for the record, yes we should consider that "Tom" is actually DMK---the real Tom Stovall has recently become committed to the Strasser movement and is pulling shoes nationwide.

trailblazer

Sep. 2, 2004, 05:57 PM

Actually Tom and Strasser do seem to have a lot in common...

Txfarrier11

Sep. 2, 2004, 06:06 PM

Sure, Susan Denson, GED.
And if you call me "Suzie" get ready for the rucus.

slb

Sep. 2, 2004, 06:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:
AWCF? Do you mean "FWCF"?
Yes, thanks for pointing out that typo...typing faster than I was thinking.

[QUOTE]
As a lowly, lack-knowledge farrier's wife, I have quite obviously never taken the opportunity to read the shelves of books and current trade journals that belong to my husband, to attend seminars, to ask questions of the experts or to even look at the disections in my freezer. And above all else, I have never watched as he worked.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You seem to place great emphasis on watching - and none on doing.
[QUOTE]
One doesn't have to participate in a train wreck to understand what is happening does one?

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 2, 2004, 06:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
OK Tom, now that we have you directly answering questions, try this one-this is not a sarcastic request but is something I do NOT understand...please explain to me...in small childlike words....humor me...show you have a heart.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Counselor, are you familiar with the phrase, "Asked and answered?" We've had this discussion prevously, but I'll play for the benefit of those who came in late.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
WHY do you wedge a navicular horse...once you have done that, in summary form,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wedges are unnecessary unless the foot axis is broken forward - and before wedging can be done by whatever means, one must increase the bearing surface of the heel - otherwise, one crushes the heels.

Simply put, traditional farriery advocates shortening the toe, raising the phalangeal angle within normal parameters, and protecting the middle third of the frog from environmental pressure. The results are often immediate and the long term prognosis often favorable.

http://www.equipodiatry.com/palmar.htm

Bowker advocates shortening the toe and gradually lowering the heels without regard for normal phalangeal angulation. Both immediate and long term results are untested.

http://www.completerider.com/PhysTrimmingFoot.htm

slb

Sep. 2, 2004, 06:27 PM

And what do you consider " normal phalangeal angulation"?

slb

Sep. 2, 2004, 06:29 PM

And how do you go about "raising the phalangeal angle within normal parameters"?

bludejavu

Sep. 2, 2004, 06:38 PM

T. Stovall - you don't appear to be any more liked or respected on this board than you were on the Saddlebred board when you made your crude debut on trot.org. I've read through all six pages here and see you pushing your same old dreary opinions that you tried to push on that board as well.

Doesn't look like you've convinced anybody of anything - all you did was start a "brouhaha"!

slb

Sep. 2, 2004, 06:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Txfarrier11:
Sure, Susan Denson, GED.
And if you call me "Suzie" get ready for the rucus. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL Dutch...but a GED won't get you anywhere with Mr. Stovall. Or maybe that is what he is looking for so he can mold your mind and make you into a good farrier. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

slb

Sep. 2, 2004, 06:44 PM

Eek gads...another Susan http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Pocket Pony

Sep. 2, 2004, 06:49 PM

Yeah, and you can call me Susie, but if you call me Sue, blech....just not me. (No offense to the Sue-s in the world)

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by slb:

[QUOTE]
One doesn't have to participate in a train wreck to understand what is happening does one? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While one may be able to comprehend the dynamics of a train wreck by watching it unfold, one cannot experience a train wreck without participating.

Education verses experience.

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by bludejavu:
T. Stovall - you don't appear to be any more liked or respected on this board than you were on the Saddlebred board when you made your crude debut on trot.org. I've read through all six pages here and see you pushing your same old dreary opinions that you tried to push on that board as well.

While poking fun at the footwaving folks who insist weight and length at the end of a horses leg is a benign experience sometimes amuses me, I've never, as in not even once, posted to trot.org. Check out the archives.

Doesn't look like you've convinced anybody of anything - all you did was start a "brouhaha"! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm just sorting out the players right now, it'll get better.

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lookout:
Whatever. You still can't get a TB onto a racetrack without shoes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wanna bet?

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by slb:
And what do you consider " normal phalangeal angulation"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Normal phalangeal angulation is 50º - 60º in most
light horse fronts; 45º - 55º light horse hinds. In your many hours of reading, watching, and questioning, what was the consensus?

Tannenwald Trakehner

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:22 PM

Hey LMH, are all of them there legal beagles honorary "sues"?

Seems relevant in this context... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hehe, bad pun, couldn't help it, but sure you understand as a kindred soul http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by slb:
And how do you go about "raising the phalangeal angle within normal parameters"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Raising the effective, aligned, phalangeal angle can be done by several means. Less experienced
farriers sometimes try to use a stall jack to raise the angle, but I generally use my nippers, set the shoe under, or use some sort of wedge - whatever the horse needs.

How about you? Do you think the aligned phalangeal angle is a function of the shoulder angle as touted by Emery, a dynamic relationship of the major bones below the fetlock that can vary in angulation as much as 5º depending on outside factors, an immovable, static relationship of the same bones, or something else?

trailblazer

Sep. 2, 2004, 07:33 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:
While one may be able to comprehend the dynamics of a train wreck by watching it unfold, one cannot experience a train wreck without participating.

Education verses experience. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think I *am* experiencing a train wreck, though... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif

With your logic, you should not talk about barefoot horses, since you do not have the experience (except in between shoes)!

Tannenwald Trakehner

Sep. 2, 2004, 08:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:
Do you think the aligned phalangeal angle is a function of the shoulder angle as touted by Emery, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can this be, since the shoulder angle is dynamic?

Txfarrier11

Sep. 2, 2004, 09:03 PM

OK,OK ,my names not really Susan, I just kind of got caught up in the "joiner " spirit.
I could make a LOT more money if I billed myself as a "Barefoot Trimmer " or a "Hoofcare Specialist".
Ferchrisakes, who wouldnt like to charge $125 for a job worth $35-$45? How much additional study could justify such a charge? There is only so much to the anatomy of the horses foot and its related structures.
A "Proper Barefoot Trim " requires simulating the the wear of a horse in an abrasive enviornment. At $125 a pop I'll sure be back every two weeks. Who wouldnt if they could find horseowners affluent or convinced enough?
There is not a lot of exotica about trimming a bare foot. This is just common sense and basic farriery. That is unless someone wants to add a lot of hoo doo to it to justify an inflated price tag.
IMO, if most of my customers would have their horses done in a timely manner the LT/LH problems would be mostly nonexistant, as would most other problems.
If anyone is offended by the opinions of those of us who are down here in the trenches, so be it. If anyone thinks we are hijacking the thread and they are only interested in responses from the "barefoot" advocates, maybe it should be stated in the subject line.. "barefoot" advocates need only reply.
Its pretty simple, I got an extra rasp and I enjoy the company of ANYONE who is interested in alleviating the suffering and misuse of my favorite animal, the horse.
Dutch Denson, AFA Certified Farrier (which with a buck fifty will get you a cuppa coffee)

ChocoMare

Sep. 3, 2004, 02:58 AM

Oh darn, TXF, I thought we had a dynasty going.

I'm with the other Susan's: Call me Suzie and you'll get the evil eye or a smack. Ugh. Sue I'll tolerate only from my immediate family and my best friend (32 years), Susan D of Pennsylvania.

I smell a New Clique: It's Susan-Not Suzie (ISNS for short). Anyone in?

Certainly enjoyed the chuckles reading the updates this morning. Good thing I read 'em before my coffee though.

DMK

Sep. 3, 2004, 03:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
And for the record, yes we should consider that "Tom" is actually DMK---the real Tom Stovall has recently become committed to the Strasser movement and is pulling shoes nationwide. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. And we are not even finding any humor in the suggestion, after all the crap on another BB, thank you very much.

LMH

Sep. 3, 2004, 03:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by DMK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
And for the record, yes we should consider that "Tom" is actually DMK---the real Tom Stovall has recently become committed to the Strasser movement and is pulling shoes nationwide. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. And we are not even finding any humor in the suggestion, after all the crap on another BB, thank you very much. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfamiliar with that situation-sorry DMK. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LMH

Sep. 3, 2004, 04:12 AM

If the horse already has a broken forward axis, why would you wedge it? Isn't that going to keep it in a broken forward state? I would think you would want to lower that heel so the angle is no longer broken forward.

Where exactly does Bowker say to shorten the toe and lower the heel without regard to angles?

I have read a few pieces that he has written on this and can't seem to find support for this statement-perhaps you could help me find it? If anything it appears he is encouraging returning the foot to its "natural angle."

I still don't understand what it is about his understanding of NS that you don't agree with...so asked and not answered sufficiently.

Surely Tom you consider yourself an educator-with all the articles you have written...let's try this again.

ThirdCharm

Sep. 3, 2004, 04:43 AM

Estelle,

You posted wanting someone to prove that unshod horses could NOT run as fast, jump as high, etc.--you want folks to accept that on faith since the top horses in the Maine Barrel Racing Association (the mere mention of which makes all the BR trainers in Oklahoma cringe in fear, I'm sure) are barefoot. Well by golly I'd like someone to prove that I can't ride Advanced (a MUCH easier proposition, I'll warrant!), and UNTIL SOMEONE DOES I expect to be short-listed for the Olympic team b/c by god I can ride a pretty mean Training level xc course!

Does that make SENSE? Of course not!

As for arguments about barefoot horses not competing at top levels b/c of "other factors".... well, shod horses have other factors, varying amounts of funds, talents, luck, etc. So if unshod horses don't make it, but they are just as capable, that pretty much leaves bad luck as the only excuse. Unless ALL unshod horses, owners, and trainers are ambitionless, underfunded, and untalented, which I know is not the case?

Hmm. Just bad luck. Oh, I know I know! The farriers are all getting together and HEXING the unshod folks!

JenniferS

LMH

Sep. 3, 2004, 04:59 AM

ThirdCharm, not a totally perfect conclusion...anyone would currently agree there are MORE shod horses competing than unshod....so pure numbers means a barefoot horse is likely to come out on top.

No one implied farriers are hexing barefoot horses or anything else-it is a matter that there are less competing...

Now IF a barefoot horse won the Olympics or the Derby, what do you think next year's trend would be? Betting not rust britches---unless JSwan wants it to be http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 3, 2004, 05:55 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
If the horse already has a broken forward axis, why would you wedge it? Isn't that going to keep it in a broken forward state? I would think you would want to lower that heel so the angle is no longer broken forward.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks for catching my error. I should have written, "broken back."
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Where exactly does Bowker say to shorten the toe and lower the heel without regard to angles?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"What we are trying to do is work with Mother Nature instead of fight her," explains Bowker. "We can do this by keeping the toe short and the back part of the foot on the ground..." [Robt. Bowker, VMD, PhD, "Physiological Trimming for a Healthy Equine Foot - Recommendations for Farriers"]

While typically touting a short toe and gradually lowering the heel, Bowker does not mention angulation, an omission that suggests he's not concerned with that particular aspect of trimming a foot. He doesn't mention planetary alignment or phase of the moon either, so one can safely assume those are also non-factors.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I have read a few pieces that he has written on this and can't seem to find support for this statement-perhaps you could help me find it? If anything it appears he is encouraging returning the foot to its "natural angle."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I see this term bandied about quite frequently. Is this elusive angle the most efficient angle for all horses, some horses, or only a few? IME, the hoof capsule of horses at liberty are a reflection of horses' environment and quite varied in size, shape, angulation: What exactly is a "natural angle"?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I still don't understand what it is about his understanding of NS that you don't agree with...so asked and not answered sufficiently.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps your perceived lack of sufficiency rests in your comprehension of the material presented, not the material itself: Contrast Bowker's observations with those of Turner's at http://www.equipodiatry.com/palmar.htm

As an aside, it's interesting to note that while Bowker suggests that fluids within the foot have a role in dissipating shock, he does not consider the volume of the hoof capsule as a factor. Many other observers have noted that NS appears to be more prevalent in those breeds/types that typically have large bodies and small feet.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Surely Tom you consider yourself an educator-with all the articles you have written...let's try this again
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please be kind enough to read both Bowker and Turner thoroughly so we don't have to plow the same ground twice.

CHJoker

Sep. 3, 2004, 05:57 AM

Really, the argument of "well none of the top competition horses are barefoot" is a flawed one.... you mean...it is impossible to have a barefoot competitive horse?? Actually, the presence of just ONE barefoot horse in the upper levels of competition would prove that it is INDEED POSSIBLE to have a barefoot competitive horse. And they are found in many areas.

But really, that is not even the point. The question is, Does your horse need shoes??

Do you want to know the NUMBER ONE comment that my fellow dressage riders say to me? The competitive ones? Gee, I would like to try, your horses feet look great, but I can't afford to take the time off to transition. What if it doesn't work? I could lose an entire year."

For the active competitor, they can't afford to and won't take the time off.

Well, until the horse is lame, of course, and by that point, the horse isn't usually competitive.

So it is a bit flawed to say barefoot is not as good for the horse because there are not alot of barefoot horses in top competition. These are two completely different issues, and not really related to each other.

Should I list how many shod horses I know that have had to be retired early due to hoof problems?

I almost had to add mine to the list.

Beth

J Swan

Sep. 3, 2004, 06:34 AM

Lookout - just read your post a few pages back responding to the Lippizan comment I made.

Do proponents of shoeing really say that high level dressage horses crush the heels from collection?
That is the biggest bunch of doo-doo I've heard in a while - and it's election year.

And my horse is shod during hunting season.

But it's still doo-doo.

And I'm serious about the rust britches thing - don't hold out on me, people. I have NO fashion sense at all and I have frightened small children with my attire.

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 3, 2004, 06:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Originally posted by CHJoker:
Really, the argument of "well none of the top competition horses are barefoot" is a flawed one.... you mean...it is impossible to have a barefoot competitive horse??
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Depends on the activity. Impossible? No. Improbable? Yes.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Actually, the presence of just ONE barefoot horse in the upper levels of competition would prove that it is INDEED POSSIBLE to have a barefoot competitive horse. And they are found in many areas.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll certainly agree that the possibility exists, but I keep reading about barefooted horses competing successfully in various activities, but they've proven extremely elusive. Please be kind enough to name one or two.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
But really, that is not even the point. The question is, Does your horse need shoes??
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bingo!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Do you want to know the NUMBER ONE comment that my fellow dressage riders say to me? The competitive ones? Gee, I would like to try, your horses feet look great, but I can't afford to take the time off to transition. What if it doesn't work? I could lose an entire year."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Funny you should mention that, while the numbers are certainly not statistically significant (<20), I have more dressage horses going barefooted than shod. As I mentioned in another thread, IME, many dressage horses get along just fine without shoes until they start having hock problems.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
So it is a bit flawed to say barefoot is not as good for the horse because there are not alot of barefoot horses in top competition. These are two completely different issues, and not really related to each other.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Since dressage is subjectively quantified, it's not really a fair measure of efficiency to compare barefooted to shod. If one wants to compare the effectiveness of a particular protocol, then a comparison involving those activities that objectively measure performance - how high, how fast, how far - yields more meaningful results.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Should I list how many horses I know that have had to be retired early due to hoof problems?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In terms of dressage horses, I can think of more that were retired due to hock problems than hoof problems: Does your experience differ?

CHJoker

Sep. 3, 2004, 07:29 AM

Well, Tom, fair enough!

Actually, in all honesty, I see more horses with foot problems in my area. Right now, I have a barn mate whos 4 year old constantly abcesses and is lame (shod), 2 horses in the barn that lose shoes on a fairly regular basis, and one that just had a "hot nail" and a subsequent abcess, so is out of work for awhile. There are now three of us that are barefoot in a barn of 15. At the moment, no one has any problems.

The two that have been barefoot for a few years are not competition horses, but pleasure horses, and ridden on the same terrain as all the others.

Addressing your direct question...about the hocks...The problem is, it would be arrogant of me to assume that I knew excactly from where all of the hoof and hock and lameness issues out there originated from. I think that there are many reasons, but I will also say, that there are alot of dressage riders (and others!) asking for too much collection (hocks taking the load) before the horse is really ready. That definately causes problems, perfect feet or no.

And this still doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a horse can do well barefoot. Just because your horse is barefoot, doesn't give it an insurance policy against injury! And it is unfair to say that if a horse is injured while barefoot, it is automatically the fault of the unshod hoof. No more than it is to say that ALL problems in a shod horse are the direct result of shoeing. BUT, when you have big time HOOF PROBLEMS, well, I would start looking there http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Each sport tends to have specific injuries, usually due to the nature of the sport, not necessarily the nature of the hoof.

The bottom line...My horse is in a pasture 12 hours out of each day. He works less than 2 hours per day. I just don't think he needs shoes.

So, now that I have written a novel, I hope I have answered your question http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Beth

LMH

Sep. 3, 2004, 07:54 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
If the horse already has a broken forward axis, why would you wedge it? Isn't that going to keep it in a broken forward state? I would think you would want to lower that heel so the angle is no longer broken forward.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks for catching my error. I should have written, "broken back."

Ahhh that reads much better then

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Where exactly does Bowker say to shorten the toe and lower the heel without regard to angles?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"What we are trying to do is work with Mother Nature instead of fight her," explains Bowker. "We can do this by keeping the toe short and the back part of the foot on the ground..." [Robt. Bowker, VMD, PhD, "Physiological Trimming for a Healthy Equine Foot - Recommendations for Farriers"]

While typically touting a short toe and gradually lowering the heel, Bowker does not mention angulation, an omission that suggests he's not concerned with that particular aspect of trimming a foot. He doesn't mention planetary alignment or phase of the moon either, so one can safely assume those are also non-factors.

Your conclusion is flawed-I read that article as well and feel he addresses the general nature of the article quite nicely. He never says he has NO regard for angles-so you cannot assume in a more formal or detailed presentation that this issue would not be addressed. Do you know of any material where he has been asked about angles and suggested disregard?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I have read a few pieces that he has written on this and can't seem to find support for this statement-perhaps you could help me find it? If anything it appears he is encouraging returning the foot to its "natural angle."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I see this term bandied about quite frequently. Is this elusive angle the most efficient angle for all horses, some horses, or only a few? IME, the hoof capsule of horses at liberty are a reflection of horses' environment and quite varied in size, shape, angulation: What exactly is a "natural angle"?

when I used that term (for lack of a better one at the moment, *my* meaning is the proper angle for THAT horse...so no, there is no one angle for all horses...each horse would have his own http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I still don't understand what it is about his understanding of NS that you don't agree with...so asked and not answered sufficiently.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps your perceived lack of sufficiency rests in your comprehension of the material presented, not the material itself: Contrast Bowker's observations with those of Turner's at http://www.equipodiatry.com/palmar.htm

I can assure you that I have enough letters after my name and the intellectual capacity to comprehend any material...I have no trouble understanding what I read...I am asking for YOUR interpretation of the material. I will read the Turner article as soon as I have a moment and comment after

As an aside, it's interesting to note that while Bowker suggests that fluids within the foot have a role in dissipating shock, he does not consider the volume of the hoof capsule as a factor. Many other observers have noted that NS appears to be more prevalent in those breeds/types that typically have large bodies and small feet.

He mentions in the article he wrote for the Thoroughbred Times that there was an increased incidence of NS in Lippizaner horses while they are kept in stalls and shod. Would these horses be considered gentically to be like QHs=big horses with little feet?

Surely Tom you consider yourself an educator-with all the articles you have written...let's try this again
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please be kind enough to read both Bowker and Turner thoroughly so we don't have to plow the same ground twice.

As I mentioned, I have read the Bowker article you provided, will read the Turner article and respond.[/QUOTE]

LMH

Sep. 3, 2004, 08:01 AM

OK Tom, I read Turners article...and he prescribes your position...but what is his proof? I don't see anymore compelling argument in his article than you would say is in Bowker's article. He says 96% are treated succesfully---where is the results of this study?

Also, if you notice, his references at the bottom are his own publications, among others, yet all dated in the 1980's...the most recent publication referenced being 1991...perhaps some of this is just a little behind the times?

So...I have read and comprehended...but I have still not had you explain to me WHY Bowker advocates lowering heels...the "raise" heel team seems to feel it releases pressure on the tendon...correct?

LMH

Sep. 3, 2004, 08:03 AM

As an afterthought you will not impress anyone should you imply again that I am incapable of understanding---when one has difficulty comprehending it is quite often the teacher that is to blame...so how about just explaining nicely without the derogatory comments. And who knows Tom, maybe I do get it, but I am questioning whether your comprehension is such that you are capable of explaining it.

JenL

Sep. 3, 2004, 08:54 AM

wow I never knew the horse care forum had such big fights. I'm going to visit here more often! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

LMH

Sep. 3, 2004, 09:41 AM

Another afterthought---I reviewed the "original" navicular thread to be sure I didn't miss your answers to the questions I asked...I didn't.

It also appears there is one other significant question posed by slb that I could not find your response to.

What, in your opinion and extensive experience is the cause of tha majority of navicular pain-concussion or compression?

Is the navicular pain from the same cause for the tall heeled small footed QH and for the LT/LH horse?

If the cause IS different, would it require different treatments?

Also I still cannot find anything that confirms or even alludes to the fact that Bowker suggests whacking a heel to the point of disturbing balance and alignment-rather it appears he is indeed advocating gradual lowering of the heel to return the foot to balance and alignment. If you still disagree, please provide reference to any publications that state otherwise.

ThirdCharm

Sep. 3, 2004, 11:14 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
ThirdCharm, not a totally perfect conclusion...anyone would currently agree there are MORE shod horses competing than unshod....so pure numbers means a barefoot horse is likely to come out on top.

No one implied farriers are hexing barefoot horses or anything else-it is a matter that there are less competing...

Now IF a barefoot horse won the Olympics or the Derby, what do you think next year's trend would be? Betting not rust britches---unless JSwan wants it to be http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROTFL.

Still, despite the "ick" factor, I hear rust breeches are indeed coming back in....

Yes, the sheer numbers dictate that there will be a HIGHER number of shod horses at the highest levels. But there (according to the barefoot-ites) are tons and tons of horses competing succesfully without shoes. So one would think that at least ONE Of them might make it to the highest level of racing or jumping competition? Thereby proving the barefoot case, assisting in promoting the cause, etc.? (Yes, I keep hearing, "of course there is!" but no one has a NAME and given the massive PR machine of the barefoot-ites, you would think they could come up with a NAME).

Since everyone seems to have jumped on Tom for arguing that SOME horses may need shoes, what do the barefooters say about a horse that has his shoes pulled by a 'natural hoofcare specialist', colics and founders from the pain, and has to be put down after three months of agony? Oh, I know.... "it wasn't the barefoot trim, it was the PREEXISTING DAMAGE from being shod for the previous 8-10 years" (during which he was sound, and alive, which would be my personal preference).

JenniferS

LMH

Sep. 3, 2004, 11:46 AM

(shhhhh ThirdCharm...don't tell anyone in case shod horseowners are listening-I don't think there are TONS of barefoot performance horses out there---likely more than there used to be and less than there could be).

What height is preliminary eventing? I found someone that was competing successfully barefoot at that level.

I also was told of a race trainer in KY area that recently turned his system upside down-the TB's live in a natural lifestyle (OUT and not stalled) and I believe he was training them to run barefoot-however I never spoke to him personally.

Another thing that should be noted-in the same way that ALL farriers should not be lumped together, ALL barefoot only trimmers should NOT be lumped together...the is the Grand Canyon between Strasser/Olivio and the others.

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 3, 2004, 12:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Originally posted by LMH:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"What we are trying to do is work with Mother Nature instead of fight her," explains Bowker. "We can do this by keeping the toe short and the back part of the foot on the ground..." [Robt. Bowker, VMD, PhD, "Physiological Trimming for a Healthy Equine Foot - Recommendations for Farriers"] "
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Your conclusion is flawed-I read that article as well and feel he addresses the general nature of the article quite nicely. He never says he has NO regard for angles-so you cannot assume in a more formal or detailed presentation that this issue would not be addressed. Do you know of any material where he has been asked about angles and suggested disregard?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
With respect, it's your conclusion that's fatally flawed. As an attorney, you should know that one can only read what the writer has written, not what one wishes had been written. Despite what you may "feel", he doesn't address angulation.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
when I used that term [natural angle] (for lack of a better one at the moment, *my* meaning is the proper angle for THAT horse...so no, there is no one angle for all horses...each horse would have his own http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How exactly do you determine the "natural angle" of any horse? What determines "proper"? On determination, what suggests the "natural" or "proper" angle the most efficient in terms of getting a horse - and whatever the horse is
packing or pulling - from here to there?

Perhaps your perceived lack of sufficiency rests in your comprehension of the material presented, not the material itself: Contrast Bowker's observations with those of Turner's at http://www.equipodiatry.com/palmar.htm[/COLOR] (http://www.equipodiatry.com/palmar.htm)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I can assure you that I have enough letters after my name and the intellectual capacity to comprehend any material...I have no trouble understanding what I read...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your assurance notwithstanding and with all due respect, a veritable alphabet after your name would not imbue any particular ability to comprehend technical material out of your specialty.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I am asking for YOUR interpretation of the material. I will read the Turner article as soon as I have a moment and comment after
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Read the material, contrast the observations, then ask any questions you may have after you've attained the necessary background.

As an aside, it's interesting to note that while Bowker suggests that fluids within the foot have a role in dissipating shock, he does not consider the volume of the hoof capsule as a factor. Many other observers have noted that NS appears to be more prevalent in those breeds/types that typically have large bodies and small feet.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
He mentions in the article he wrote for the Thoroughbred Times that there was an increased incidence of NS in Lippizaner horses while they are kept in stalls and shod. Would these horses be considered gentically to be like QHs=big horses with little feet?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No ma'am, the few Lippizans IME had feet in proportion to their body size. Many QH-types have disproportionately small feet.

[...]

Lookout

Sep. 3, 2004, 12:17 PM

Train wrecks aren't really an appropriate analogy since there isn't any skill required. Watching a farrier and saying you know all about it is like watching riding lessons and saying you know how to ride.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by slb:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:
AWCF? Do you mean "FWCF"?
Yes, thanks for pointing out that typo...typing faster than I was thinking.

[QUOTE]
As a lowly, lack-knowledge farrier's wife, I have quite obviously never taken the opportunity to read the shelves of books and current trade journals that belong to my husband, to attend seminars, to ask questions of the experts or to even look at the disections in my freezer. And above all else, I have never watched as he worked.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You seem to place great emphasis on watching - and none on doing.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
One doesn't have to participate in a train wreck to understand what is happening does one? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 3, 2004, 12:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
OK Tom, I read Turners article...and he prescribes your position...but what is his proof? I don't see anymore compelling argument in his article than you would say is in Bowker's article. He says 96% are treated succesfully---where is the results of this study?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Like Bowker's material, it's not a study, it's an observation.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Also, if you notice, his references at the bottom are his own publications, among others, yet all dated in the 1980's...the most recent publication referenced being 1991...perhaps some of this is just a little behind the times?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Behind the times? She may be, but only if you consider Archimedes behind the times. Newest is not necessarily best, it's just newest.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
So...I have read and comprehended...but I have still not had you explain to me WHY Bowker advocates lowering heels...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Drat! I was hoping you could explain Bowker's advocacy to me: After all, it's contrary to the observations of many other researchers, most veterinary texts, and my own experience.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
the "raise" heel team seems to feel it releases pressure on the tendon...correct?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Raising the heel is one means of effectively reducing the compression of the navicular bone by the deep digital flexor tendon.

LMH

Sep. 3, 2004, 12:40 PM

Tom-still no answer? Why are you reluctant to answer the questions asked, rather toos the ball back?

Since you are quite determined in convincing yourself that *I* am unqualified to understand readings "out of my area", perhaps you should consider 2 things...as an attorney, we are trained in school and in life to research material...and understand it...

Even if you discount the above as truth, it only follows then that I cannot understand what I read...so I ask you again for an explanation. Rather than running from the question and continuing the banter-just answer...unless of course you don't know or can't understand.

You are the professional...so let's hear it.

Determining the "natural angle"--when trimming a foot, you look at the new growth angle (that just under the hairline so everyone reading understands) and you work to achieve a matching angle from new growth to basement (bottom of the foot-part that contacts ground)...in a severely flared foot, of course this may not be able to happen on the first trim-you can nomrally however rasp the lower 1/3 to match the new growth angle. Provding you roll the toe and eleviate the pressure of the toe on the ground, you will with frequent trimming be able to prevent and reverse flare as the foot grows.

You also adress the angle by dealing with heel height...You should lower the heels to live sole plane or just a wee bit higher...some horses will be more comfortable at live sole, some need a little more heel. Of course this can be comfirmed with xrays to ensure the bones inside line up properly with even spacing between the joint (so there is not a broken forward or broken back axis).

Of course you also must deal with A/P balance-but let's just start with the toe and heel.

The majority of horses will have shallower angles in front and steeper angles in the rear...rarely as low in front as Strasser advocates (45 deg for all hooves)...normally (as in not all) will be-oh 52-55 in front? give or take? and slightly steeper behind.

How interesting that the Lipps had feet proportion to size yet were dipslaying sings of NS or heel pain...

so that brings me to the other unanswered question---what conditions do you feel cause NS-compression or concussion?

Tom-it REALLY isn't that hard to answer questions...

LMH

Sep. 3, 2004, 12:43 PM

I am not going to explain Bowkers position to you-you are the educated professional in this area-so if responsibility dictates, you should have considered it and rejected it for reason-other than it has always been done another way...not good enough.

So explain your understanding and since we are there, you reason for rejection of the thoery.

If you are incapable of doing so, then the continuation of the discussion is pointless.

Also, by your own admission, Turner's article is no more or less compelling than Bowker's.

trailblazer

Sep. 3, 2004, 12:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ThirdCharm:
Since everyone seems to have jumped on Tom for arguing that SOME horses may need shoes, what do the barefooters say about a horse that has his shoes pulled by a 'natural hoofcare specialist', colics and founders from the pain, and has to be put down after three months of agony? Oh, I know.... "it wasn't the barefoot trim, it was the PREEXISTING DAMAGE from being shod for the previous 8-10 years" (during which he was sound, and alive, which would be my personal preference). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope, no one (on this BB at least) has jumped on Tom for arguing that SOME horses may need shoes. We have jumped on him for suggesting that shoes are necessary for a performance horse. Instead of looking at the indiviual horse, he makes blanket statements about things he knows nothing about. I cringe when I think about how many horses he has needlessly shod, just as I cringe when I think about how many truly necessary shoes Strasser has pulled. Tom is really no different from Strasser.

I don't care about how many upper-level horses are barefoot. Those horses are also wrapped constantly, stalled for most of the time, etc. That does not mean that they are successful because this. Correlation does NOT imply causation! TBs tend to have crappy feet, so shoes may help race horses. WBs do not tend to have good legs. So maybe they need shoes. But is it the shoe that is actually making them run faster or jump higher? Tylenol in itself does not make you run faster, but it might make you feel better, which in turn will allow you to run at top speed. If Tom really wanted to prove his point, he would need to run a controlled experiment. And he would have to show that shoes would improve the performance of horses who don't need them. My little Morgan has never worn shoes, and he probably never will. Tom would have to show that although my horse does not need shoes, they would still help him. Good luck, Tom.

Tom wants us to accept that some horses need shoes, but it seems to me that no one disagrees with him on this. The problem is that Tom does not want to accept that there are horses (working horses!) who do NOT need shoes. Tom, you should really give barefoot a chance. Only put shoes on the horses who need it. The horses will be happier for it.

Sep. 3, 2004, 01:43 PM

trailblazer, I love you man! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Exactly...

trailblazer

Sep. 3, 2004, 01:59 PM

I love you too, JB! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 3, 2004, 02:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
Tom-still no answer? Why are you reluctant to answer the questions asked, rather toos the ball back?

Since you are quite determined in convincing yourself that *I* am unqualified to understand readings "out of my area", perhaps you should consider 2 things...as an attorney, we are trained in school and in life to research material...and understand it...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're kidding, right?. Are you implying your training as a lawyer enables you to fully comprehend specialized material without specialized training? One can only wonder why science and tech courses have labs.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Even if you discount the above as truth, it only follows then that I cannot understand what I read...so I ask you again for an explanation. Rather than running from the question and continuing the banter-just answer...unless of course you don't know or can't understand.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What part of my answer was beyond your comprehension? I wrote: "Drat! I was hoping you could explain Bowker's advocacy [of lowering heels on NS horses] to me: After all, it's contrary to the observations of many other researchers, most veterinary texts, and my own experience. If that's not plain enough, I fear you're SOL.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
You are the professional...so let's hear it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Asked and answered. Again.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Determining the "natural angle"--when trimming a foot, you look at the new growth angle (that just under the hairline so everyone reading understands) and you work to achieve a matching angle from new growth to basement (bottom of the foot-part that contacts ground)...in a severely flared foot, of course this may not be able to happen on the first trim-you can nomrally however rasp the lower 1/3 to match the new growth angle. Provding you roll the toe and eleviate the pressure of the toe on the ground, you will with frequent trimming be able to prevent and reverse flare as the foot grows.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ROTFLMAO! No consideration of conformation, use, or any pathology existent - just look at the new growth below the hairline and try to match it? Dare I suggest your methodology is a bit incomplete?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
You also adress the angle by dealing with heel height...You should lower the heels to live sole plane or just a wee bit higher...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You lower the heels on all horses without regard for conformation? Ouch!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
some horses will be more comfortable at live sole, some need a little more heel. Of course this can be comfirmed with xrays to ensure the bones inside line up properly with even spacing between the joint (so there is not a broken forward or broken back axis).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Laterals are great for determining phalangeal alignment and the relationship of P3 to the dorsal wall, but "even spacing between the joint" are not visible on laterals; for that, you need an A/P.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Of course you also must deal with A/P balance-but let's just start with the toe and heel.

The majority of horses will have shallower angles in front and steeper angles in the rear...rarely as low in front as Strasser advocates (45 deg for all hooves)...normally (as in not all) will be-oh 52-55 in front? give or take? and slightly steeper behind.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
IME, normal angulation in light horses is higher in fronts, lower in hinds.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
How interesting that the Lipps had feet proportion to size yet were dipslaying sings of NS or heel pain...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Stuff happens.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
so that brings me to the other unanswered question---what conditions do you feel cause NS-compression or concussion?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tsk! As an attorney, you should know that posing a question that demands a single answer when more than one exists is a logical fallacy.

The etiology of NS includes concussion, compression, predisposing factors related to conformation, trauma, and husbandry - including trimming/shoeing. IME, aside from trauma, there is seldom a single factor that can be pinpointed as the cause. Most of the NS I see is related to small feet on big horses in hard use.

LMH

Sep. 3, 2004, 02:26 PM

Well Tom, once again not asked and not answered.

I knew as I was typing I was handing you bait on the trim-it is not a total explanation-and you know it-and to be honest no matter what I said, unless I quoted you, you would shoot it down.

I told you I wasn't getting into A/P alignment...just giving a teaser.

Either way, I will keep trimming my sound horses the way I trim and you will keeping doing whatever it is you do.

Use? To quote THE farrier in Georgia, a dressage horse doesn't know he is a dressage horse-you shoe him for his foot not his use. So now you can have fun with a farrier...and quite a popular one.

You are obviously not able to answer my question, therefore I can only assume you don't know...shame really.

So, as I said, without your answer, no discussion remains. I will hand the reins over if any bodies are left standing.

And reread the last question...conditionS--that allows for multiple reasons. You should also get out more-NS is being diagnosed in a greater crowd than the one you mention.

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 3, 2004, 03:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
Well Tom, once again not asked and not answered.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Poor dear, you appear to be in the midst of a chronic comprehension crisis: What part of "It's contrary to the observations of many other researchers, most veterinary texts, and my own experience" was beyond your comprehension?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Use? To quote THE farrier in Georgia, a dressage horse doesn't know he is a dressage horse-you shoe him for his foot not his use. So now you can have fun with a farrier...and quite a popular one.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tsk! Argumentum ad verecundiam? Are logical fallacies a lawyers stock in trade? Do you learn them in lawyer school?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
You are obviously not able to answer my question, therefore I can only assume you don't know...shame really.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps, in time, your self-described abilities as a researcher who understands all things may raise your level of comprehension. Perhaps not.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
So, as I said, without your answer, no discussion remains. I will hand the reins over if any bodies are left standing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Stay, leave, your call.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
And reread the last question...conditionS--that allows for multiple reasons. You should also get out more-NS is being diagnosed in a greater crowd than the one you mention.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You wrote: "...what conditions do you feel cause NS-compression or concussion?" I suggest you heed your own advice about re-reading. While "conditions" is plural, the "or" separating compression and concussion renders each singular. Had you wished me to consider both, you should have written "and", not "or." I selcom point out grammatical errors because I make more than my share, but I am not responsible for your making an error that changes the meaning of your sentence and I will not be taken to task for your mistake.

ThirdCharm

Sep. 3, 2004, 03:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by trailblazer:

Nope, no one (on this BB at least) has jumped on Tom for arguing that SOME horses may need shoes.

----

And he would have to show that shoes would improve the performance of horses who don't need them.

----

The problem is that Tom does not want to accept that there are horses (working horses!) who do NOT need shoes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did y'all read the article? It clearly states that SOME horses need shoes, SOME do not. It is slanted in favor of horses being MORE capable of performing their best with shoes... which no one seems to be able to disprove by producing a horse performing at top levels without shoes (midlevel is nice, and maybe a horse is showing 3' barefoot.... but maybe it could show 4'6" with shoes. Top level results are, I think, the only way both parties could really agree said horses are operating at their peak potential). I don't see anywhere that it says that horses operating well within the limits of their abilities NEED shoes, just that they are capable of doing MORE with shoes (MOST horses, as it says several times). Since very few owners/riders are CAPABLE of riding a horse at the top levels, that is fairly irrelevant and inoffensive. If I have a horse competing barefoot and sound at Prelim and someone tells me he could probably do Advanced with shoes, my response (at this point in my career) would be "Really? Isn't that nice."

In my own barn I have seen demonstrable results that shoes CAN help horses that do not NEED them..... I had three horses this summer who were performing quite adequately with a barefoot trim, but when shod their canters improved dramatically overnight, as did their work ethics. My husband has three clients who let a natural hoofcare specialist do their horses for a year (the "your horse may be lame for a while" adjustment period cited by the specialist). The horses, after a year, were all still lame. One set of shoes later they are all completely sound and back competing and their owners are kicking themselves for putting their horses through a year of hell and thanking god that none of them colicked or foundered from it. How in g_d's name can a horse owner buy that kind of schlock?

JenniferS

trailblazer

Sep. 3, 2004, 04:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ThirdCharm:
Did y'all read the article? It clearly states that SOME horses need shoes, SOME do not. It is slanted in favor of horses being MORE capable of performing their best with shoes... which no one seems to be able to disprove by producing a horse performing at top levels without shoes (midlevel is nice, and maybe a horse is showing 3' barefoot.... but maybe it could show 4'6" with shoes. Top level results are, I think, the only way both parties could really agree said horses are operating at their peak potential). I don't see anywhere that it says that horses operating well within the limits of their abilities NEED shoes, just that they are capable of doing MORE with shoes (MOST horses, as it says several times). Since very few owners/riders are CAPABLE of riding a horse at the top levels, that is fairly irrelevant and inoffensive. If I have a horse competing barefoot and sound at Prelim and someone tells me he could probably do Advanced with shoes, my response (at this point in my career) would be "Really? Isn't that nice." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, he *claims* that some horses do not need shoes, but he is clearly referring to lawn ornaments. Big deal. By saying that shoes enhance performance, he is pulling a Strasser on us. How is saying that "shod is best" any different from saying that "barefoot is best"? Does it not depend on the horse? Who is he to make such sweeping statements? If he said that for some horses, shoes allow for better performance, I would have no problem with that. But noooo, he claims that "the fact is - again, easily demonstrable - that horses can pull more weight, run faster and/or jump higher when correctly shod in accord with the individual's needs relative to its particular environment than they can barefooted." Yet he offers no proof of this. Whether or not top level horses are wearing shoes is completely irrelevant - CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION! You write that "It is slanted in favor of horses being MORE capable of performing their best with shoes". Has is ever occurred to you that what is best for your horses may not be best for my horses? MY horses are NOT more capable of performing their best with shoes, so that is the necessary counterexample. Once again, saying that upper level horses wear shoes does not prove ANYTHING. It merely demonstrates a correlation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>In my own barn I have seen demonstrable results that shoes CAN help horses that do not NEED them..... I had three horses this summer who were performing quite adequately with a barefoot trim, but when shod their canters improved dramatically overnight, as did their work ethics. My husband has three clients who let a natural hoofcare specialist do their horses for a year (the "your horse may be lame for a while" adjustment period cited by the specialist). The horses, after a year, were all still lame. One set of shoes later they are all completely sound and back competing and their owners are kicking themselves for putting their horses through a year of hell and thanking god that none of them colicked or foundered from it. How in g_d's name can a horse owner buy that kind of schlock? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Great, I have seen "demonstrable results" that shoes can hurt horses that do not need them. And that going barefoot is ideal for horses with good legs and feet. If shoes are soooo necessary, why are horses not born with them? Why does it bother you that some people prefer barefoot? Why can you not accept that my horses have good enough feet to not need shoes?

I think people should do what they think is best for their horses. If your horse needs shoes, great. But if you think that shoes are inherently necessary and that it is cruel to let them be barefoot, then you are no different from those who think the opposite.

Sep. 3, 2004, 04:32 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ThirdCharm:
My husband has three clients who let a natural hoofcare specialist do their horses for a year (the "your horse may be lame for a while" adjustment period cited by the specialist). The horses, after a year, were all still lame. One set of shoes later they are all completely sound and back competing and their owners are kicking themselves for putting their horses through a year of hell and thanking god that none of them colicked or foundered from it. How in g_d's name can a horse owner buy that kind of schlock?

JenniferS <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's exactly that sort of barefoot "trimmer" that gives the rest of the good ones and the whole concept a bad name. It's exactly that sort of news that travels super-sonic speed (which good news rarely does) and scares the bejeezus out of others from ever giving it a try.

And before anyone goes there, what I said above does NOT mean I am anti-shoeing. I AGREE some horses need shoes. But there are far too many barefoot "trimmers", it seems, who up front tell you to expect unsoundness for months (or longer) and that it must get worse before it gets better. THAT is a crock.

trailblazer

Sep. 3, 2004, 04:42 PM

I agree with you completely, JB. I've seen so many lame horses WITH shoes. I've seen shod horses colic and founder. I've seen incompetent farriers. What does this prove? That shoes are bad? I don't think so. So how can people make generalizations after seeing one lame barefoot horse? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

slb

Sep. 3, 2004, 04:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lookout:
Train wrecks aren't really an appropriate analogy since there isn't any skill required. Watching a farrier and saying you know all about it is like watching riding lessons and saying you know how to ride. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well Lookout....it is nice of you to point out my short comings...especially out of context. I never saind anything about my "experience"...this was in relationship to my not having the "education" to question a farrier of his methods. It was in response to why I didn't have any "farrier letters" after my name and what therefore qualified me to question someone of Mr. Stovall's learning. I never made mention of my expereinces. I also noted that there were many mentors in my life, plus many publications and seminars contibuting to my ongoing eduction.

And you are qualified to pass judgement...which you do often....on farriers because you have shod how many horses.

BTW...I would differ with you that a train wreck does require skill...someone has to be driving the train...a skilled and most likely certified someone.

ram10

Sep. 3, 2004, 04:57 PM

Several months ago I asked a question on this forum about wedge pads and received no useful information, only condemnation for subjecting my horse to torture (I don't remember if the word 'torture was used but the condemnation was clear.) Despite that, I have to respond to this thread. I've been amused by this thread and the navicular thread, really one and the same as far as information and amusement value. But here's my dilemma: my horse, a 15 yr old TB, who in the five years I've owned him, has been useful for maybe 3 years due to numerous problems, some of them soundness issues and some of them other problems. Right now, thanks to a great vet and a great shoer, wedges in front and eggbars behind, he's been sound for several months and we've moved from training level dressage to schooling 2nd level. The wedges are there due to, perhaps, a shoer I used twice who chopped off his already non-existant heels. The x rays show a 'pinch' in one of the joints. With the wedges, he was sound the day after shoeing after months of being off. So do I take the chance on a 'barefoot' shoer who might cause more harm than good and take months or years to get my horse sound or stick with, as Mr. Stovall says, 'what works.' I can't afford to wait years for my horse to be sound without shoes -- neither of us are getting younger. Of course this is a rhetorical question as there's no way in h*** that I'd let someone I don't know pull his shoes and trim him. And maybe I don't agree with all that Mr. Stovall has to say but he makes sense to me.

LMH

Sep. 3, 2004, 05:06 PM

ram10-you do the same as everyone else does-you look at your options, weigh the pros and cons of all options presented and make the best one based on the information you are provided...that is what you have done and it works for you...that would be the definition of a successful result for a decision you made.

Repeatedly this has been said-there is nothing arguing shoeing is bad--there was at some place in time the argument that bad shoeing is bad-anything to do with that notion was gone long about page 1.

Now the only reason I have any interest in this thread is to see if Tom is capable of describing what Dr Bowker's reasoning is for lowering heels on NS horses---he has rejected Bowker's theories because others reject them...but so far he cannot explain the ideas that he rejects.

Each time I ask, he turns the question and makes some snide comment sure to entertain those lurking on the thread...but still he has never answered this any MANY other questions...so he critizes, judges, demeans and is unable to make one intelligent comment on the area that he claims to be so educated in.

AND you know how I am QUITE sure he has not answered my question-because HAD he done so and I kept asking him to give me an answer, by now someone somewhere would surely LOVE to point out where my question WAS answered by quoting Tom...so far nothing.

So....don't bother even getting involved this late in the game-you have done good by your horse-this thread will only serve to frustrate you...unless of course you are enjoying yourself-then of course stick around http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LMH

Sep. 3, 2004, 05:08 PM

JB give it up-your horse is barefoot therefore you have a sick hatred of farriers and just aren't smart enough to know why. That my dear is the only thing that can be taken away from this.

However I am sure we have provided entertainment---did we make it to "the OtherBoard" yet?-if so, then we know we have arrived.

evenstar

Sep. 3, 2004, 05:25 PM

from LMH
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Now the only reason I have any interest in this thread is to see if Tom is capable of describing what Dr Bowker's reasoning is for lowering heels on NS horses---he has rejected Bowker's theories because others reject them...but so far he cannot explain the ideas that he rejects. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe he can't explain it because it makes absolutely no sense to him so he can't understand the reasoning enough to explain it! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I've been following this discussion (though I confess to having skipped over a few posts - ok, I'm bad) and you know, some horses need shoes to do what we want them to do, and some don't.
Now I am never going to join the Barefoot religion, because in my opinion a good trim is a good trim, and I have a great farrier who knows how to balance a foot. I have one horse who is now without shoes, and is working beautifully. If I pulled the front shoes from my other horse, she would be crippled for six months (trust me - this is based on past experience). I'm not going to put her through that, and I sure don't want to give up riding her for that period. So she gets shoes. And my farrier is absolutely thrilled that my other mare is doing so well without shoes.

LMH

Sep. 3, 2004, 05:46 PM

I have an idea....if you have followed this thread, maybe you can help me out

I have asked Tom REPEATEDLY to explain to me HIS understanding of Robert Bowker's research on lowering heels of NS horses. Bowker reached the conclusion that this is succesful treatment...I have asked Tom to summarize Bowker's ideas if you will...

I have also asked him to explain to me WHY Bowker's theories are flawed...I cannot find Tom's answer anywhere on ANY thread...so humor me, if you will, and direct me to a response by Tom answering this question...NOT slb's summary of Bowker, or Lookout's response,or anyone else's...

I honestly can't find it, and since he won't answer me again, maybe you can find Tom's answer and direct me to it.

And NOT his answer of "read Bowker's article and see what it says"...I am looking for TOM's understanding and reasoning for rejecting the idea.

Also if the reason for rejection is the Jones's don't do it that way---well, just ain't good enough. He is far more experienced in this area and should be able to give an educated, intelligent response as to WHY Bowker is wrong.

Also, a while back slb asked him what he thought was the more common reason for heel pain in horses--compression or concussion (or perhaps something else?)...I can't find the answer to this either.

When he stated that no high lever horses were winning barefoot, I asked him whether living conditions, etc of performance horses prohibited them from being able to compete barefoot so perhaps the other faactors, rather than the sole failure of barefoot, is why we don't see them out there...I can't find that answer either.

If you can hlep me out, and show me where these answers are, I would appreciate it.

trailblazer

Sep. 3, 2004, 05:50 PM

Sorry, LMH, I can't help you. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif

LMH

Sep. 3, 2004, 06:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by trailblazer:
Sorry, LMH, I can't help you. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you could look again for me? It must be out there somewhere...

evenstar

Sep. 3, 2004, 06:15 PM

Sorry LMH - if you think I'm wading through all his posts...forget it! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 3, 2004, 06:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by trailblazer:

Yes, he *claims* that some horses do not need shoes, but he is clearly referring to lawn ornaments. Big deal. By saying that shoes enhance performance, he is pulling a Strasser on us. How is saying that "shod is best" any different from saying that "barefoot is best"? Does it not depend on the horse? Who is he to make such sweeping statements? If he said that _for some horses_, shoes allow for better performance, I would have no problem with that. But noooo, he claims that "the fact is - again, easily demonstrable - that horses can pull more weight, run faster and/or jump higher when correctly shod in accord with the individual's needs relative to its particular environment than they can barefooted." Yet he offers no proof of this...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know several race trainers who run off the farm. Because there are no rocks on the sandy Katy Prairie, these trainers don't shoe their horses until they have to haul them to SHRP for an official work. But, before they work for the starter at Sam, their horses have most assuredly had several works at the training track, including works out of the gates. One can only wonder why those works wearing shoes are invariably faster than those in bare feet. But, don't take my word for anything, just ask a few trainers.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Whether or not top level horses are wearing shoes is completely irrelevant - _CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!_
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm a bit foggy on what you're attempting to say. Do you mean that although all top level runners, jumpers and pullers wear shoes, that fact is not related to their performance? Do you think stickers and jar calks don't improve runners' performance in the slop? Screw-ins during a jump-off on wet grass? Toe grabs when there's lots of weight in the boat? One can only wonder why these horses' connections bother with the expense of shoeing when it could be easily avoided by sending their charges into the fray with bare feet.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
You write that "It is slanted in favor of horses being MORE capable of performing their best with shoes". Has is ever occurred to you that what is best for your horses may not be best for my horses? MY horses are NOT more capable of performing their best with shoes, so that is the necessary counterexample...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are your horses engaged in some discipline in which stopwatches and cameras measure performance? Have you compared the performance of your horses shod/unshod? If not, you could not possibly know whether they would be helped or hurt by shoes.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Once again, saying that upper level horses wear shoes does not prove ANYTHING. It merely demonstrates a correlation...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A correlation in math is something that happens more often than chance would dictate: thus, the fact that ALL top horses in EVERY discipline involving speed wear shoes is significant; the fact that EVERY track record and EVERY stakes at EVERY parimutuel track in the United States was set/won by a horse wearing plates is significant; the fact that EVERY winner of EVERY major barrel race, futurity, and derby was wearing shoes is significant.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Great, I have seen "demonstrable results" that shoes can hurt horses that do not need them...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hang around a vet clinic for a while. IME, it's not so much unneeded shoes that hurt horses, it's improper application. Improper application of trimming or shoeing protocols hurts horses, regardless of need.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
And that going barefoot is ideal for horses with good legs and feet.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
IME, going barefoot is ideal for any horse that doesn't need shoes for protection, traction, or to effect a therapeutic change in their way of going.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
If shoes are soooo necessary, why are horses not born with them?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
With similar logic, one might ask why horses are not born wearing saddles.
[...]
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I think people should do what they think is best for their horses. If your horse needs shoes, great. But if you think that shoes are inherently necessary and that it is cruel to let them be barefoot, then you are no different from those who think the opposite.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Close, but no cigar. Ideally, horses, not people, determine the need for shoes.

slb

Sep. 3, 2004, 06:35 PM

Well....LMH....I must admit that I am a little behind on my reading/responding...but I have covered most of it and I can't help you either http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

So far what I have gleaned from all this is:

Turner can report a success rate of 96%, but when I reported a similar success rate, there was a "laughter of the masses"...hmmmm http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

You must have experienced something to understand or question it, but Mr. Stovall is certain of the failure of other methods that he has not experienced.

Several publications were refered to as "vanity" publications...but Mr. Stovall's publications are not in that class http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Several other methods are lead by self-serving "gurus", but Mr. Stovall is above all that.

You must have at least a CF if not a CJF behind your name to question Mr. Stovall's methods.

You cannot gain an understanding of a method or theory unless you have experienced it. Wow...I hope that higher education across the nation is listening as the majority of what they teach fails to include experience outside of the classroom.

Following that logic...leaning by example (watching, listening, questioning) is learning by "association" and not a valid method of gaining knowledge (see above notes on "wishing higher education was listening")

Even if you extend the generosity of answering a question, you cannot expect to get one back.

If you even mention "barefoot" you must be a member of the "lunitic fringe" of "barefoot forever freaks".

And, the very best thing that I have learned here...btw, from example, not from experience...is that if you are in need of evading questions, you can frustrate and disharten those with serious interest by creating circles cloaked in rhetoric and never actually answering. Just keep answering questions with questions.

bait...bait...bait...bait...bait http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sleepy.gif

trailblazer

Sep. 3, 2004, 06:39 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_implies_causation_(logical_fallacy) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_implies_causation_)

Sep. 3, 2004, 06:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:

Are your horses engaged in some discipline in which stopwatches and cameras measure performance? Have you compared the performance of your horses shod/unshod? If not, you could not possibly know whether they would be helped or hurt by shoes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are yours and have you?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
thus, the fact that ALL top horses in EVERY discipline involving speed wear shoes is significant; the fact that EVERY track record and EVERY stakes at EVERY parimutuel track in the United States was set/won by a horse wearing plates is significant; the fact that EVERY winner of EVERY major barrel race, futurity, and derby was wearing shoes is significant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, it's significant, but in all these "EVERY's", has there been an unshod horse to beat EVERY time? If there were no barefoot horses at each competition then you can't make a 100% valid comparison.

Sep. 3, 2004, 06:52 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
JB give it up-your horse is barefoot therefore you have a sick hatred of farriers and just aren't smart enough to know why. That my dear is the only thing that can be taken away from this.

However I am sure we have provided entertainment---did we make it to "the OtherBoard" yet?-if so, then we know we have arrived. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup yup, you are right. But wait, no, you can't be right because you don't have the appropriate letters behind your name. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Funny thing happened the other day. Trainer noticed Rio was winging out a wee bit on his right hind. I checked it out - saw it for myself - checked the balance of his foot, saw that it was a little off M/L and fixed it. Voila, no more winging. Man, you read a book or two and lookee what you can fix youself! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

swampgum

Sep. 3, 2004, 11:57 PM

The simple facts here are that the majority of horses can go barefooted with proper hoofcare and the numbers of horse owners choosing the barefoot route is rapidly growing. The majority of honest farriers will also acknowledge barefoot horses have less lameness and better quality hooves than shod horses and that the majority of horses they shoe each week could go barefooted.For those who want to shoe their horses shoe them but those who are thinking about barefoot it does work and believe me a transitioned barefoot horse with a low flat hard wide frog has far more traction than shod horses which have high soft narrow frogs which is the result of the shoe preventing the frog adequate ground contact. I once posted that if anybody doubts this just have a look at the frogs of long term shod horses and compare them with frogs on long term barefoot horses

trailblazer

Sep. 4, 2004, 12:15 AM

If you want to talk about traction, have you ever ridden a shod horse on pavement? Now that is scary! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif In addition, shod horses *tend* to be less sure-footed than their barefoot counterparts.

I would be interested in knowing if Tom was in Athens shoeing any of the horses at the Olympics. Since that is the highest level of competition, he should have been there, right? Otherwise, it seems that his techniques do not enhance performance! On his website he claims that he is the official farrier for the SWDC Championships. Never heard of it. I *have* heard of the Olympics, though. So, which horses did you shoe over in Athens?

http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

LMH

Sep. 4, 2004, 03:23 AM

Thank you slb for that summary-you saved me lots of time nd trouble.

The most obvious example of a barefoot horse outperforming a shod horse...

Correct me if I am wrong, but did it not used to be quite common at indoors to pull a horse's shoes before the under saddle class so he would move better?

Do you think horse's that qualify for indoors would be considered not-too-bad horses?

JB-what makes you think you are qualified to determine if Rio was winging? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Well...thanks to everyone that searched through the "archives" so far...maybe we will still get lucky and someone will find the answer.

Simkie

Sep. 4, 2004, 06:28 AM

LMH, you can't use a subjective measure to say that a barefoot horse is outperforming a shod horse.

Your example would be the same as, say, telling us that horses should be shod in stacks and have long levers, because the winningest Tennesse Walker is shod that way.

You really have to compare shod to non-shod in an *objective* event. Racing, jumpers...something like that.

So, put two equally talented, identically trained racehorses in the gate. One shod, one not. Who's going to win?

Or, time a horse over his best distance on the track. Pull his shoes, wait for identical conditions, and time him again. Which time will be faster?

LMH

Sep. 4, 2004, 07:37 AM

I actually thought of that idea Simkie--a controlled study, if you will...to *my* knowledge that has never been done...I would love to know if it has out of simple curiousity.

ThirdCharm

Sep. 4, 2004, 09:05 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by trailblazer:
I think people should do what they think is best for their horses. If your horse needs shoes, great. But if you think that shoes are inherently necessary and that it is cruel to let them be barefoot, then you are no different from those who think the opposite. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think shoes are inherently necessary, though I do think that for MOST horses to perform at their highest potential, they are. As I said very few horses are ever required to perform at their highest potential, so it is largely irrelevant unless one is simply interested in maintaining the horse in the most comfortable possible state given the unnatural environment we force them to live in. How can you know if your horse is performing its best and soundest? They don't speak English, to all intents and purposes many barefoot horses seem 100% (one of the horses I mentioned, who improved radically with shoeing, had just passed a rigorous vet check in which the vet declared her one of the soundest horses he'd seen in years!).

As for why horses are not born with shoes if they are good for the horse, apparently evolution has not yet eliminated humans being born without the common sense to avoid asking incredibly foolish questions, so it is not surprising that a radical modification of nonliving tissue being added to a fetus hasn't resulted either.

JenniferS

trailblazer

Sep. 4, 2004, 11:01 AM

Tom has said that he is into "stuff that works". Well, so am I!

Some here have said that their horses would be crippled if their shoes were pulled. I buy that - they know their horses best. Likewise, I believe that I would be doing irreperable damage to my horses' hooves by shoeing them. If they tell me that they need shoes, they'll get shoes. But I'm not going to play games with their health and soundness. I'm not going to put nails into my horses' hooves just to prove a point. Like Tom, I am interested in stuff that works. If your shod TB with bad feet is going well, would you pull his shoes just to see what happens? I don't think so. Likewise, I am not going to jeopardize the health of my barefoot Morgans by nailing metal to their hooves. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Lookout

Sep. 4, 2004, 11:53 AM

What?!?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ThirdCharm:
As for why horses are not born with shoes if they are good for the horse, apparently evolution has not yet eliminated humans being born without the common sense to avoid asking incredibly foolish questions, so it is not surprising that a radical modification of nonliving tissue being added to a fetus hasn't resulted either.

JenniferS <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMH

Sep. 4, 2004, 12:23 PM

ThirdCharm---the problem is the barefoot ONLY people (not me but this is the arugment) feel shoes DO damage feet. Period. Nailing steel on a foot is bad, inhibits expansion/contraction of the foot and a whole bunch of other things.

So the argument given is what price high performance? If you damage your horse's feet and that damage can cause other things to go wrong, then is it worth the better performance?

Or, another way put, if a horse requires shoes to do better, perhaps re-evaluate what you are asking him to do...

SO, for those with this belief (whether you agree or not-doesn't matter, that barefoot person WHOLEHEARTEDLY believes the application of a shoe causes problems), no increased performance to that level is worth the trade-off.

SO with that said, it is and will be forever a no win arugment...people research and determine what they believe and then care for their horses the best way they can based on the information they receive.

It is no different than the person that thinks oats are fine, another feels too high in carbs, one feels WNV is fine, other feels the risk is too high, one feels no tunrout is ok, it is heel to another.

Just part of thoughts and beliefs based on information....so fortunately for those that have sound well performing barefoot horses, this issue will never come into play.

I personally am still waiting on an answer to my questions. LOL.

Lookout

Sep. 4, 2004, 12:52 PM

I don't believe this is exclusive to "the barefoot people". I've never met a farrier who didn't agree a horse is better off unshod, but needs to be for reason X...So if they believe they're better off barefoot, there must be some reason, which must be that shoes are harmful in some way.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
ThirdCharm---the problem is the barefoot ONLY people (not me but this is the arugment) feel shoes DO damage feet. Period. SO, for those with this belief (whether you agree or not-doesn't matter, that barefoot person WHOLEHEARTEDLY believes the application of a shoe causes problems), no increased performance to that level is worth the trade-off.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMH

Sep. 4, 2004, 01:04 PM

That could be Lookout-however I think the difference still is a farrier may feel barefoot is better but that no "true" harm is done by a shoe...the other team feels there IS true harm.

trailblazer

Sep. 4, 2004, 01:16 PM

The trick is to find a good farrier. When I got my first horse, I knew absolutely nothing about this sort of stuff. Thank god my farrier did. My Morgan was the only horse in the barn without shoes, so I asked him if my guy should be shod. He gave me a funny look and then flat-out asked me if I was crazy! I was a bit taken aback at the time, but I came to realize what he meant. If you are blessed with good feet, do not ruin them!

I think a lot of people believe that there are no downsides to putting shoes on a horse (besides the money). But when you have a horse with rock-hard feet and thick walls, nailing metal into them *could* cause more harm than good. I am just asking people to weigh the costs with the benefits. If there were no ramifications, I don't think we'd even be having this debate.

Lookout

Sep. 4, 2004, 03:28 PM

Well then why do they think barefoot is better?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
That could be Lookout-however I think the difference still is a farrier may feel barefoot is better but that no "true" harm is done by a shoe...the other team feels there IS true harm. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMH

Sep. 4, 2004, 04:10 PM

Lookout-think about it...*I* am not a farrier...I said some MAY think... MAY...in order to answer your question, I suggest you prepare a poll for ALL farriers in the US 9keep it small) and find out why.

I can not even begin to answer WHY all farriers think barefoot it better.

Please Lookout, work with me here. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Bea

Sep. 4, 2004, 04:54 PM

I TOOK THE PEPSI CHALLENGE

“I have asked Tom REPEATEDLY to explain to me HIS understanding of Robert Bowker's research on lowering heels of NS horses. Bowker reached the conclusion that this is succesful treatment...I have asked Tom to summarize Bowker's ideas if you will...” LMH

“Bowker advocates shortening the toe and gradually lowering the heels without regard for normal phalangeal angulation. Both immediate and long term results are untested.” Tom

“I have also asked him to explain to me WHY Bowker's theories are flawed.” LMH

“ . . .without regard for normal phalangeal angulation. Both immediate and long term results are untested.” Tom

”Where exactly does Bowker say to shorten the toe and lower the heel without regard to angles?” LMH

"What we are trying to do is work with Mother Nature instead of fight her," explains Bowker. "We can do this by keeping the toe short and the back part of the foot on the ground..." [Robt. Bowker, VMD, PhD, "Physiological Trimming for a Healthy Equine Foot - Recommendations for Farriers"]

While typically touting a short toe and gradually lowering the heel, Bowker does not mention angulation, an omission that suggests he's not concerned with that particular aspect of trimming a foot.” Tom

Despite what you may "feel", he doesn't address angulation. Tom

“When he stated that no high lever horses were winning barefoot, I asked him whether living conditions, etc of performance horses prohibited them from being able to compete barefoot so perhaps the other factors, rather than the sole failure of barefoot, is why we don't see them out there...I can't find that answer either.” LMH

LMH, I didn’t find the answer to this question. But maybe he’s getting to it, the question is an evolution beyond the present scope of this thread. People are still arguing the basics.

The bottom line for me is that he’s not anti-barefoot (besides being anti-Strasser that is) as he’s stated again and again that some horses need shoes and other don’t. He’s also stated many of the dressage horses in his practice are barefoot. This thread is trying to cover too many things. The Strasser folk want to discuss whether to shoe or not to shoe. And the rest of you want to figure out which shoeing theory you each subscribe to and why. It’s a little chaotic. And much as I think Tom Stovall could have maintained a little more decorum -- FAR MORE. As he said, he’s figuring out the players. And he knew he might be entering hostile Strasser country and some people (men in particular I find) react to that feeling by being hostile first. I'm in no way excusing him, I feel he really overstepped the line and I wouldn't blame some people for not wanted to play with him ever again. But as we all know, many BBs separate the barefoot and other folk. I’ve always thought it was a great credit to COTHers that that hasn’t been necessary. And while I was taking the Pepsi Challenge, I did notice along the way a few questions he had asked that weren't answered.

I get the impression that Tom Stovall believes in disciplines objectively based on time or height or distance, shoes give a competitive edge. Like humans runners wearing really good footware rather than running barefoot. And like asking for the names of high level horses winning barefoot, we could also try to find names of human runners winning barefoot.

He does mention he shoes horses per their environment, so yes I believe he would say the conditions under which performance horses live affect their feet. But I think he might say that just as Olympic running times might drop if we removed the footware from the humans, race times might drop by removing shoes from race horses. Regardless of whether the conditions they’re living in lead to optimal health of the foot.

The Strasser people believe shoeing is inherently evil, the mere act of driving a nail into a foot causes physical damage. Tom Stovall doesn’t believe that. He does believe shoes can give horses a mechanical competitive edge in certain disciplines. And so far, no one has been able to prove him wrong by listing the names of top race horses or jumpers or reiners who win barefoot.

Regardless of whether I or anyone else believes that might simply be due to tradition or the type of owner or trainer or the way we stable horses or whatever.

trailblazer

Sep. 4, 2004, 06:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bea:
I get the impression that Tom Stovall believes in disciplines objectively based on time or height or distance, shoes give a competitive edge. Like humans runners wearing really good footware rather than running barefoot. And like asking for the names of high level horses winning barefoot, we could also try to find names of human runners winning barefoot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A lot of those Africans run barefoot, and aren't they at the top of the sport? Maybe you meant to pick a different example...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>The Strasser people believe shoeing is inherently evil, the mere act of driving a nail into a foot causes physical damage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Even the non-Strasser people believe this. I do not believe that shoeing is evil, but it DOES cause physical damage. How can you deny it? I liken it to chemo. If you need it, it is worth the damage it does to your body. But why subject a healthy person to it??? The Stovall people believe that there are NO ill effects from nailing metal into a horse's hoof. In my opinion, Strasser looks good next to Stovall.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>He does believe shoes can give horses a mechanical competitive edge in certain disciplines. And so far, no one has been able to prove him wrong by listing the names of top race horses or jumpers or reiners who win barefoot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, we don't need to prove him wrong, since he has not proven anything in the first place. Correlation does not imply causation.

And even if Tom were able to prove anything, I don't think he would be able to help his cause. Steroids enhance performance, but how many of us our lining up to take them? This is not to say that shoeing a horse (an accepted activity) is equivalent to doping him (which is against ther rules). But think about it. Steroids can harm the body when used indiscriminately by athletes, but are quite beneficial under certain medical conditions. I would not chug steroids to enhance performance, or let a self-titled sports therapist give them to me either. I will, however, take them when a doctor prescribes them (which, interestingly enough, is NOT done to enhance performance).

I wish the Stovall-ites had the knowledge to think before putting shoes on the horse. The damage is often irreversible.

Lookout

Sep. 4, 2004, 06:19 PM

LMH I wasn't really directing the question to you but anyone who might know what farriers think.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
Lookout-think about it...*I* am not a farrier...I said some MAY think... MAY...in order to answer your question, I suggest you prepare a poll for ALL farriers in the US 9keep it small) and find out why.

I can not even begin to answer WHY all farriers think barefoot it better.

Please Lookout, work with me here. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bea

Sep. 4, 2004, 06:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by trailblazer:A lot of those Africans run barefoot, and aren't they at the top of the sport? Maybe you meant to pick a different example... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, as I was typing that, a bell rung in my head about, I think, long distance marathon runners from, I think, a tribe in Kenya that do well barefoot. But I couldn't remember much about them and have a small feeling that only ran well over certain types of ground. I was thinking more of sprinters or hurdlers or any track runners in the Olympics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>but it DOES cause physical damage. How can you deny it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn't. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Because I don't know enough about it to claim or deny it. And I would interested in reading the studies showing the physical damage. And I say that sincerely, not implying I disbelieve it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Actually, we don't need to prove him wrong, since he has not proven anything in the first place. Correlation does not imply causation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
trailblazer, I see what you're saying. But on the other hand there is no law saying one's horse must have shoes in order to compete. For all I know, people have tried to reach the top levels with a barefoot horse and failed. It does seem odd that there isn't a group of barefoot horses at the very top, that could be listed. And I wonder if being barefoot is a 'life-style' choice and part of that life-style is deciding not to pursue the very top levels. That those levels contain other aspects of horse ownership that people who believe shoes are evil might not wish to be involved in. Like lack of turn-out or use of certain training methods. If so, I don't understand why barefoot people don't just say that. I would find that admirable, not that my admiration should matter to anyone.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I wish the Stovall-ites had the knowledge to think before putting shoes on the horse. The damage is often irreversible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I need to read the studies before I could response to this. My initial response is that long-term bad trimming causes the majority of irreversible damage. I say that simply based on the horses I've know who have been shod for almost their entire lifes without apparent pathology.

Simkie

Sep. 4, 2004, 06:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by trailblazer:
I wish the Stovall-ites had the knowledge to think before putting shoes on the horse. The damage is often irreversible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse me?

What on earth are you talking about? Proof, please.

ser42

Sep. 5, 2004, 07:23 AM

Ah, Bea- finally a voice of reason!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I admittedly am no expert on trimming or shoeing- I am not a farrier. However, I am someone who has competed hunters and jumpers at AA shows on grass- and I can tell you there is NO WAY I would take a horse on course without shoes and screw-ins. Yes, horses barefoot all over the world are galloping in grass fields with no ill-effect. However, these horses probably are NOT being asked to turn on a dime at a full gallop and then jump 5' with a person on their back. The horses that are doing this- at least all the ones I've seen- are shod. Some here have argued that all of these horses are shod because no one has tried to do this barefoot (yet some here state that there are top jumpers out there that are barefoot- names, please?). Well, then one of you please volunteer to jump a jumper course on grass at an AA show barefoot and if you go clean you'll make a believer out of me!

And no personal offense meant here, LMH, but if I were on a jury... Tom would have my vote... Bea has summed it up nicely why.

LMH

Sep. 5, 2004, 07:42 AM

I don't think I understand the question before the jury ser---MY question was regarding lowering vs. elevating heels on horses with navicular pain...there are two sides to this-Tom does not agree with lowering the heels yet has refused to explain why-other than it isn't done that way. He also has not told me his understanding of why there are those professionals that suggest the theory (you see in order to reject an idea, you should at least be able to explain it, therefore showing an understanding of the idea).

Tom has been rude and derogatory and yet no one can seem to find where he answered this, among other questions.

I don't really care one way or the other on barefoot vs. shod-that is the choice of the owner...so if we are going to send a question to the jury, it should be whether my question was answered.

I just happen to think it is fascinating what a horse CAN do barefoot...likely more than we give them credit...so my intention was never to debate that issue-I threw some comments here and there in the course of discussion, but that issue isn't really of much interest to me. I don't have any political notions of converting people to barefoot...so no big deal.

Also as I mentioned, I don't see many hunters going around 5ft courses on grass.....most shows I have attended are USUALLY ( not always) in well groomed (hopefully) sand arenas...MOST hunter classes anymore are 2'6"-3ft...with a few at 3'6"...so again, the Grand Prix just isn't a part of my world of hunters. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As I mentioned somewhere-I do know of barefoot hunters competing at 3'6" and of Preliminary Eventers competing barefoot (I am not sure of that height to be honest), I know of several barefoot endurance horses and dressage horses...never said lots of people were doing it.

Truly I have never said I was a barefoot only person so don't QUITE understand why the barefoot horses can or can't debates keep coming at me alone...there are several other posters MUCH more committed to barefoot only...I find it just as interesting in what a horse can do barefoot (and you can do small modifications to the trim to give more traction)...as well as what a horse can do bridleless (the can perform collected moves which begs the question why contact for collection).

I just wanted an answer to my question...and it isn't a hard one to answer.

LMH

Sep. 5, 2004, 08:24 AM

Quote by Bea:

"trailblazer, I see what you're saying. But on the other hand there is no law saying one's horse must have shoes in order to compete. For all I know, people have tried to reach the top levels with a barefoot horse and failed. It does seem odd that there isn't a group of barefoot horses at the very top, that could be listed. And I wonder if being barefoot is a 'life-style' choice and part of that life-style is deciding not to pursue the very top levels. That those levels contain other aspects of horse ownership that people who believe shoes are evil might not wish to be involved in. Like lack of turn-out or use of certain training methods. If so, I don't understand why barefoot people don't just say that. I would find that admirable, not that my admiration should matter to anyone. "

If the truth be known Bea, you have liklely hit on a very vaild point...of course can't speak for all or even most barefooters, but I do think there is a lifestyle element involved. If you ask a committed barefooters how to handle traction on grass at a 5ft jump-and assuming it ISN'T possible barefoot or with boots, one answer I have received is then "perhaps we need to question what we are asking our horses to do."

Now isn't that an ugly can of worms to open? Again I have no idea how many feel this way but I have asked one person and received this answer.

Bea

Sep. 5, 2004, 08:27 AM

LMH, to me, you, and others here, are the voice of reason regarding horse's feet. I can understand why you're frustrated. Regarding Tom Stovall's stance on lowering heels vs elevating on horse with NS. When I was reviewing his comments, I did notice something that was unclear to me. And wondered if an answer to this was contained somehow within. He stated he doesn't wedge horses with NS until the load bearing surface of the heel is increased, because otherwise the heel would crush. Can you increase the load bearing surface of the heel without lowering it?

Lastly, Tom Stovall does seem willing to stand firmly behind the tenet that shoes offer a competitive edge in certain disciplines at top levels, more height, more speed, more length. I don't get the impression he was willing to argue too strenously the effects of shoes in dressage or hunters. Although, why I seem to have started speaking for Tom Stovall, I can't imagine. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif If nothing else it might freak him out so much, he'll never return. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LMH

Sep. 5, 2004, 08:28 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Simkie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by trailblazer:
I wish the Stovall-ites had the knowledge to think before putting shoes on the horse. The damage is often irreversible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse me?

What on earth are you talking about? Proof, please. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simkie-do a search on horses and hoof damage or something of the sort--there are several articles addressing the topic...of course the question must be asked as to the credibility of the author and his studies...unfortunately alot (not all) of this information comes from those that support the Strasser method-and of course that method isn't so popular so it calls the whole conclusion into question.

Of course others that do NOT promote nailing on shoes would be Jaime Jackson and KC LaPierre(does KC ever advocate shoeing? I believe no but not 100% sure)---anyway they have books and such that address this as well.

And then it certainly can't be argued that poorly applied shoe or a shoe applied to a poorly trimmed hoof can indeed cause damage...but that just seems like sense to me.

Bea

Sep. 5, 2004, 08:54 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH: Now isn't that an ugly can of worms to open? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, and I hestitated to mention it for that reason. But then went for the 'in for a penny, in for a pound' philosophy. And I think it's a 'can of worms' that often simmers on this BB in every forum. An understandable tension.

Simkie

Sep. 5, 2004, 09:02 AM

I have a hard time understanding how any well educated, well informed individual can possibly believe Strasser.

These same people point to their horse, who went lame from horrible shoeing and say all shoes are bad.

That's like me pointing to a horse a trainer f*cked up and saying "All training is bad."

I'm lucky enough to have a fabulous farrier. He actually learned a lot from Stovall years and years ago. My horses are sound, they have fabulous feet, and they're in balance. Trey prefers to keep them barefoot. If they can't go barefoot, he prefers to keep it simple. Blush needs shoes if she's going to work, so she got all four on yesterday. He's good with horses with perfect feet, and he's fantastic with lame horses, or bad footed horses. ALL of my horses have better feet since I started using him.

What's interesting is Trey is actually living in Ohio now. He flies back to Colorado every three weeks to take care of his clients here. His impression of the work he's seen in Ohio? Midieval. He's been able to walk into a barn, trim and shoe a dead lame horse, and have it walk off sound. He's not doing anything special--just trimming the horse in balance, and giving it the support of a shoe if it's needed.

I suppose that good farriers are a rarity. I absolutely agree that a bad trim or a bad shoe job can lame a horse. Hell, I ended up euthanizing my gelding because a farrier screwed up. He ended up with tons of soft tissue damamge in his foot, and never got over that. Trey was able to take that mess and make Springer comfortable.

I suspect that the barefoot zealots have never seen or experienced good shoeing work.

I looked for awhile and still couldn't find anything published in a peer-reviewed journal that proved shoeing causes irreversible damage to feet. Of course, if the statement is ammended "BAD shoeing can cause irreversible damage to feet" then I whole-heartedly agree http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Lookout

Sep. 5, 2004, 09:32 AM

See, this just doesn't make sense. If they believe barefoot is better but shoes cause no harm, then this is a flaw in logic because there is no reason for barefoot to be "better".
If something is better, than the other thing has to be worse.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
That could be Lookout-however I think the difference still is a farrier may feel barefoot is better but that no "true" harm is done by a shoe...the other team feels there IS true harm. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMH

Sep. 5, 2004, 10:01 AM

Let me try an analogy---now granted this is a 10 second think on it one...so I reserve the right to change it.

Excerising 3 days a week is good for for...5 days a week is better--it doesn't mean 3 days a week is worse...does that one work? If not give me a few minutes http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I kinda like that wild side in you Bea! In for a penny, in for a pound! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif Actually maybe addressing that side of it would make more sense---or make things terribly worse. We shall see who runs with that theory...and after I will, if you would like, give you my 2c on it http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Also you must remind me to share a conversation with you I had with JB about 2 years ago when her 4yo was barefoot and mine was shod... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

Sep. 5, 2004, 10:52 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
Also you must remind me to share a conversation with you I had with JB about 2 years ago when her 4yo was barefoot and mine was shod... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, you might have to remind ME! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LMH

Sep. 5, 2004, 11:19 AM

There you are JB-wanted to be sure you will still with us...do you NOT recall back (it must have been when Julian and Rio were 4yo)...when we were discussing shoes? Rio was barefoot and Julian had shoes...I was STUNNED and totally freaked out that you were riding and jumping (granted LOW jumps) this barefoot horse...I kept telling you how there was NO way he would hold up and could go to shows barefoot! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

I swear I thought JB had totally gone round the bend...well here I am 2 years later! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

So if the truth be known JB must be MORE of a zealot than I could EVER EVER be!!! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 5, 2004, 12:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lookout:
See, this just doesn't make sense. If they believe barefoot is better but shoes cause no harm, then this is a flaw in logic because there is no reason for barefoot to be "better". If something is better, than the other thing has to be worse...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Allow me to set your mind at ease: Barefoot is better than shoeing until a horse demonstrates the need for shoes. When a horse demonstrates a need for shoes for protection, traction, or to effect a therapeutic change in way of going, then shoeing is better than barefoot. The horse, not its connections, determine "need" and the determination assumes no changes in use, environment, and husbandry.

For the benefit of those who came in late, one of the members of this forum has repeatedly asked me why I do not embrace the trimming protocols of Robert Bowker and insinuated my reasons for rejecting them were somehow related to a failure to understand Bowker's reasoning.

Like many zealots, Bowker's Faithful feel that anyone with the temerity to point out the deficiencies in his trimming protocols as they apply to navicular syndrome surely must not be able to understand the factors involved. That anyone could understand his hypothesis, then reject it out of hand precisely because of that understanding, appears incomprehensible to the Faithful and tantamount to heresy.

Bowker uses the foot of a feral horse in an abrasive environment as a model. His hypothesis is based on the incompressibility of fluids and
the ability of moving fluids within elastic containment to dissipate energy, a phenomenon he calls, "hemodynamic flow." Bowker hypothesizes
that when the foot impacts the ground, outward movement of lateral cartilages creates a vacuum that pulls blood from beneath P3 into the
rear portion of the foot and dissipates the energy caused by impact.

To achieve this theoretical end, he touts something called a
"physiological trim." According to this protocol, the toe is shortened
and the heels are gradually lowered until the frog is on the ground.
The frog is not trimmed, the bars left intact, a sole plane established,
and sole pressure encouraged. The object of the trim is to create a
foot that that has a solar surface 1/3 distal to the apex of the frog,
2/3 proximal.

Bowker's press releases claim anecdotal evidence demonstrating the
superiority of Bowker's "physiological trim" to conventional farriery in
the treatment of navicular syndrome.

Such claims are open to criticism.

A feral foot modeled by an abrasive environment serves the feral horse
well. Feral horses have not natural enemies, do not carry weight, pull
loads, or engage in forced exercise; as a consequence, they don't
require an efficient foot for survival. On the other hand, a domestic
horse requires an efficient foot, with efficiency commensurate with
use: a pasture ornament does not require a particularly efficient foot;
a race horse requires an extremely efficient foot. For this reason, a
model based on feral horses has relevance to feral horses, not domestic
horses. The ideal model for domestic horses in use is the foot of horses
that have demonstrated superior efficiency in use.

Bowker's advocacy of gradually lowering the heels on every horse does
not consider phalangeal alignment and the possible deleterious effect
such a procedure may have on the individual. He does not consider the
increased compression of the navicular bone by the deep digital flexor
tendon or distal interphalangeal joint extension on lowering the heels.
He does not consider the effect of lowering the heels on bruises to the
navicular bursa, fractures or bony changes of the navicular bone, or
other causes of pain in the posterior third of the foot.

Pain on palpation of the middle third of the frog with hoof testers is
often a symptom of navicular syndrome, yet Bowker advocates lowering
the heels until the frog is on the ground. Lowering the heels of horses
diagnosed with many forms of NS invariably cause pain on loading the
foot - yet, the pain of such a horse is not a consideration.

Bowker does not consider the individual's conformation or use.

Bowker's hypothesis has not been tested. Not once, not ever.

On paper, Bowker's hypothesis apparently has a great deal of appeal, especially to anyone lacking practical experience with the treatment of the
various pathologies affecting the heel. "Hemodynamic flow" sounds good
and promises much; but despite all the hoopla and self-aggrandizing press,
in reality, there is no evidence that suggests the application of
Bowker's protocols are as beneficial in the treatment of navicular
syndrome as are traditional, short toe, natural angle, trimming/shoeing
methods.

LMH

Sep. 5, 2004, 12:51 PM

Thank you Tom. Now THAT is exactly what I was looking for.

Of course I may not agree with your conclusions regarding his theory...but I did ask for your reasons...and now...answered.

Is it true it has never been tested not once? (Honest question)...no farrier has ever successfully treated NS by lowering heels? and applying the "physiological trim?"

Also curious (slb, perhaps?) What is Natural Balance protocol in dealing with heel pain/NS pain in horses?

Lookout

Sep. 5, 2004, 01:07 PM

I appreciate your effort at setting my mind at ease but since it was not at unease it wasn't necessary. In fact your argument seems to be designed to set your own mind at ease. I know you have trouble sticking to one train of thought but, but we are not talking about whether a horse demonstrates a "need" for shoes but rather whether barefoot is better for the horse's health. Whether he demonstrates a "need" (which is completely debatable and another whole issue) or not, does not affect the harmfullness or lack thereof of shoes. Either barefoot is better or it isn't and if it is shoeing is worse. The "need" for shoes doesn't make them somehow less harmful. It's not relative, it's absolute.

I'd like to know why farriers say barefoot is better.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lookout:
See, this just doesn't make sense. If they believe barefoot is better but shoes cause no harm, then this is a flaw in logic because there is no reason for barefoot to be "better". If something is better, than the other thing has to be worse...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Allow me to set your mind at ease: Barefoot is better than shoeing until a horse demonstrates the need for shoes. When a horse demonstrates a need for shoes for protection, traction, or to effect a therapeutic change in way of going, then shoeing is better than barefoot. The horse, not its connections, determine "need" and the determination assumes no changes in use, environment, and husbandry.
[/QUOTE]

Simkie

Sep. 5, 2004, 01:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lookout:
I'd like to know why farriers say barefoot is better.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it's a whole hell of a lot easier on farriers back to trim a horse http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Seriously, Lookout--where's your proof that it's harmful for a horse to be shod? I've looked. I haven't found anything.

Sep. 5, 2004, 01:48 PM

LMH - Oh yeah, THAT conversation! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif lolol

LMH

Sep. 5, 2004, 02:42 PM

"To achieve this theoretical end, he touts something called a
"physiological trim." According to this protocol, the toe is shortened
and the heels are gradually lowered until the frog is on the ground.
The frog is not trimmed, the bars left intact, a sole plane established,
and sole pressure encouraged. The object of the trim is to create a
foot that that has a solar surface 1/3 distal to the apex of the frog,
2/3 proximal.

Bowker's advocacy of gradually lowering the heels on every horse does
not consider phalangeal alignment and the possible deleterious effect
such a procedure may have on the individual."

Another question here...and just wanted to clarify--these are honest questions based on experience-not questions to further debate...my personal questions, if you will.

Would this trim, if applied correctly not ensure phalangeal alignment...I am considering situations when it would NOT align things properly...a rotated (foundered) horse? A broken bone?

If you trim to the guidelines set above, what is the case that it would cause a broken back axis?

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 5, 2004, 03:10 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
Thank you Tom. Now THAT is exactly what I was looking for.

Of course I may not agree with your conclusions regarding his theory...but I did ask for your reasons...and now...answered.

Is it true it has never been tested not once? (Honest question)...no farrier has ever successfully treated NS by lowering heels? and applying the "physiological trim?"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
To my knowledge, no one has successfully treated navicular syndrome solely by the application of Bowker's protocols - or any other trim that involves lowering the heels on horses with upright conformation. Anecdotes abound, but all of the success stories appear to have included drastic changes in the horse's use and/or husbandry. IMO, unless the latter factors are unchanged, a protocol cannot be termed "successful", as any improvement might be rightfully attributable to some other factor(s).

I have personal knowledge of a couple of pensioners with typical QH conformation - upright conformation, small foot, big body - that were diagnosed with NS, needed bar shoes to compete successfully at the highest levels of professional barrel racing, and were retired when their owner got tired of life on the road and didn't want/need to sell them. She keeps their toes knocked off and radiused and thinks she's done something grand if two feet happen to match - usually, they don't. They've been asymptomatic for the last 10 years. I don't think her trim has anything to do with their being sound, I suspect it's most likely the lack of concussion, constant trailering, and forced exercise.

LMH

Sep. 5, 2004, 03:40 PM

Thanks again Tom. I know in Bowker's article published in The Thoroughbred Times, he does have a section on "keep em moving," if you will, so in fact movement would tie in with a change of circumstances if the horse was previously confined most of the time...I suppose then one would argue a lifestyle change as opposed to just a foot change....of course this also presumes his position of movement creating increased circulation being a necessary factor.

Interesting points to ponder.

I am also curious in your experience in the live sole plane providing an accurate road map to alignment...situations when this just didn't do...the only other one that came to mind was a pure conformational deviation...I would still assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the foot would accomodate for such deviations by laying down sole (for lack of a better way for me to explain it)...in order to line things up.

Raleigh's Mom

Sep. 5, 2004, 03:41 PM

I've been one of the lurkers keeping up since the very first post.... just wanted to comment on the civility of the current tone. Certainly makes for much more enjoyable reading and creates a better environment for learning. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 5, 2004, 03:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lookout:
I appreciate your effort at setting my mind at ease but since it was not at unease it wasn't necessary. In fact your argument seems to be designed to set your own mind at ease. I know you have trouble sticking to one train of thought but, but we are not talking about whether a horse demonstrates a "need" for shoes but rather whether barefoot is better for the horse's health.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Since no credible evidence exists suggesting that proper shoeing has a deleterious effect on horses' health, any argument claiming that shoes are intrinsically harmful is specious.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Whether he demonstrates a "need" (which is completely debatable and another whole issue) or not, does not affect the harmfullness or lack thereof of shoes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Directly or indireclty, both use and the horse's health are inextricably related to shoe/don't shoe.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Either barefoot is better or it isn't and if it is shoeing is worse.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nonsense. Your premise presumes the conclusion to be demonstrated. In reality, under some circumstances, barefoot is best; under other circumstances, shod is best.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
The "need" for shoes doesn't make them somehow less harmful. It's not relative, it's absolute.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Before you can claim shoes are harmful, then use that claim as a premise for your argument, you must first demonstrate that shoes are harmful.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I'd like to know why farriers say barefoot is better.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I doubt you've every heard any farrier say barefoot is always better, for every horse, under all circumstances. If you have, don't buy a used car from him.

LMH

Sep. 5, 2004, 03:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Raleigh's Mom:
I've been one of the lurkers keeping up since the very first post.... just wanted to comment on the civility of the current tone. Certainly makes for much more enjoyable reading and creates a better environment for learning. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually this conversation is extremely interesting and helpful...gives ALL kinds of things to think about http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

evenstar

Sep. 5, 2004, 04:07 PM

Raleigh's Mom says:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I've been one of the lurkers keeping up since the very first post.... just wanted to comment on the civility of the current tone. Certainly makes for much more enjoyable reading and creates a better environment for learning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. I almost quit on this thread a few pages back, but I'm glad I didn't. I'm learning quite a lot, though I still am unshaken from my agreement with the statement that "some horses need shoes, and some don't".

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 5, 2004, 04:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
_ Another question here_...and just wanted to clarify--these are honest questions based on experience-not questions to further debate...my personal questions, if you will.

Would this trim, if applied correctly not ensure phalangeal alignment...I am considering situations when it would NOT align things properly...a rotated (foundered) horse? A broken bone?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cutting heel is SOP in the vet clinics down here for remodeling a foot after rotation - one can't push P3 back into alignment, so after a founder is stable, remodeling begins a short toe, the establishment of a new plane (a la Boker!) roughly parallel to the corium of P3, usually with some mechanical device designed to assist in maintaining stability if the horse has another laminetic episode.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
If you trim to the guidelines set above, what is the case that it would cause a broken back axis?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Upright conformation.

horse_poor

Sep. 5, 2004, 05:10 PM

I have completely missed my calling in life....I am now going to quit my job and become a popcorn/lawn chair vendor on controversial COTH threads-when there are several going on, which often happens, I am going to offer a shuttle from one to the next, for a nominal fee of course...

that being said......I have a horse that had he been left barefoot, would have eventually had such crushed heels I shudder to think what his foot would have eventually looked like--it is thru the Grace of God that a fabulous farrier by the name of Dutch who had the knowledge of what to do to fix this issue---I also have a trainign horse wo is recovering from an accident that left her hoof a mangled mess-Dutch once again was able to fix this---

As with everything, shoes have their place---but better, a good farrier knows what the horse needs and is not happy unless the horse walks away better from the cross ties than when it walked to the cross ties, whether it be from shoeing, trimming, acrylics, equithane, yadda yadda yadda

'Nuff said

Anyone want some popcorn or perhaps a lawn chair?

Lookout

Sep. 5, 2004, 05:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:
Since no credible evidence exists suggesting that proper shoeing has a deleterious effect on horses' health, any argument claiming that shoes are intrinsically harmful is specious.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>

So I guess, then, most farriers are making specious arguments.

[QUOTE]Either barefoot is better or it isn't and if it is shoeing is worse.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nonsense. Your premise presumes the conclusion to be demonstrated. In reality, under some circumstances, barefoot is best; under other circumstances, shod is best.

There's no premise here. Either barefoot is better, or barefoot is not better. One or the other.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Before you can claim shoes are harmful, then use that claim as a premise for your argument, you must first demonstrate that shoes are harmful.
[QUOTE]
Yes, that's true. Since I'm not making any claims then I don't need to demonstrate anything.
I'd STILL like to know why farriers say barefoot is better.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I doubt you've every heard any farrier say barefoot is always better, for every horse, under all circumstances. If you have, don't buy a used car from him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can believe what you like and dismiss the question by altering the fact to suit your need.
That doesn't change it in reality though.

Bea

Sep. 5, 2004, 05:24 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:
I have personal knowledge of a couple of pensioners with typical QH conformation - upright conformation, small foot, big body - that were diagnosed with NS, needed bar shoes to compete successfully at the highest levels of professional barrel racing. They've been asymptomatic for the last 10 years. I don't think her trim has anything to do with their being sound, I suspect it's most likely the lack of concussion, constant trailering, and forced exercise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We have one of these in the pasture as well. One of those amazing QHs geldings with hundreds of AQHA points. Purchased as title campaigner for my ex SO's then teenage daughter. And did indeed take her to a national title - good old QHs! Completely seemingly sound as a pasture ornament for the five years I've known him.

I wonder if he, like the horses Tom Stovall mentioned, and Lookout's horse, might be explained by the study that came out in 2003 regarding MRIs and NS. Seems to me this study really began to tease apart NS and put a new slant on many of the current treatments. In fact, to the extent, I'm almost surprised these 'how do you shoe for NS' threads still take place without acknowledgement of this new diagnostic development. Perhaps the above horses suffered from bursitis or tendonitis that somehow resolved itself from simple pasture rest. Their recovery had nothing at all to do with care of their feet. If they had true navicular, fluid in the navicular bone -- unseeable, I've read, on x-rays -- would they have had this seeming recovery with whatever trim and pasture?

LMH

Sep. 5, 2004, 05:33 PM

OK rotation I get then...no more questions on that end.

Upright conformation...let me formulate this in my head...unfortunately I have only owned one horse that had an upright foot....clubby? I guess? but she appeared more "high low" (euphamism for clubby?) and I never had xrays taken to be able to add intelligently on that end.

How can I ask what I am trying to ask....

OK---upright horse...this to me means his alignment is correct when he looks upright on the outside-when we look at him...but when you trim a horse like this, would his sole not accomodate for his up-righted-ness (dang I am really getting techinical now), therefore making the map to properly trim him still LSP?

In other words...the LSP, I suppose also looking at new growth, would dictate his angles?

Crud....I am losing this thought...I think...

was there one shred of sense in that question?

Bea

Sep. 5, 2004, 05:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lookout:You can believe what you like and dismiss the question by altering the fact to suit your need.
That doesn't change it in reality though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Lookout, if the question is: do all farriers believe barefoot is better in all situations. Then no, that haven't been my experience with farriers.

Why aren't there discussions about Strasser theories like Tom Stovall and LMH are having about Bowker. Bowker has been published in industry accepted publications -- has presented at the AAEP convention. His theories are taken seriously enough among his peers that they argue the details. When I do a search on Strasser, one of the first things I come up with is the UK's equivalent of the AAEP issuing a warning that practitioners of her theories can cause serious injury to horses. Why aren't the Strasserites out campaigning for funds to conduct serious research studies proving her theories. Turn the tide that way so to speak. Rather than trying to convince people with such dubious materials. No matter whether Strasser is proven correct in fifty years time or not. It seems too tough a row to hoe with the equipment presently at hand.

LMH

Sep. 5, 2004, 06:11 PM

I have some other random thoughts and questions as well...

Have you ever seen NS (for reference, I will just use NS as a catch all for "navicular synrdrome/heel pain at this point in the discussion for ease of typing) in a properly trimmed, balanced and aligned horse...as opposed to one that was allowed to go LT/LH or overly high heel?

Were there any conditions common to these cases (for example, little footed big bodied QH or horse primarily stabled lacking "normal" movement)...or to simplify is NS a "man-made" condition that occurs when feet are not properly attended to or living conditions corrupt what is natural (and perhaps needed) for a horse to develop and/or maintain healthy feet?

Also do you feel there is a difference between simply an upright or high heeled horse and a true club? (I think this is close to where I was trying to go in my previous question-that a true club footed horse would be in alignment trimmed to LSP with perhaps a "high heel", as opposed to one simply left to grow tall).Please give any detail to this you feel pertinent.

And depending on your position above, do you feel a true club (if you feel that condition exists) can be brought to a "normal" foot with careful consideration of the trim-granted such transition might take months or years...or once a club, always a club.

Rodeio

Sep. 5, 2004, 06:41 PM

I have a horse that has short pasterns and they are very upright. She has high heels with little toe. Both my vet and farrier say that she is not club footed. To be club footed there has to be a flexural deformity of the coffin joint and that is what raises the heel. Her x-rays reveal normal, clean joints and normal bone positions, she just happens to be short and upright.

Also, LMH when you use the TLA (three letter acronym) LSP what are you referring to? My brain is not functioning after moving hay today!

Lookout

Sep. 5, 2004, 07:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bea:
Lookout, if the question is: do all farriers believe barefoot is better in all situations. Then no, that haven't been my experience with farriers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course, you're not going to get 100% agreement on anything. But this is a VERY common response of farriers to the barefoot issue.

CHJoker

Sep. 5, 2004, 11:52 PM

WELLL..... in response to the claim that there is no credible evidence of shoes being harmful....

I have to dig and find the published study, but there is evidence that a iron shod horse has 3 times more vibration at the walk than a barefoot horse has at the trot on the same surface. Really, though, this seems a bit like common sense... how harmful is it? hard to say, I am sure.

Shoes applied wrongly or left on too long can most certainly cause damage (butI don't think any one argues this point!)

But, then again, a bad trim can MOST certainly cause damage as well.

I will say, though, a new farrier came into our barn recently, and he saw that I had no shoes on my horse. He asked me about it, and when I explained the situation, and how well he is going, he said...well, it is the best for a horse, if he can do it. (I should ask him to talk to my former farrier, who thinks I am the devil herself http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

This is really a topic that could be debated for the next 5 years. Until some controlled studies are performed, with well shod and well trimmed horses, performing the same jobs.... and followed up for many years.....well, it will be hard to prove anything (for either side).

For my horse, however, barefoot is best, at this point and time.

slb

Sep. 6, 2004, 12:05 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:
To my knowledge, no one has successfully treated navicular syndrome solely by the application of Bowker's protocols - or any other trim that involves lowering the heels on horses with upright conformation. Anecdotes abound, but all of the success stories appear to have included drastic changes in the horse's use and/or husbandry. IMO, unless the latter factors are unchanged, a protocol cannot be termed "successful", as any improvement might be rightfully attributable to some other factor(s). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tom, while I agree with your assessment, it is hardly fair to use this criteria when evaluating any protocol. After all, many similar changes are often made when methods following yours are applied. So, there is no "true" application for other protocols either.

I don't think that anyone is claiming that exclusively applying Bowker's protocol will result in success. Any competent farrier will confirm that it is necessary to understand and apply many different methods...especially when treating NS as it is the result of a variety of causes....each horse must be assessed as an individual and the application that best addresses its particlular problem used. Do you treat each case exactly the same? Are all of your cases capable of staying in full work and none need either confinment or turnout that is different than its normal amounts of turnout or confinement. Do not some require deep bedding when they might have only had a small amount under normal circumstances? Do you not make nutrition recommendations for horses that may need it? Do you not assess the entire horse and its lifestyle when treating pathologies?

However, believe what you may, I can still confim a large percentage of success with horses that have their frogs on the ground and are not under any requirements to change their lifestyle. This includes horses that have "upright" conformation.

If you are now asking "but are these performance horses", I would have to say...what exactly is the definition of performance? Can the horse continue doing its job...yes...but its job most likely is not in the realm of world class competition....there is a larger relam to equine ownership than high level competition. Its job is more likely trail riding or local showing in a variety of events.

slb

Sep. 6, 2004, 12:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Asked by LMH...
If you trim to the guidelines set above, what is the case that it would cause a broken back axis?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Upright conformation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tom, could you explain why you believe this would be so?

slb

Sep. 6, 2004, 12:19 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Also, LMH when you use the TLA (three letter acronym) LSP what are you referring to? My brain is not functioning after moving hay today! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LSP = Live Sole Plane

swampgum

Sep. 6, 2004, 04:52 AM

Luca Bein in his 1983 dissertation categorically proved that a shod horse at a walk on asphalt receives THREE TIMES the concussion as a barefoot at a trot on the same surface. No wonder arthritic horses are happy to get into boots

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 6, 2004, 05:30 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
I have some other random thoughts and questions as well...

Have you ever seen NS (for reference, I will just use NS as a catch all for "navicular synrdrome/heel pain at this point in the discussion for ease of typing) in a properly trimmed, balanced and aligned horse...as opposed to one that was allowed to go LT/LH or overly high heel?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
IME, "normal", with respect to balance and angulation, is the most common presentation.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Were there any conditions common to these cases (for example, little footed big bodied QH or horse primarily stabled lacking "normal" movement)...or to simplify is NS a "man-made" condition that occurs when feet are not properly attended to or living conditions corrupt what is natural (and perhaps needed) for a horse to develop and/or maintain healthy feet?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
IME, big body/little feet with medium/hard use is the most common presentation. There doesn't seem to be a correlation between environment or husbandry within this group - it encompasses working ranch horses, cattle-associated show/rodeo horses, rail class horses, dressage horses, jumpers, and runners. Texas is top-heavy with QH-type horses, so my experience is probably not typical of farriers in other parts of the country.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Also do you feel there is a difference between simply an upright or high heeled horse and a true club? (I think this is close to where I was trying to go in my previous question-that a true club footed horse would be in alignment trimmed to LSP with perhaps a "high heel", as opposed to one simply left to grow tall).Please give any detail to this you feel pertinent.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is not very scientific, as it involves a quick and dirty field test on a hard surface. Presented with high end hoof angulation (>60º), short toe and absent veterinary diagnosis, I raise the toe by placing a wedge pad under the foot, big end towards the toe. If the heel touches the ground when loaded and there's no pain response from the horse, I remove an amount equal to the thickness of the pad from the heel. I repeat this test each time the horse is trimmed/shod until the horse is no longer broken forward,
the heel fails to touch the ground on loading, or the test elicits a pain response.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
And depending on your position above, do you feel a true club (if you feel that condition exists) can be brought to a "normal" foot with careful consideration of the trim-granted such transition might take months or years...or once a club, always a club.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
IME, depending on the horse's response to the above Q&D test, some horses can be returned to normal angulation, others cannot without surgical intervention. Again, IME, the older the horse and the higher the angulation, the less the probability of returning the horse to normal angulation.

LMH

Sep. 6, 2004, 10:15 AM

Can you believe, the darn conversation gets civil and has less activity than it has since the whole thing started! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Pocket Pony

Sep. 6, 2004, 10:34 AM

I've been reading all along, and while I admit to enjoying the back and forth bantering and heated debate, I find the civil discussion much more educational. Sigh. Boring me sitting home on a holiday reading COTH.

Luckily, Mr. PP is making a chocolate-raspberry cheesecake and let me lick the bowl!!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 6, 2004, 11:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by slb:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tom Stovall, CJF:
To my knowledge, no one has successfully treated navicular syndrome solely by the application of Bowker's protocols - or any other trim that involves lowering the heels on horses with upright conformation. Anecdotes abound, but all of the success stories appear to have included drastic changes in the horse's use and/or husbandry. IMO, unless the latter factors are unchanged, a protocol cannot be termed "successful", as any improvement might be rightfully attributable to some other factor(s).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Tom, while I agree with your assessment, it is hardly fair to use this criteria when evaluating any protocol. After all, many similar changes are often made when methods following yours are applied. So, there is no "true" application for other protocols either.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
With all due respect, I disagree. IME, the application of various mechanical devices can have an immediate and dramatic effect on soundness - limp up crippled, walk off sound stuff. Various devices that stabilize the hoof capsule and/or bony column and those that protect sensitive areas from environmental pressure come to mind. (e.g., pressure bars that stabilize the DIJ; egg bars that stabilize sheared heels; bubbles forged on the inner web over a draining abscess, etc.) Not all mechanical protocols work as rapidly, but if they are effective, results are evident sooner rather than later.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I don't think that anyone is claiming that exclusively applying Bowker's protocol will result in success.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's exactly what the press release claims. The anecdotes there claim success after the application of Bowker's protocols after the failure of mechanical methods and do not mention husbandry.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Any competent farrier will confirm that it is necessary to understand and apply many different methods...especially when treating NS as it is the result of a variety of causes....each horse must be assessed as an individual and the application that best addresses its particular problem used...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Any competent farrier will assess the individual and its job description on presentation of a diagnosis of NS. As long as someone remembers to keep the toes knocked of, tincture of time works on pasture potatos; OTOH, horses at the other end of the use spectrum require mechanical methods that allow healing while the horse is in use, a goal difficult/impossible to
attain by trimming alone.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Do you treat each case exactly the same?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No ma'am, I try to assess the needs of the individual as they relate to their reason for existence.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Are all of your cases capable of staying in full work and none need either confinment or turnout that is different than its normal amounts of turnout or confinement...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Some are, some aren't. Success is dependent on the particular type and severity of a particular pathology. Generally speaking, if mechanical means can stop the pain attendant to a pathology, the horse can be returned to service immediately. If not, IME, horses usually heal faster when the pain of a pathology is at least partially palliated.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Do not some require deep bedding when they might have only had a small amount under normal circumstances?...
Bedding changes are dependent on veterinary recommendation; husbandry is not my call.
[QUOTE]
Do you not make nutrition recommendations for horses that may need it?...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Absolutely not! My expertise is limited to farriery and blacksmithing; I am not a nutritionist.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Do you not assess the entire horse and its lifestyle when treating pathologies?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I try to give every horse what is needs to do whatever it does as efficiently as possible. In order to do so, I assess history, conformation, diagnosis, use, and husbandry to the degree it may affect any mechanical protocol I apply.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
However, believe what you may, I can still confim a large percentage of success with horses that have their frogs on the ground and are not under any requirements to change their lifestyle. This includes horses that have "upright" conformation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One can easily make such claims with bloodstock, pasture potatos, and horses in light use; such claims become ludicrous when they involve speed, sudden changes in direction, extensive hauling, the routine torquing of a loaded foot, and jumping.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
If you are now asking "but are these performance horses", I would have to say...what exactly is the definition of performance? Can the horse continue doing its job...yes...but its job most likely is not in the realm of world class competition....there is a larger relam to equine ownership than high level competition. Its job is more likely trail riding or local showing in a variety of events.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Most or the horse I shoe, even the dressage horses, work for a living - in the pasture, in the show ring, in the arena, or at the track. Unless it's through a vet clinic or another farrier, I don't see any horses that aren't in training for something or other, so it would probably be fair to say that I don't really know how the other half lives.

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 6, 2004, 06:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by swampgum:
Luca Bein in his 1983 dissertation categorically proved that a shod horse at a walk on asphalt receives THREE TIMES the concussion as a barefoot at a trot on the same surface. No wonder arthritic horses are happy to get into boots <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dissertations don't "prove" anything, categorically or otherwise. Observations don't "prove" anything, they are a report of what somebody saw. A double blind study conducted under stringent scientific conditions
that confirms a hypothesis at every testing, then is published, peer reviewed and repeatedly replicated does not "prove" anything, it confirms the hypothesis.

Somebody, somewhere, may have conducted a scientific study suggesting that shod horses walking on asphalt receive 10 times the concussion as barefooted horses - but until that amount is demonstrated to be in excess of the horse's ability to handle without harm, it's irrelevant.

trailblazer

Sep. 6, 2004, 06:36 PM

Whew, I'm so glad that you have finally admitted that you can't prove "that horses can pull more weight, run faster and/or jump higher when correctly shod in accord with the individual's needs relative to its particular environment than they can barefooted"! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Now that that has been cleared up, how is concussion irrelevant? Can you demonstrate that it is beneficial? A major side effect of shoeing has been revealed, yet you try to dismiss it. Do you honestly believe that shoeing has NO repercussions?

Bea

Sep. 6, 2004, 07:21 PM

I'd like to read Luca Bein's dissertation. Does anyone know if that's possible on-line? Or could I obtain it so other way? Or could someone explain in more depth his study. The Strasser article states he tested conventionally shod, alternatively shod, and barefoot horses. And the conventionally shod horses showed higher concussion. How did he measure concussion? Did he conduct his test on other surfaces, and if so what were his results? What exactly is the shoeing of a conventionally shod horse in Switzerland in 1983? And an alternatively shod one? Many thanks. And I swear I come in peace to learn. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Silly Mommy

Sep. 6, 2004, 09:07 PM

Thanks for the entertainment guys.

My 4yr old only started wearing shoes after he stepped on a nail and needed a little lift as the boo-boo was mid frog, and it ouched on sand - farrier suggested just a shoe first, then if need be - a pad - didn't need to go there.

My 5 yr old has front only shoes, as she abcessed dead-center on her coronary with a resultant crack two winters ago, which grew out, then she was barefoot again, then with this wet spring/summer her feet started to crumble and she has them back on - I think we put them on in mid-June. I was at an A2 show late this summer, and a BNT was checking her out - he stopped, stared, then said "Oh, she doesn't HAVE shoes on behind!" - he thought she'd lost one http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif.

I don't have a single horse in the barn (of my own) that currently has hind shoes on.

That being said, when the 5 yr old starts doing 3'6", she will be shod on all 4 - schooling at home on my grass ring, I feel a tension that I don't have in the sand indoor - the tension translates to her pulling and getting quick. Since not all shows have sand rings, I'm not going to play games with being barefoot or not. The four year old pulled one of his shoes last night, and I pulled the other one off - he won't suffer without them at this point, but will have new Nikes when he goes to FL in February. I don't believe he would suffer barefoot, but I also don't want to get down there and have problems due to the added stress of the haul/difference in climate/humidity/sand/whatever...

To those of you who have never done a 4'6" or higher jumpoff, you'll never know why screws are so important - I have, and do, and will do so again. There is a reason that there are no GP jumpers going around without studs - eventers are crazy anyway http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif, so why not try it barefoot! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

LMH - love ya hunny, but you posted WAY back:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Correct me if I am wrong, but did it not used to be quite common at indoors to pull a horse's shoes before the under saddle class so he would move better?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, this was/is done, but the weight of the shoes affects the toe point, not the actual movement - superficial like the rest of hunterland. These days judging has changed a bit and it isn't always the daisy cutter who wins the hack. As a side not to that, those horses had those shoes back on before they went home. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Miss ya!

Anywho - there are farriers out there who promote "less is better", and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", who also educate and even show you how (much) to rasp off the heel of a foal who is growing a little straight, and discuss all the options before making any changes, aren't egocentric, and listen to you and your horse - mine is one of them, and he travels 90 miles to get to me (that's why I pulled the other shoe of my 4yr old - he's not due til 10/8). I am blessed to have found this guy, as I was in Farrier hell this spring.

LMH

Sep. 7, 2004, 04:09 AM

"These days judging has changed a bit and it isn't always the daisy cutter who wins the hack"

and perhaps I need to start a whole new thread bemoaning this fact alone...I guess the way things are going in the hunter ring THESE days folks will be asking for HEAVIER shoes for the u/s classes!! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Jsalem

Sep. 7, 2004, 04:28 AM

"It isn't always the daisy cutter who wins the hack"

I actually think this is a good thing. With the different breeds in the hunter ring now, there is a variety in movement styles. I've never been a big fan of the "no knee" stick legged movement. I like just enough knee that the horse seems to really reach forward and have some spring. I can imagine that horse having an amazing jump. I also like a horse that goes in a soft, correct frame without a lot of correction from the rider. Don't like to see the rider constantly pulling the horse's head down.

Tom Stovall, CJF

Sep. 7, 2004, 04:50 AM

QUOTE]Originally posted by trailblazer:
Whew, I'm so glad that you have finally admitted that you can't prove "that horses can pull more weight, run faster and/or jump higher when correctly shod in accord with the individual's needs relative to its particular environment than they can barefooted"! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
[/QUOTE]
The indisputable fact that shod horses run faster, jump higher and pull more weight suggests that shoeing is instrumental in their success. The fact there are no appreciable numbers of barefooted horses engaged in these activities suggests barefooted horses are unable to compete equitably with shod horses. One hears stories of the great and wondrous accomplishments of barefooted horses, but tangible evidence of their success when compared to shod horses is so scarce, the stories appear to be apocryphal.

Please do not make the mistake of arguing that something is so because no one has proved it not so, that's a logical fallacy, akin to arguing that the moon is made from green cheese because no one has proved it's made from stouter stuff.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Now that that has been cleared up, how is concussion irrelevant?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you have reference to "clearing up" your misunderstanding of the scientific method, the world is now a better place. On to concussion: Concussion is a major player in several pathologies affecting the hoof, but there is no credible evidence suggesting shoes play a significant part in the process.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Can you demonstrate that it is beneficial?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In another post, I related an offer I made to anyone who feels a horse's being barefoot is superior to being shod under all circumstances. The offer involves navicular syndrome, bar shoes, immediate veterinary assessment of the protocols, and as much money as the other side can gather. I initially made the offer to a vocal strasserite on another forum, but you are welcome to take me up on it. Spare me any nonsense about changes in husbandry, use, or phase of the moon: those are variables that are not directly related to the efficacy - read "benefit" - of the protocols.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
A major side effect of shoeing has been revealed, yet you try to dismiss it. Do you honestly believe that shoeing has NO repercussions?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No disrespect intended, but the only places I've ever seen Bein's dissertation mentioned are on the strasserite websites, so it's not exactly "revealed." I've looked in the libraries at Rice, TAMU, and TAMU Vet School, but have been unable to find any mention of it. I don't read German, but if you can find it, I can get it translated. Be kind enough post it and I'll be glad to post a translation and a criticism.

As far as "repercussions", the benefits of shoeing greatly exceed any downside when shoes are properly applied to horses that need shoeing for reasons stated previously.

It appears you might benefit by reading Heymering's criticism of Strasser's barefoot cult: http://www.anvilmag.com/farrier/207f2.htm