 |
[RC] rate him - shermanTitle: MessageMost
of CA must be far behind TX in knowledge of how to treat encysted strongyles as
it's rare that a horse owner that I mention it to has already ever heard of
it from their vets and are usually very skeptical when I talk to them about
it. Not to be argumentative, but I don't think I suggested disregarding
your responsibility as an equine owner. I don't believe that taking a
horse that may (or may not) have problems later in life is the same as
disregarding your responsibility. I've seen many horses with exemplary past care
colic, break bones, or be constantly lame with pasture injuries.Percentage wise,
when you add that additional risk due to (possible) lack of parasite care to ALL
the other health/accident risks, I wonder how much increase risk there really
is. We'll probably never be able to figure that one out. Anyway, we'll have to
agree to disagree on this one (:>) I'd still take a horse that I liked even
with an unknown background and make the best of the time we had together
(:>)
Kathy
Donna wrote: Point taken. But I have known about encysted strongyles for 20 years. And that was in Texas, to disregard your responsibility as an equine owner cause you want "a horse you can not turn down" the big trot and tragic outcome " later in life" I feel ain't worth it. Mustangs have been documented and observed eating plants and noxious weeds to keep worm levels "safe". Shatted legs, and the multiple ways horses are not always in our control, worms are.
|