Re: RC: Barefoot Stats

[guest@endurance.net]

Karen Standefer hrschk@yahoo.com
That doesn't answer my question.  How does the 3/8" rim of steel make a
horse painless when travelling on rocks vs a barehoof which most on the
list consider to be in pain and uncomfortable when travelling on rocks?
Can you, please, explain the pain/no pain issue?

In the stats that I compiled earlier, ONLY Darolyn's barefoot horses were
compiled and only 50+ miles, not LD.  The thing that I didn't get was any
of her horses that didn't have the DJB prefix.  Darolyn confirmed that the
horses I had posted were in fact barefoot (except her horse on one 100
which she booted for 20 miles and then did the 80 remaining miles
barefoot) But, at the time they were compiled she was not ever shoeing.
We don't have a way to track barefoot entries.  The numbers are good, but
they could be better and they are not accurate because they are missing
some horses. They are also missing all of Robyn's rides.

I'm not going to go back and forth about the completions anymore.  If you
guys want proof, just watch the next two years.  You'll get plenty.

The debate started out discussing the pain issue of barefoot horses vs.
shod horses.  On that count I still have not heard any theory that makes
any sense as to why a shoe prevents pain in a horse when travelling over
rocks.  Can we get back to the original subject?  Can someone answer my
question with something other than:  "It pretty much goes without saying"
?

Karen



> Karen,
> So how can you tell from the AERC completion
> statistics that the horses were
> barefoot? Darolyn's horses are only barefoot when
> possible, & shod (with
> nailed on shoes) when necessary. You can't just look
> at the AERC record &
> know what was on the horses's feet! And to me
> barefoot will always mean a
> horse with BARE feet. EZ Boots, Swiss Boots, Ol'
> Macs are SHOES.
> To answer your question, traditional steel shoes do
> only protect the wall.
> People who "shoe" do not hesitate to also use pads
> or boots where sole
> protection is needed. It pretty much goes without
> saying when you're not
> trying to prove a point.
>
> Nancy Mitts
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________