A Philosophical Meandering (related to barefootin')

[Abigail Aiyagari <abby1@itsa.ucsf.edu>]

OK, now you all know I'm still a wannabe, so that's my pre-message
disclaimer!  :)

One argument I hear a lot, in favor of shoeing, is that the horse's feet
wear excessively if the barefoot horse is ridden too much.  Different
horses, with different trims and living conditions, have different wear to
growth ratios (a W:G ratio greater than 1.0 = lame horse).  Depending on
conditioning factors, ground type, genetics, and quality of trimming, a
given horse has a certain potential lowest W:G ratio.  (I just made this
up right now off the top of my head, so no clamoring for reference
articles, please!)  We can alter all of the factors we control as much as
we can to get our horses to their highest potential (under our care,
within the limits of our skills).  If that highest potential does not
allow the horse to compete at the level we want to compete, we have two
choices: change our competition goals, or put hoof protection on the
horse.

For some people, the choice is easy; why not just shoe the horse, or foam
on Easyboots?  But I think that it's important for people to stop and
think about how far they are willing to artificially increase the horse's
potential.  For example, think about a bodybuilder.  He takes some
steroids to get his muscles as big as they can be, with as little fat on
his body as possible.  He looks really big and strong, but what happens if
this guy tries to actually USE his muscles?  Sometimes, the muscles rip
right off the bones, because ONLY the muscles have been made stronger.
The rest of his body hasn't been conditioned to the same level, so the
system fails at the weakest point.  So now imagine a horse conditioned to
a high level, with a top-notch shoe job, pads and all.  That horse, as far
as his feet are concerned, will have no problem negotiating a rocky 50 or
even 100-mile ride.  However, rough terrain also takes a toll on the rest
of his body.  His muscles have to put in extra effort to keep him balanced
over uneven, rocky ground; his joints take a beating with every misstep;
and more concussion is passed through his body every time he takes a
step.  The effects of this wear and tear may not be seen for many years,
so it's not something that the rider can see, right then, in her horse,
unless it reaches a state where a catastrophic failure such as a bowed
tendon or torn ligament occurs.  If you take the same horse, minus the
shoes, and condition him to the same level, what will happen?  Most people
will say, his feet will wear too quickly and he'll go lame if he continues
to be ridden.  This will probably happen eventually, if the horse is
pushed hard enough.  But what I want everyone to consider is, the hoof is
the most adaptable and easily repaired part of a horse's body.  Sure, he
gets a stone bruise, or wears himself too short, but the hoof just
abscesses or grows out, and voila, damage repaired.  Doesn't it make sense
that there could be a reason for this easily damaged/easily repaired sort
of system?  Maybe it's a stopgap mechanism to ensure that the horse does
not damage himself in some other way by pushing his own body too hard.
Another big argument that is often made in favor of shoeing is that we are
asking unnatural things of the horse, therefore it's OK (and even
necessary) to artificially augment him to make him able to withstand this
unnatural use.  But what I want to ask is, are we truly making him able to
withstand it, or are we only making it appear that he is withstanding it?
Do we not have a country full of 15-20 year old horses that have
arthritis, bone chips, old tendon and ligament injuries, back problems,
etc.?  This is considered normal wear and tear, but is it?  Our old horses
look very similar to old football players in their roster of injuries. 
I've heard a lot of people saying that horses would be asked to have their
hooves protected if they could speak, that it's only humane to give the
horse hoof protection.  But wouldn't it be MORE humane to really listen to
what the horse's body is trying to tell us about his abilities?  I'm sure
what horses would REALLY say if they could speak and understand what we
were asking is, "don't ride me until I break"!  

I'm honestly not trying to reopen the shod/shoeless debate, hopefully that
will stay dead for a while.  I think it's just amazing that horses will
continually allow themselves to be pushed to their potential and beyond,
maybe we owe it to them to take the little signs we do get from them more
seriously.  This is just my view of things; I plan on competing barefoot.
If I can't train in a rocky area, I will not participate in rocky rides.
If my horse's feet wear too much, I will step down the amount of work he
is doing.  Yep, I'm a purist.  I think that hoof boots also fall into the
category of artificial augmentation.  I'm not "against" them, any more
than I'm "against" shoes.  I just think that when we make the decision to
use either of those things, we need to consider all of the ramifications,
both long- and short-term.  I consider a "failure" of the horse's hoof in
the same category as a metabolic or soft-tissue failure: the horse was
pushed too hard for his conditioning.  Maybe he can be conditioned more
and brought to a higher level, and maybe not.  I will add that I think I'm 
in the minority in the barefootin' community for my views on hoof
protection.  I know that someone, can't remember who, asked about that.
Most people would willingly use hoof protection.

I hope that this doesn't upset anyone.  I'm certainly not trying to accuse
anybody of overtaxing their horses, or suspending their horses' needs in
favor of their own.  It's just something to think about, and I believe
that it applies to every aspect of what we do with our horses.  Maybe my
logic is flawed, I don't know, but this is just my take on things.

Happy trails all,
Abby (going back to lurking, where I belong)
& Cola (mom, me and my hooves need more ridin'!)


PS--About the "barefoot process" post, someone mentioned that he might
have read the $550 Strasser textbook--I seriously doubt it.  If he had, he
would be running scared.  I've seen that thing, it weighs about 15 pounds
and has enough information in it to make anyone think they don't know
what the heck they're doing!!  I'm sure he's just read Lifetime of
Soundness, a much more general book with basically no trimming guidelines
(and only costs $25).