Suitability of horse to rider...shows & showing [Archive]

Terry Wallace

08-21-2006, 04:13 PM

Well..this may turn out to be a sore subject..but I have to ask...
When will suitability of rider to horse be judged in PFHA shows? Is it now? has it ver been? I have never "witnessed" it..so I'm asking WHY it appears that we have no regard for suitability of rider to horse?

I'm talking of course SIZE. Size of rider to size of horse.

As you may recall, My best gal pal came and spent some days with me. She wants to learn more about Paso Finos, loves riding them, loves the smoothness as we all do.

In the evenings...we spent an amount of time pouring over the PFH World magazines from the 1980's to now. of course I got the question..."Whats wrong with this horse's tail" over the tail alteration subject.

The next question, over & over again was...Is there no judging on rider suitability to horse? "what is this great big person doing on this little bitty horse?" Does your association feel that doing that is O.K.?

I'd like you all to add your thoughts to the topic...
I'm a large rider myself. I have a trainer friend much larger than I. That friend will get on 600 lb horses...that horse would then be carrying MORE than half its own weight (Tack not included!).... This is something I just won't do. Don't we all know better in this day and age than to over-weight a horse?

Please add your thoughts to the rider-to-horse suitability. Is traditon driving this disregard for the horse?

O.K....donning fire-proof suit now... I'm already up for one verbal bashing on another board today! ;-)

Fire away!

Monty

08-21-2006, 04:34 PM

I agree about large people on small horses - I feel bad for the horse - I have seen Pasos in the ring that were grunting from the effort ! :roll:
But ,on the flip side - what about someone like me? I don't make 5' and weigh 115.
When I am on Monty who is 14/2 and "wide" - not fat - my legs don't hang down - they do stick out a bit,like a little kid's :oops: So am I too small to be riding him ? I felt like I looked better on Venus.
Not great pics - but notice where my legs fall on both horses -

Monty- http://groups.msn.com/RanchRiders/olerockingchairranch.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=362

Venus- http://groups.msn.com/RanchRiders/olerockingchairranch.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=377

Mona Lisa

08-21-2006, 04:35 PM

Hi all,

Very much a pet peeve of mine. Breeding the paso on the larger size to meet market needs.

I don't think we should judge on suitability. If a person is large (and I am no twiggy) they (myself included) can either move to a different breed , or go on a diet so that there is more horse/rider suitability.

I have attended many many different breed shows, and even in the large breed (as in horse size) there are people that in my opinion are too large for that horse.

If we breed to go outside the standard, then in fact there is no standard.

If I am way off the subject matter I apologize. :0

And yes I am ducking right about now.

Mona
Proud member of pound busters!

Terry Wallace

08-21-2006, 04:43 PM

The breed standard states that Pasos can range from 13HH to 15.2HH.
Personally, I don't want or need a 16HH Paso. I do see plenty of people looking for a 14.3HH to 15HH horse, weighing 1,000 lbs.

Its not "breeding outside the standard" to produce 15HH Pasos.

On the flip side...I know what you mean Mona..I have seen very tiny women aboard 17HH warmbloods that basically look like a "spec" in the saddle...but please consider this....they are not hurting the horse...not over-weighting the horse...not causing joint soreness or parallel to the ground pasterns while on the horse.

I mean its sure not rocket science to tell if a horse is overweighted....
Why is it allowed in the show ring? to me..it sends a sad message that we "don't care" if it is detrimental to the horse....JMO ;-)

Mona Lisa

08-21-2006, 04:50 PM

Terry,

I do very much understand what you mean. :D But in the showring how do you tell someone they are too "big" to ride that particular horse. I am usually voted the messenger of "bad news" at shows, but not sure how this could be approached.

Mona

motorgypsy

08-21-2006, 05:02 PM

IF the horse doesn't sink a lot with the rider and is over six years old AND the rider just walks and gaits for 30 minutes three or four times a week, quite frankly the horse is probably not going to be injured When we lived in South America a guy who probably weighed 100 pounds and was about 5'5" or less put a strap on my washing machine, picked it up onto his back with ease I might add, and carried up two flights of stairs. Size and strength are not necessarily related.

Consider the activity the horse is doing. If the horse always has three or at least two feet on the ground the extra weight is divided by two or three. If the horse doesn't loft itself off the ground it doesn't have anywhere near the impact with this extra sized rider that a jumping horse or a barrel horse has at full gallop. Even the dressage horses in that big extended trot are lofting themselves up into the air and coming down a significant distance with sizeable impact.

Soooo - if you are large and prefer a short horse, buy one that is muscular, with good bone, not fat, older than six, from a long lived healthy line and don't do anything extreme on the horse like gallop, climb huge mountains or jump the horse. If you are fairly heavy but in good physical condition you can always dismount on steep hills. You can tell if your horse is carrying too much weight. Take photos or video, notice the breathing, the way the horse moves and so on. The horse should not act like it is carrying a heavy load when you ride it no matter how large or small it is and you are.

I like our breed because it offers a variety of sizes and has breeders who prefer different sizes. But there's no way I would breed size over quality. Some of the size is from better feed. Brilliant is already taller than mom and dad as are Arwen and Adriel. DARN!

By the way - our smallest 13 2 mares weighed 750# on a horse scale at an endurance ride with no tack. Brilliant was 400 pounds on a horse scale at 11 months. Lula and Kalua at 14 and 14 1 weighed over 900 pounds again at an endurance ride on the horse scale with no tack. And there is really light weight tack out there too. Our vet told us Chinook could carry a rider who is well over 200 pounds with ease. Personally I'd let the horse tell me if it was overweighted.

Also if you are a larger person be sure your saddle is the right size for you. The problem with many really large riders is a saddle that is so small there is significant "overhang". You can wear a short that comes down over the back to minimize the problem also. As a member of the BBclan we know all kinds of tricks like that! ;-) ;-) ;-)

JennLM

08-21-2006, 05:09 PM

This was my main concern and wanted a Paso close to 15hh. We are going to be doing lots of long trail rides and I do not want to put too much strain on a smaller Paso. Yes, people say they can handle the weight, but I would much rather buy a horse who can handle my weight easier then always worrying and putting more strain on a smaller one.

I did see a few very heavy people on tiny Pasos in the Gold Cup. One was teetering one way or another and I felt badly for the horse.

CarolU

08-21-2006, 05:13 PM

I believe that a SCALE could be used...more then 25% weight of rider/tack to horse's weight would be overweight. That actually seems like a fairly easy standard to enforce.

I also would like to see it applied in the Youth classes, to high brio horses. Yes, the child 'might' be in control of the horse, but just barely. Yet I see these kids/horses place over suitable children's horses all the time. It really does amaze me what parents will put their children on, and what judges will place.

Terry Wallace

08-21-2006, 05:26 PM

MG's there are always exeptions...however, I must disagree that it "won't hurt the horse"..lots of times you won't know that damage caused today by overweighting...until later years, when it shows up in thickened tendons, and the like.

BUT...lets talk about damage I see today. That would be windpuffs, osletes, splints, overflexed pasterns due to being overweighted, on horses who stand perfectly fine until a large rider gets in the saddle.
Do you really think that parallel to the ground pasterns is not potentially damage causing to the horse...oh...I must disagree... plenty of tiny muscle & tendon tears can occur in a 30 minute ride.

Now...take that over-weighted horse and subject him to hard ground, concusive training, and push him to be a show horse... heck..even too much concusive training without overweighting can sure cause damage for life.

Its like taking a poorly conformed horse and ridding it into the ground. You will get damage more often than not... I just think its time to stop this "tradition" this illogical thing done to horses. Even a well conformed horse can suffer damage if continually overweighted and ridden on concusive surface...concrete for "better action"...hard dirt...etc...
How mcu riding does a champion show horse get? I dare say its more than 30 minutes a few times a week..... ;-)

TrueStepPaso

08-21-2006, 07:41 PM

Wow...this is a good topic. Everyone has some really good opinions....
I think "over-weighting" horses is a big NO, and I've witnessed it way too much - and once is enough for me.
Now I know Pasos are "made to carry weight better" and all that....and I do agree that smaller horses with short backs can carry weight a little easier. However, that does not give us the right to heave a serious doughboy upon a 13.2h/800lbs Paso, and send them on their way. We should appropriately match rider with horse, but I don't know how we could begin to enforce it in the show world.....I let someone else think of that. I do agree with CarolU about the scale though....it would easy & fair.

appyday

08-21-2006, 07:58 PM

Did she see me on mine :(

Linda Y

08-21-2006, 08:18 PM

Or me on mine. Look at that fat cow sitting on the pretty bay in my avatar. I always feel too big for her. :(

Red Ryder

08-21-2006, 09:15 PM

I do know that "a judge" told a 275 man on a 13-2 fine boned paso that he should not be riding and showing that horse he was too big for it.

Then you look at the tape of Ocha on Resorte IV and of all people you would expect him to know better, but nope aboard he was!!!!!!!!

appyday

08-21-2006, 09:16 PM

Or me on mine. Look at that fat cow sitting on the pretty bay in my avatar. I always feel too big for her. :(

Crapola I read this fast and looked for a cow... :-? I never did see one... ;-)

CarolU

08-21-2006, 09:23 PM

Linda, that looks like a very large horse in your avatar. You look fine on him. I don't know what you are talking about.

Terry Wallace

08-21-2006, 11:00 PM

Linda...no way you are too big for that mare... Same with you Appy...
Thumb through a few issues of PFH World magazine....Then you will see what we mean! ;-)

SandyMM

08-22-2006, 12:04 AM

First - do any of you show? If so, you know it isn't about what looks good or right to the spectators... it's about what looks right or best to the judges.

There's more to it than looking at pictures... for instance, a lean, fit person may weigh substantially more than an 'out of condition' rider yet look smaller. The rider is not being judged except in equitation. I do think it looks goofy to see a rider whose heels are in line with a horse's knees, but that's just an opinion.

It is more important to see what the horse can do or feel the smoothness of the ride than it is to critique the 'look'...

I see 'Pretty and Matched' bouncing and jiggling around the Paso show ring all the time.... horse and rider match perfectly - rough and flustered....

I'd prefer to see the combination of horse and rider that communicates to the judges (and spectators) the best performance possible.... but you can't tell that from a picture alone.

SandyMM

08-22-2006, 12:08 AM

more then 25% weight of rider/tack to horse's weight would be overweight. That actually seems like a fairly easy standard to enforce
Like all arbitrary 'formulas', this does not allow for individual differences... There are bigger horses who cannot carry as much weight as smaller horses.

appyday

08-22-2006, 12:23 AM

Linda...no way you are too big for that mare... Same with you Appy...
Thumb through a few issues of PFH World magazine....Then you will see what we mean! ;-)

Thank god...I was really worried my horse made my butt look big

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y84/appyday/chubbyrider.jpg

motorgypsy

08-22-2006, 12:45 AM

OK Terry - put those specs on!! The first thing I said was NO SINK - which means the pasterns don't sink with the heavy rider. If they do - get off and ride a stronger horse.

I stand by what I said - 30 minutes a few times a week on level ground, no sharp turns or steep hills, in gait or at a walk on a horse over six years of age in good shape with good muscle and bone and NO SINKING PASTERNS is very likely not going to do any damage to the horse!!!

We always rode Brandy with SMBII's because she is hyperflexy and I'm the one who rode her in speed shows, not Kyle, three years ago after three years of building her strength, because I weigh less. She was 9 by then. She didn't have a lame day in her five years with us before her injury during the winter storm. No windpuffs, not even a little ouchy. But NO HEAVY riders on her and never any rides over about 12 miles. Chinook is extremely strong though. Very different, tough, no sink pasterns, muscular and powerful. She can handle a much heavier rider for a much longer distance. Same height, same weight, different strength.

Kyle is quite tall but since both our 13 2 mares are large barrelled his legs don't hang to their knees. Now he did look a bit funny on Bonnie who is 13 3 but has an extremely slender barrel and a shorter neck so his legs did hang down. Funny also because she looks tall because she has long legs proportionally but she's not tall.

I've ridden minis for goodness sakes who weigh in at 300 pounds. You can tell if a horse is overweighted. Now our minis are the taller, short backed stocky variety and believe it or not they had no sink with me on them. No I didn't ride long - mayber ten minutes to be sure they had no problem with someone on their backs - which they didn't. Remember minis come from shetlands who are draft ponies so the draft types really are very strong. But no I wouldn't take one on a trail ride. I know that even at 115 I was too heavy for them. You can tell!

Kalua on the other hand is over 900 pounds at 14 1. At my now 130 pounds I'm for sure not too heavy for her. But she was out of shape. Even with no rider she couldn't handle the hills well. She was a pasture princess for more than a year. So you may not be too heavy. Your horse may just be a couch potato.

The 25% rule is not valid because it does not take condition nor age into consideration - both of which are extremely important. I do think though that a judge should have the discretion to DQ a rider who is obviously to heavy for the horse based on pastern sink or staggering or gasping for breath.

One other thing - a large horse does not make you look smaller. The right clothing will. A big behind in spandex will look big even if one rides an elephant and our family is famous for our large posteriors! ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

OK I can breathe now! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

CarolU

08-22-2006, 12:56 AM

Like all arbitrary 'formulas', this does not allow for individual differences... There are bigger horses who cannot carry as much weight as smaller horses.

Nothing arbitrary about this number. It is the ratio that has been scientifically proven by studing the weight carrying capacity and breakdown of multiple breeds of horses over time. I forget which issue of PFHW the article was in, but it has been published in many magazines. The ratio is very well established scientifically, even accounting for different breeds of horses.

We (and the Arabian people) like to think our horses have denser bones and can carry more, but the truth is that their bones are the same as all other light breeds of horses. Also the breeds with denser bones have less air and less 'smoosh' to them, and actually can carry less weight before damage occurs.

Remember too that weight isn't all about bones, it's also about joints, ligaments and tendons. A horse's back isn't finished growing until age FIVE. They should not have to carry their full potential until that age. Heck, not long after age FIVE most Paso Finos are done with their show career and out in the breeding barn. We are retiring these horses JUST when they start being ready to do what we're asking them to do.

I totally agree with Terry...it is time to STOP thinking of shows, points, careers, and breeding and START thinking of what is best for the horses. None should be riden before 30 months, then only lightly until age 5. Full collection should be achieved with TRAINING not mechanical means...along about age 8-9, as is done in dressage.

(OK...I'm ducking, go ahead and shoot!)

Barbwire

08-22-2006, 01:04 AM

Shelley, you look ridiculous on that horse. Your hat is waaay too small.

appyday

08-22-2006, 01:19 AM

Shelley, you look ridiculous on that horse. Your hat is waaay too small.

And my dear my thong was too big :-?

Pasofinoguy

08-22-2006, 01:22 AM

Oh i liked the thong. But i need to see somemore swimming pics. um yeh.

appyday

08-22-2006, 01:29 AM

Oh i liked the thong. But i need to see somemore swimming pics. um yeh.

pervert :roll:

motorgypsy

08-22-2006, 01:40 AM

Spandex would be better!!! And don't tell me that buttt would look any better riding an elephant!:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Carol I don't care what documentation there is for the 25% rule again it does not take into consideration suspensories, what percentage of the horse is FAT and what percentage is muscle and bone, what kid of condition the horse is in and how old it is. It's a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. They would do a lot better to give a range like 15 to 30%. that is a lot more realistic. I've seen horses that didn't have an ounce of fat on them that had great bone and suspensories and you can't tell me they can carry the same weight as my fat lazy flexy suspensory pasture princess who weighs the same. And there are plenty of horses that have no business carrying 25% of their weight. They would be waaay overweighted and some who really can carry more easily. As you know something like this is usually given a range of deviation anyway like 20% +or - 10% depending on the horse, not the breed.

appyday

08-22-2006, 01:56 AM

Well when Star was 1050 lbs I could ride her now that she is 700 I cant... :cry:

Barbwire

08-22-2006, 01:59 AM

Yeah, that makes sense! :lol:

CarolU

08-22-2006, 02:01 AM

The article was written studying horses in riding condition. Any additional weight the horse is already packing from being overweight, would be subtracted from the weight allowance for the rider and tack.

CarolU

08-22-2006, 02:49 AM

BTW - I have also read many articles that say the ratio should be even lower, at 20%. This is from Cherry Hill:

A horse’s body isn’t really designed to carry extra weight, but it can by virtue of its suspension-bridge features.

How much weight can a horse carry? This will depend on several factors including the horse’s weight, bone, conformation, breed, condition, type of riding, rider’s skill, and type of saddle used.

An often quoted thumb rule is that a horse can carry 20% of his weight. This would mean a 1200 pound horse could carry 240 pounds which would include rider plus tack. Horses with denser, larger bone might be able to carry more than the 20%. Bone is determined by measuring the circumference of the foreleg just below the knee. Average is about 8 ½ inches for a 1200 pound riding horse. If a horse has lighter bone, he would likely be able to carry less than 20%. If he has heavier bone, he would likely be able to carry more than 20%. Horses with short strong backs, short strong loins and tight coupling tend to be able to carry more weight than average. That’s why Icelandic, Arabian and some Quarter Horses are suited to carry higher weights. A horse in peak condition will be able to support weight better than a thin, poorly conditioned horse. A horse used for walking and posting trot work might be able to carry more weight than a horse that is used for galloping or jumping. But even that depends on the skill of the rider. A skilled rider sits in balance and moves in harmony with the horse. A loose, crooked or imbalanced rider continually throws the horse off balance and thus makes his work more difficult. Therefore a skilled rider might be able to ride a smaller horse while a novice rider might require a larger, more solid horse to compensate for the erratic movements of the rider. Finally, the type of saddle can affect the weight carrying capacity of a horse’s back. A rider’s weight as well as the weight of the saddle itself, is distributed on the horse’s back by the bearing surface of an English saddle’s panels or the tree of a Western saddle. An average English saddle has a bearing surface of about 120 square inches and an average Western saddle has a bearing surface of about 180 inches. So when using a Western saddle, a rider’s weight will be borne by an area that is 1 ½ times the size of the bearing surface of an English saddle. When comparing, you will also need to take into consideration that a Western saddle might weigh 15-40 pounds while an English saddle would weigh between 10-20 pounds.

Because the back ligaments weaken with age and use, we need to fit saddles well and learn to ride effectively in order to preserve our horses’ comfort and usefulness.

motorgypsy

08-22-2006, 03:19 AM

AHHHH SOOOOO grasshopper - the criteria thicken!! ;-) ;-) ;-)

Thanks! Very interesting!

Terry Wallace

08-22-2006, 12:50 PM

Dumb question(?) Do any of us show.,...why YES Sandy...we do.

The 20% factor would be most appropriate for many, many fine boned, 650-750 lb Paso Finos.

MG's you are entitled to your opinion.... to me overweighting horses, for no matter how long a time, is a cruel thing to do.

Consider the fact that a horse was never meant to have ANYTHING on its back at all! Its not built for weight bearing, and overweighting it can show up in many ways...sore backs, sore tendons, windpuffs as we have discussed, filled tendons.

Its like riding 20-24 month old horses...sure, they *might* not show any damage from it...but why oh why would you risk it? Why would you not wait until their growth plates were CLOSED.
Especially on an animal that you hope will LAST...and last SOUNDLY for another 20+ years?

Respect for the horse is what this thread is all about. ;-)

Too bad it lacks so much in the breed.... :( and particualiarily in the show ring, where many a champion is practically ridden into the ground....
Our "millenium" horse is a fine example of what too much campaigning and too much concussion causes.... JMO

appyday

08-22-2006, 01:30 PM

I agree with the young horses with unclossed growth plates those guys dont need to be ridden especially with chubbys like me on them.....

I started my 24 mo old app this year...he was started slow and should get 60-90 days then thrown out to grow up more..

My pasos will not be ridden at this age unless something drastic with them changes..

SandyMM

08-22-2006, 01:38 PM

You know - in the middle of writing an epistle about how the 'Ubers' always get their panties in a wad over the same ol', same ol', I got an email from a long-time friend whose son has enlisted in the Marines. The boy is about 6 months younger than Tyler. Tyler and Brett are the youngsters who will be defending your right to say and do as you please. I think I'll go do something nice for them this morning instead of wasting my time arguing moot points with the Ubers...

Have a lovely day....

cowboy ed

08-22-2006, 01:51 PM

hmmmm, from an engineering viewpoint, it looks like a horse is designed quite well to carry weight on its back. ;-) i would say that Whoever invented the horse ( :D ) did a pretty good job of planning, and probably considered man would figure out what to do with a horse. of course, common sense would dictate some things, i.e. 300 pound man on a 700 pound horse, not good, but then, sadly enough, there are a lot of people out there who have horses, ride horses, etc., and do not really have common sense.

as with anything there will always be differing viewpoints. just share, be fair, and respect space for differences of opinion.

appyday

08-22-2006, 01:58 PM

but then, sadly enough, there are a lot of people out there who have horses, ride horses, etc., and do not really have common sense..

quote of the day... :lol:

Barbwire

08-22-2006, 02:02 PM

What a nice feeling, to be able to read this thread wihout feeling guilty about riding my horse. Oh yeah! http://www.jammerbabe.com/flotilla/images/smiles/banana.gif

CarolU

08-22-2006, 02:06 PM

Since when is carrying about the welfare of the horse make you "an Uber"...what the *&$% is an Uber anyway? :shock:

Sandy, having worked for the Army for 30 years, protecting service men and women like your son, I guess by your standards I have earened the 'right' to free speech? But to be honest, being in the military, or having a military child gives no one more right to be an American then someone who doesn't or hasn't and just pays the bills with their tax money. And what does ANY of this have to do with riding horses??? :-?

TrueStepPaso

08-22-2006, 02:07 PM

I am really enjoying this thread...like I said, everyone here has excellent points, and I think we all do share the love & respect for horses...its just that we are voicing our slight differences in view - which is great. I'm certainly learning, and nodding my head agreeably at something in every post. Bottom line is....NO we shouldn't really ride much (except backing) before the growth plates are closed....it truly is sad that this is very rarely respected.....

Oh....Shelley & Linda.....I was NOT thinking of you girls when I wrote that. Not in the least. You two are fine!
And for the record Shelley.....yes, that horse does make your butt look a little big.....(I LOVE that pic!!!! :lol: )

;-)

CarolU

08-22-2006, 02:10 PM

I agree Abbie...great subject, great points and thought provoking.

You know, I think this might be an Uber. Her panties are certainly in a wad...well they're somewhere anyway. ;-)
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y84/appyday/chubbyrider.jpg

appyday

08-22-2006, 02:10 PM

Shelley.....yes, that horse does make your butt look a little big.....(I LOVE that pic!!!! :lol: )

;-)

GASP I was afraid of that...gotta get a bigger saddle ha?

TrueStepPaso

08-22-2006, 02:24 PM

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: O-M-G.....you girls slay me!!!! :lol:

Shelley...please, get a flesh-colored thong....black just makes ya look a bit "washed-out"...total fashion faux-pas :roll:

TrueStepPaso

08-22-2006, 02:40 PM

CarolU

08-22-2006, 02:50 PM

Seriously though....it is a real shame that the show world doesn't set more horse-conscious examples. Since I was a kid, it always seemed like alot of show ppl just saw their horse as the mere vehicle to their own success & glory. I was turned off to it at an early age.
When I was first introduced to the paso show world through endless DVD's & magazines....it was explained to me that the Fino we "love" so much here in the US, is sort of looked down upon in Columbia. That puzzled me...and then it kind of made sense to me. In Columbia, they probably still have "working Pasos" on their land, and Fino would be useless, not to mention aggrevating, to them in their daily chores. Hey, I could be wrong.....but Pasos did gain their popularity due to their smooth ground covering gait during long days in the saddle, right? That is still highly valued to many who continue this tradition.......right....? :confused

They don't value Fino??? One of the DVD's actually said this? Maybe you shoulf try to spend some time on Charlie's board and read (hopefully you can get enough out of the mostly Spanish posts), the Colombian's posts. They value Fino highly, above all else. But, I believe that in Colombia, just as here, there are two kinds of Paso Finos, those who do Fino (actually they have Trochadors also) and those who don't and are used for farm and cattle work. The original horses imported and bred by Dave Jones (those with que Tal in their name) were the cattle working lines, not the Fino lines. Coral LaCE is also cattle working lines, as were most of our foundation sires in the U.S. They liked to cross these with PR mares, and that is the foundation of the Paso Fino pleasure horses across the U.S. Only since the 1980's has the influence of Resorte IV, Plebeyo, and other Fino/Performance lines come into the U.S.

It really is an interesting history of the breed in the U.S.

TrueStepPaso

08-22-2006, 02:54 PM

Okay wait....I mean that they don't have it as tight & quick down there. I didn't mean to say they don't value it at all :oops: ......its just not as intense in the Columbia show world. Dunno, maybe things have changed in the last 10 months? This was explained to me by a respected trainer, but I may have misunderstood him........then again, all those Columbia DVDs did look very different to me.......

CarolU

08-22-2006, 02:55 PM

BTW - I do agree about shows setting a better example, for the simple reason that THAT is what people see first with our breed. That and the advertizing in horse magazines. I have to admit that when they have a 13hh Paso being riden by a 300 lb trainer, all decked out in ribbons and roses, it does nothiing to promote our breed or dispell the image of them being ponies.

I think maybe that is where Terry is going with this. It not only is not good for the horse being riden, but it hurts all those who are trying to breed and sell their horses.

TrueStepPaso

08-22-2006, 02:57 PM

Right.....so does that mean that the change would only take effect when a highly influential person in the show world speaks up....?

CarolU

08-22-2006, 02:58 PM

Also, when they break down young, from the combination of weight, being ridden too young, and being gaited on hard surfaces all the time, it gives the breed a reputation as having leg/joint problems. This also hurts the entire breed.

appyday

08-22-2006, 03:05 PM

TrueStepPaso

08-22-2006, 03:15 PM

Yupp.

motorgypsy

08-22-2006, 03:56 PM

OK where is that emoticon with the baseball bat smacking someone upside the head!!! Please READ what I wrote. I do NOT advocate overweighting a horse and gave very specific criteria so the reader can determine if the horse is overweighted.

I also stated that if you are on the high side of the weight bearing range to be very careful what you do on the horse. I also stated that there are many horses who CANNOT carry 25% of their weight even in gait because they show significant SINK.

I'm guilty of a lot of things but I DON"T overweight mine or anyone elses horses.

But as the article Carol posted I think from Cherry Hill stated - there is NO hard and fast rule about the weight carrying capability of a horse. There are many facators that must be considered. You may be well within the weight limit for your horse's size and weight and the horse may still be very overweighted because of other factors.

A horse is well desinged to carry weight. The spine is in an arch shape and any mare who can carry a foal to term while running in a herd will have no problem carrying the comparable weight in a person. And stallions spend an inordinate time on their rear legs carrying all their weight and running around like maniacs so they too are well able to carry a significant amount of weight.

Do we like to see people with so much overhang it's hard not to gape riding any horse??? No. Do we like to see an overweighted horse. Of course not. But it's not cut and dried. Hyperflexy horses cannot carry 25% of their weight. A draft shetland can probably safely carry more than 25% at a walk anyway.

So STOP saying I have the right to my opinion that it's OK to overweight horses when I said no such thing!!! GRRRR SMACK SMACK.

And one does NOT wear a black thong before labor day!!! I seriously doubt that thong will ever see the light of day anyway. It's long gone!!!

Terry Wallace

08-22-2006, 04:00 PM

Good grief...you are taking this far too personally.
I am not equating your opinion to advocating the over-weighting of horses.
Please...ease up!

For the "uber" pusher.... yep, somebody's panites are in a wad....but its sure not mine.

I regard this whole thread as just being a conversation.

Problem I see all too often.... is some cannot handle the truth.
No rose-colored glasses here...

NOPE...a horse is not designed to carry ANY weight.... on that we must agree to disagree.... that is well researched.... look at the skeleton of the front end...the suspended chest.

TrueStepPaso

08-22-2006, 04:24 PM

Hi MGs....I'm not really sure what happened here, but I think you have very good points. I think everyone has great points here (okay....I've got to stop writing that...its true though!). It sounds to me like you're very conscientious of your own horse's abilities, and pay close attention to what they are capable of safely/comfortably carrying.....that's highly commendable!
As for being made to carry weight....I agree that we all have to "agree to disagree". There are way too many things to lay out on the table that strongly prove each side of the fence.....

Oh, and btw.....writing down the "No Black Thong Before Labor Day Rule"....now if you'll excuse me, I have to go change... :lol:

motorgypsy

08-22-2006, 09:26 PM

That baby in the belly is one heck of a lot of weight - more than a lot of people. Think about it. And they run around with that weight in there.

Terry Wallace

08-22-2006, 09:34 PM

Uh...a foal is not located on top of the back of a horse!
But think about this...why would you ride a PG broodmare...especially after the 7th month of PG?

I'm hunting down my reference for support of my statement...I also think it may have been written up in Equus magazine.... let me check...

But I must ask you this... just what object or "weight" is a horse designed to carry on its back? Plenty of dogs have strong backs....but were they created to be toting anything around? I mean are they designed to have a parasite in the natural world hanging off their back...I think not!

What would a horse be desgined to be carrying around in their natural world? :D

motorgypsy

08-22-2006, 09:53 PM

There's a difference between the animal's purpose in the "web of life" and it's ability to be utilized in other ways by another species. Goats, llamas and other animals with similar spines are also used as pack animals generally with no problems. My pocketbook says my horses are the parasites, not me. I just figure a nice ride is payback for all those butt scratches and great food!

There is not a lot of difference between having a person on your back and hanging them underneath by a strap equal to the thickness of the saddle. Try it yourself. A downward force, whether it is a push or a pull, will have the same effect on the object it is exerted on. The rider and a foal exert a downward force on the spine of the horse and how well the horse tolerates it depends on a lot of things including position, weight, fitness of the horse and so on. But the arched spine is very good at weight bearing.

And no we don't ride our brood mares in the last three months because that is like riding double.

So now you SEE what it takes to get my dandruff up!!! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

CarolU

08-22-2006, 10:37 PM

Aw, but a pregnant mare isn't that heavy all the time, only the last few months and then she's light again until next time. Also, many mares DO have problems carrying the weight. Their legs swelll, some spend most of the last of their pregnancy laying down, some have even been known to dislocate at the hocks and require splints the last couple of weeks.

And a foal weighs WHAT at birth? Less then 100 lbs.

motorgypsy

08-22-2006, 10:56 PM

A human baby weighs maybe 7 pounds but I gained 17 and lost all 17 at the birth so they gain a lot more than the foal weight - more than double probably. And a lot of the problems are from the foal pressing on all the internal organs. That last month is a killer!!! Much worse than a rider on the back who does not displace the diaphram, digestive system etc. I'm sure some mares can have damage to the legs or other body parts from foaling. But my point was a rider who is not too heavy isn't as hard on the mare as a foal. And if you have a mare with leg problems you want to breed - consider ET. I've heard of mares foaling who couldn't get up after having the baby. That's too damaged to foal to us.

I think we can all agree that when evaluating a horse to ride it's a really good idea to get both a vet check and a good video from all directions and take a person who knows horse conformation with you. It can save you a lot of money and grief later.

And don't ride them hard when they are young. It's soooo bad. We haven't even gotten on Arwen and she's over 4 and a big girl but she's still growing.

Terry Wallace

08-22-2006, 11:18 PM

Well...again I disagree. If you would like to read a very good reference on the back & spine of the horse, I would suggest Volume I of Principles of Conformation Analysis, by Deb Bennett, PhD (all three volumes are GREAT, but volume I goes into 58 pages of detail of what a horse is...what makes it different, HOW its back functions (how it is not for weight bearing over the spine...) and it takes it from the dawn horse Hyracotherium spine through the spine of Equus, the horse of today.
It is far too much for me to scan & post...so take my word for it, and get the book! I just spent the past two hours finding and reading both references...its just too much to scan & post...

Equus also ran an article titled "Does His Back Hurt"...this published in April 1999 it is eight pages long, goes into detail also..is too much to post here...but I will post the conclusion paragraph...
Here it is....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/twobarwpaso/Equus071999DoesHisBackHurtCONCLUSIO.jpg

motorgypsy

08-22-2006, 11:37 PM

The "devil" is in the details isn't it. I totally agree - you don't put weight directly on a few vertabrae of the horse BUT the horse's skeleton including the spine is very well designed for weight bearing. There's a difference. I misuninterpreted your original statement Terry. This is why a saddle is so important. Not only does it spread the weight over a larger surface area of the back which reduces the amount of weight per unit area but it keeps weight directly off the vertebrae and withers. It's actually harder on the horse to ride it bareback than with a properly fitted saddle. Luckily most of us are constructed so that if we ride bareback we don't hit the vertebae (how many of you have ridden a youngster with a prominant spine bareback??? YOWWW) but the surface area we cover is still generally smaller than if we use a saddle. Now if you are a member of MY family and have a really well padded posterier maybe the horse would prefer bareback!

So it seems we have no difference of opinion here at all. Darn!!

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Terry Wallace

08-22-2006, 11:37 PM

Yep CarolU..the foal develops fastest & largest in the last trimester, it also is located much more near to the pelvis than the wither...true of most this type of mammal...

I beg to differ MG...you are saying the spine of a horse is designed for weight bearing ...NO?

I'm saying it is NOT designed for weight bearing..we are talking about HEAVY riders on too small a horse...remember? That would be weight on the top of a spine of a horse..

O.K...I give up!

SandyMM

08-22-2006, 11:48 PM

Exactly what were horses created for then? To drain us of all our wordly possessions and the faint spare time we have left to just sit on the poch and _look_ at them.... If the 'Ubers' had their way, horses would be running freeeeeeeeeee to break legs in gopher holes, get snake-bitten, live long enough to wear out their teeth and be dropped from the herd to be eaten by a predator.... It's the 'natural' way, don'tcha know?

No wonder some people can't make it in the horse business, they want their foals sold in utero to 'perfect' owners who will not touch them until they're 5+ and then only with the mildest of restraint on the softest ground in the most temperate weather.... Puh-leeze.. the rest of us take care of our horses in the real world...

Speaking of which, I better go out and check on that poor overworked 19 year old, the blind 9 year old, and the rescued 7 year old..... The mares said leave them alone, they were perfectly happy manufacturing babies, thank you very much.

motorgypsy

08-23-2006, 12:02 AM

Teryy the spine holds up basically the entire horse. It is the suspension bridge that keeps the whole animal up and together. It is the main weight bearing device. You are misunderstanding me. With no spine, the horse can't move. Horse gets fat, the spine holds the extra weight. Horse get pregnant the spine holds up the extra weight. If you use the right saddle and the horse has all the criteria I mentioned before with the proper total weight rider and tack for that horse and the spine holds that up too. When the horse eats and drinks the spine holds up that extra weight too. The spine holds up all the internal organs. Yes the pelvis joins the rear legs and the hip joints hold up the butt muscles but the spine is the main support for the animal. It's like cars going over an arched bridge. Sure the supports have some weight directly on them but without that arch the thing will collapse.

I assure you we are not disagreeing in principle. Horses should not be overweighted and the spine certainly should not have weight directly on it nor be overweighted in any way but again distributed weight from the top not on the spine directly has no effect different from the same distributed weight inside the horse. A certain amount they can handle. Too much they can't. The horse drinks 8 gallons of water (yes we have one who will) Result - spine is supporting 64 extra pounds. Put a 64 pound kid and saddle that fits on top of the horse. Spine support 64 extra pounds. I know they are not IDENTICAL but the weight the spine is supporting is the same.

PasoVicki

08-23-2006, 12:08 AM

Goodness, Sandy, I don't think anyone here advocated keeping horses simply to look at them or letting them all run free. But just because we enjoy riding horses doesn't mean horses were created to be ridden. If every living creature was created to serve humans, what were giraffes and hippos and rattlesnakes and locusts (just to mention a few) created for?

This entire thread is about riding responsibly. Responsible riding includes not riding horses that are too young and/or too small to bear your weight.

And what the heck is a "uber"????

Pasofinoguy

08-23-2006, 12:19 AM

I think as long as the rider is small and light weight then it is fine to ride a younger horse. As long as said horse has large bone and muscle. And not to over do it.

SandyMM

08-23-2006, 12:31 AM

This entire thread is about riding responsibly.
I couldn't possibly agree more.... and that would be best accomplished with an owner who knows his/her horse better than anyone else.

motorgypsy

08-23-2006, 12:38 AM

In principle I don't like young horses being ridden. Now an 18 month old belgian that already weighs in at 1500 pounds probably wouldn't be injured being ridden by a 120 pound person at a walk. But some of our two year olds are quite small and delicate. For a few minutes at a walk just to get them used to someone being on their backs is one thing. "Training" is another altogether. Why take a chance on cutting the useful life of the horse in half or worse???

Terry Wallace

08-23-2006, 12:42 AM

PETA...would like us all to NEVER ride a horse. That would make them real, real happy! AND...you ought to see how they would like each horse to be "kept"... sewage system for the horse, so many square feet of pasture...so many square feet of shelter....

if PETA ruled...we could not afford to keep horses!

MG...all I can say is .... buy the book...bascule muscle is well discussed, the abdomen well discussed... YES...the spine is the suspension...it is not however designed to bear weight over the top..where a SADDLE goes...

Nuff' said...

motorgypsy

08-23-2006, 12:52 AM

Againt the devil is in the details. The force on the spine is the same top or bottom. Yes I agree in the case of the horse it's designed as an arch to support hanging but an arch is an arch and unless it's overweighted it's an excellent support system that works equally well to support weight from top or bottom. In the case of the arch bridge example one can equally well hang a car from the bottom of the bride and one can also say "but the bridge isn't designed to handle a car hanging from the bottom". No it isn't but that doesn't mean it can't handle the weight. It only means you don't overweight it if you don't want it to fail.

Now a little alternate brain storming. The girth for the saddle goes around the ribs. I wonder if having the girth go all the way around is better or worse on the eqiine suspension system than bareback?

You don't really think I'm going to let you have the last word do you? :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Terry Wallace

08-23-2006, 12:55 AM

Actually the force is not the same....buy the book!! It explains the muscling...how it works, etc....

You don't seriously think YOU get the last word do ya?

What were horses created for.....as prey for predators of course!
be that predator man or animal!

appyday

08-23-2006, 12:56 AM

And what the heck is a "uber"????

:roll:

Lets use this in a sentence "Never walk UBER a ladder"

"The cows UBER was full of milk" "It was not you it was the UBER guy"

motorgypsy

08-23-2006, 01:07 AM

Back atcha!! ;-) ;-)

Put a brick on top of a scale on top of a table and weigh it.

Hang the brick from the same table and measure the weight with a spring scale.

They are the same.

Put the horse's feed on the saddle and weigh the horse.

Let the horse eat the feed and weigh the horse and saddle.

Again - same weight.

Now how the weight is distributed, the force per until area can be quite different which is why bony butted guys shouldn't ride bareback!

PattiB

08-23-2006, 01:27 AM

This is what an overweighted horse looks like as it ages.
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i86/pblichmann/annie.jpg

appyday

08-23-2006, 01:29 AM

HOLY MOLY BATMAN.......

Barbwire

08-23-2006, 01:33 AM

Patti, where did you get that picture? What is the story behind that horse?

PattiB

08-23-2006, 01:41 AM

This was a friend's horse, Annie. She was a saddlebred mare and last year she was put down (about a month after this pic) at the age of 35.

CarolU

08-23-2006, 02:00 AM

Oh Patti, that horse is heartbreaking. I don't think I've ever seen one that bad before. There is an ex-racing QH mare at the end of the street that is bad, but nothing like your example. What a heartbreaker.

Yes Sandy, horses were created to eat grass and be eaten.

The domestication of the horse is credited by historians as the most important 'invention' of all time. And the horse has suffered for it ever since.

We are (hopefully) now smarter and kinder, and can be as Vicki described, "responsible" horse owners. It is pretty simple really, heavier people should buy larger horses. If they are extremely heavy, they should ride in a cart and be pulled by their horse. In an ideal world, heavy people would take their horse for a walk and keep walking until they are no longer too heavy. :D

MG's....I agree with Terry. Horses were not meant to carry weight. What reason on earth would nature have to make them so??? It is really a coincidence that they can. But it is often to their detriment that they do.

Patti, that horse just tears my heart out.

Primroseddp

08-23-2006, 02:27 AM

Well HELP me please i have never in my born days heard so much bull snap, I guess i will state what Mr Cris Cox stated and that is a 300 lb man or woman can ride a horse and help it and a 150 lb man or woman can ride the same horse and hurt it. studys are done and studys are proven wrong ,. I believe GOD CREATED THE HORSE FOR A PURPOSE, and as always people find things to grip and act dumb over time and time again , this is one!!!!

motorgypsy

08-23-2006, 02:32 AM

I agree with Terry also. Horses were here before humans. Obviously their role in the beginning was that of prey animal. That is completely different though from saying that their skeletal structure is well suited for weight bearing which it is. In some ways luckily and in some way not luckily they are large enough and built in a manner that allows them to be able to carry extra weight without injury if good sense is used. And I'm not saying it is, just that it needs to be. If they had our spine they could not do that nearly as well nor for as long a time. If horses had the back problems humans had they'd all be carrying handicapped stickers on their butts.

Because of humans there are many many more horses now than when they were strictly a prey animal and we can only hope that most of them have a reasonably good life. Around this area most are very happy being pasture ornaments because few really are ridden. But being created for something is not the same as being suited for it. I don't really think humans think they were created to go live in antarctica - but we are well suited for it because we can create our own environment. Do any of you really think that if a horse didn't want to be ridden that it couldn't get rid of the rider with ease?? Carol remember your pony!!

SandyMM

08-23-2006, 02:42 AM

she was put down (about a month after this pic) at the age of 35

What do most 35 year old horse's backs look like? Does anyone have any other comparison pix? Did this horse have any other issues? I know of a fairly young mare whose back is _much_ worse who has had a number of offspring - her back was damaged by illness - not overweighting... She appeared perfectly happy and otherwise healthy when I saw her. Do you think she should be put down? I don't. Is she ridden - I don't believe so.

Primroseddp

08-23-2006, 02:55 AM

I think even the bible even stated that someone was going to come down on a WHITE HORSE THAT MEANT EVEN GOD knew horses were meant to be riden duh

Jasfino

08-23-2006, 05:00 AM

I wonder what kind of saddle Jesus will have? I bet ...something just tells me.. he will be riding bareback... :D

Cindy

08-23-2006, 05:27 AM

I am constantly amazed that you all can have the same discussion over and over and over again SOOO many times and keep saying THE SAME THING. Does it not bore you?

Anyway I have always had one question every time this particular subject gets discussed into the ground so I thought that I would post it to see what kind of answers you all would have as I would like to hear them. I will not respond to the answers to this question unless with another question. The question is this: What about donkeys? How do you explain the fact that donkeys, having the same basic build and being of the same basic species have routinely through the centuries carried so much weight. They are very small animals compared to horses yet carry just as much wieght and do not seem to be harmed by it. I have never seen a donkey with a sway back. There may be some, I have just not seen them. And rarely any with leg problems and in those that did have leg problems it was due to injury, not riding or hard work. Any comments?

reuben T

08-23-2006, 05:40 AM

I'm gonna be logical and present it as i see it;
We have people from many backgrounds, religions, and educational levels talking about something that we understand very differently bacause of those differences. Therefore the terms being used are not seen in the same way by all. I do believe in getting all the information availible on all sides of an issue before making conclusions. So after a life of looking at all sides, my conclusion so far is;
I find that evolution flunked the science test, big time. It is so unscientific and so contrary to lot's of discoverys, that it's hard to understand why it keeps being propagated. It's taken mass coverups to conceal the powerful evidence that it's fake theory.
I have no other choice than to believe that there's a great creator who created the horse and gave it to man to love and care for and use.
It was only after evil came in and corrupted the original perfect creation that the eat and be eaten cycle started. And along with it came many genetic changes that made meat eaters out of some animals. I heard of a lion that was fed only a vegetarian diet from birth, It would not eat meat, and it was as tame as a house cat, very healthy too, very abnormal even for a hand raised big cat when on a meat diet.
I see the horse as an animal of wonderful design, just the right size, a body that can carry a load without undue strain, a brain that's designed to be happy as a servant, and trainable to do anything needed, respond to dozens or even hundreds of commands, capable of being very gentle and caring for their masters, a nervous system just right for being able to respond to touch cues. There's a good reason cows arn't ridden much.
It obvious the driving force behind evolution is not the balance of scientific evidence, if that were the case creation would win the vote 99-1
It's rather an unwillingness to admit there might be a higher power that has the capability to create matter from energy and give life to it.
So much of an unwillingness that they have deliberatly destroyed many discoverys that prooved beyond dought that macro evolution was rediculas.
Most people don't think about it, but atheism is a religion and evolution is a doctrine of it.
If you forget the religious aspects and look at it logically. You have one side that says there is no god and we're nothing more than hyperdeveloped microbes and when we die that's the end.
Then there's the other side that says we were created by a great Creator and placed on a beautiful perfect earth, we sinned and brought corruption on ourselves, but our creator loved us so much he took it upon himself to redeem the earth and eventually restore it to it's original perfect condition and resurect every human that abides by the conditions given to live forever on that new earth.
Looking at both sides logically, and considering nothing else, which one looks like a better system to go with?
According to the times calculated from the bible, the flood of Noah's time happened approximatly 4356 years ago, the oldest trees on the planet are almost that old.
Few people know that a few live diplodocus dinasuars were found in a swamp deep in the heart of africa where few men have ever gone. You wont hear about such things on the media. Oh and giant human skelatons were found along with dinasuar bones in the dinasour grave yards in Utah.
Thats a secret the public will never hear about.
I've seen a photo of a dinasuar skelaton with a small human skelaton half swallowed. Suddenly burried while in the act. That was a case where all camaras were confiscated and evidence destroyed, but one student had already changed film and had an exposed roll in his pocket.
Just to dig through all the evidence of creation and a flood, it gets overwhelmingly obvious that a planned coverup is being done.
I don't just believe in creation, a flood, and Jesus, just because i was taught to, I believe because the evidence proving it all is overwelming, and the evidence to the contrary is wimpy and propped up with deceptions and coverups, (no matter how conclusive the professors of evolution try to make it appear) That's why no evolutionist in the world is willing to do a public debate with Dr Brown, they know full well what they'd look like when faced with real science.
I for one am looking forward with great anticipation to riding a gorgous horse all over a new earth, I think it will be as a beautiful tropical garden landscaped to perfection with sea area reduced to maybe 1/10 or less of surface area and no extreemes of climate anywhere. and of course no horse flies or skeeters. And I do want lots of horse lovers there to enjoy it with me. It's not just a when i die thing either, there's been so much biblical prophecy fulfilled right down to the detail, and we're on the edge of the last little bit of it, big things could happen any time. society is ripe for a major collapse anyway. RT

motorgypsy

08-23-2006, 05:48 AM

Great question Cindy. I love donkeys and really think first of all donkeys seem to walk and trot but rarely run and donkeys have good sense. If the weight is too much they sit down or balk and won't budge. They are sure not going to kill themselves for some human. Another reason may be because donkeys are used for a lot of different tasks. Maybe like cross training. The ones we rode in Mexico were slender standards and Kyles feet did touch the ground. But they don't go very fast. Shetland ponies are famous for their weight bearing capacity also. I do think one problem here is people are very sensitive about how they look on a horse. Kyle thought his first horse was too small until he saw the video of him riding her and realized he wasn't too large. Gotta find some donkey breeders.

One more thing to add - if it is so bad as some "animal rights groups" think - to ride a horse - then why do the horses permit it? We sure don't ride zebras and it's not for lack of trying. They just plain refuse to cooperate. Even the hybrids are nutzo. Horses do tell you when they aren't pleased and ours don't seem to mind being ridden at all. Since we're on their backs I think they figure the cougar will eat you first so carrying you around is like wearing a back protector! And how many of you will have your horse run and get behind you when startled? Again you'll get eaten first. They aren't stupid!!

PattiB

08-23-2006, 12:37 PM

Conformation was part of Annie's problem, she had a very long back. She was shown and ridden with a hollowed out back which made it worse (I saw pics of her when younger) She had a good life after retirement but the last year got harder and harder for her to get up and down. The owners made the descision to put her down when it got hard for to keep weight on and move around. Saddlebreds are known to have lordosis and it is possible she had it before she was ever ridden but it was made worse by the way she was ridden.

Tracey

08-23-2006, 12:49 PM

Back to the topic, I haven't read all the post, but did read the first few. My opinion, I do not show, don't breed, know nothing cept I love my horse and have really liked all the Paso I met. When we first got rfdtv and I started watching the paso shows I was shocked. Huge men on little bitty horses with tiny legs, and often times some are swaying around trying to hold it up. Had I not already loved the breed and owned one and seen them in person, I would have not looked any farther.

Minouri

08-23-2006, 12:57 PM

Is this the wrong time to mention that I've always wanted to ride a cow? I saw a cow racing special and it looked like so much fun.

I think if you asked cows if they'd like to change places with horses they'd be thrilled. To be a hamburger or a vehical for an hour a day. Hmmmm, get on up there cowboy......fat or skinny.

Terry Wallace

08-23-2006, 01:00 PM

Getting back on track....

To me, MG's you are describing a back & belly (on the horse) which move like a whale or dolphin through the water, they swim by alternately raising
and lowering their flukes. Whales & dolphins have an incomplete "ring" of muscling.

A horse has a complete ring of muscling. All the desireable qualities of the movement of riding horses, impulsion, collection, engagement, lightness, stide length and self-carriage depend upon the flow of the normal ring functioning.

That "ring" includes the dorsal ligamnet system (over the back), the rectus abdominus (under/along the belly) the scalenus muscle (along the underside of the neck bones, right before the shoulder) and the hamstring muscles. That ring, plus the shape and type of bones along the spine (those of the lumbar slant to the front, those of the sacrum slant to the back...the horse does not have an arched spine anymore...only when it was prehistoric did it have an arched spine) are the reasons the horse's back does not "sag" when he stands.

Slanted, elongated vertebral spines function like tent pegs to a series of cables (muscles & ligaments). It is illustrated as a "watch spring"... let me see if I can post that.

EDITING to add...point being...it is the ring of mucling that allows a horse to be able to carry weight over the back...and not the skeletal system itself. Was it MADE to carry weight...No...not IMO...nor that of many who have studied this.

Terry Wallace

08-23-2006, 01:03 PM

The gray mare Patti posted....that looks like a genetic problem...not sure if "lordosis" is the correct term, the other name escapes me at the moment...but that type of back could sure be genetic...or possibly caused by meningitis as a foal...

I have a really good article on that malady too!

SandyMM

08-23-2006, 01:10 PM

Since we're on their backs I think they figure the cougar will eat you first so carrying you around is like wearing a back protector!
I like that way of thinking - and if any horse could figgure _that_ out, it would be Greg's Pete! ;-)
Conformation was part of Annie's problem, she had a very long back. She was shown and ridden with a hollowed out back which made it worse [...snip...] Saddlebreds are known to have lordosis and it is possible she had it before she was ever ridden
So the mare was born with an exceptionally long back from a breed with known genetic back problems and she was ridden in an incorrect form (hollowbacked). I'm thinking that the problem of her extreme swayback was as much or more an indication of her genetics as the way she was ridden... I didn't see where there was any indication of 'overweighting'. Saddlebreds aren't generally tiny, petite horses - fine, but not petite...

I rode a 35 year old 5-gaited Saddlebred one year at a summer camp I was working at. Not only was he smooth-gaited and willing, but the only indication of his age was some grizzling around his muzzle and eyes. He was in good flesh, sound in the legs, and no perceptible dip in the back...

Seems like the mare shown had genetic problems to begin with.... but kudos to her owners for taking such good care of her later in life and letting her go when she was in obvious distress.

TrueStepPaso

08-23-2006, 01:26 PM

Yes, its genetic.....Lordosis is highly common in Saddlebreds. Some of the things that are known to cause this are Achondroplasia (inherited bone growth disorder), Osteoporosis, poor posture (ridden with hollow back)......but the common ground science is finding is that it is an INHERITED DISORDER (human and equine).

Here's a little something that might help y'all:

The American Saddlebred Horse Association has been funding the research to find the genetic cause of lordosis. Research indicates lordosis is a genetic fault, where the one or two thoracic vertebrae at the withers are wedge-shaped. What has occurred is the ventral (underside) region of the vertebrae has failed to mature and grow at a normal rate, while the dorsal (topside) region continued to grow. This creates a wedge instead of the typical square block vertebrae in the back. From the point of the malformed vertebrae, moving towards the rump, the vertebrae follow a concave curved line.

Oh, and what I wrote yesterday about agreeing to disagree....I was vague. I understand each person's point here, but I mainly agree with MG's. Whether the weight is pushing or pulling does not matter...it is still weight directly affecting the spine. Muscles should be able to support BOTH actions of pushing and pulling.....it doesn't make sense if I were to think that my arm muscles or my back muscles were made to only do one.....either push, or pull - but not the other.... I've read about the "ring of muscles" that support and lift the spine. What I got out of it is that it certainly can support a balanced & appropriate weighted rider....Its not like we are eating, sleeping, and working off one horse 24/7....we ride a few hours, a couple times a week if we're lucky! I hardly think I am stressing my horse's backs.....I do believe things happen/were put here for a reason - the horse being on of them. There's even evidence of equine spines fusing (evolution?).....to better support us, perhaps???? For the last 7,000 yrs there hasn't been much of a problem with riding horses, so I suspect that the next 7,000 won't pose too much of a problem....
However, overweight ppl on small horses will ALWAYS be a huge NO.

Terry Wallace

08-23-2006, 01:30 PM

The horse's spine is shaped like it is because of how a horse moves...in a straight line, over moderately firm ground, over nearly level ground, and FAST.

Cindy

08-23-2006, 01:32 PM

Donkeys anyone? Ferris?

Terry Wallace

08-23-2006, 01:35 PM

Donkeys and Burros aren't covered in the confo reference volumes...I've not owned a donkey/burro. I have seen them appear to GAIT..in Mexico, and at the BLM adopt a Burro program...

So please..enlighten us....!

Cindy

08-23-2006, 01:41 PM

Terry, you must have missed my last post. I asked a question that I thought relevent to this discussion and asked for answers. Look on page 6. I don't have the answers, I am asking the question.

Terry Wallace

08-23-2006, 01:41 PM

Wait a minute..it does talk about Donkey & zebra,...but only that they are not adapted for running over the same TYPE of terrain as a horse.
A close second (to the horse) is the the Kiang and Onager, the Dziggetai (what in the world is a Dziggetai?) and the Kuhlan. These are the so called ...(ready for this?) "Half-a-s-s-e-s.

EDITING TO ADD..after reading C's question...
It just goes into how the hoof of the donkey is different than that of a horse....the shape, the general toughness...

I'm skiming here on the BB, as there is so much MORE info that goes with why a horse can carry weight, and how he does it..it is not "just the back" it is from hoof to spine...all elements...but the horse having a complete "ring" (unlike many toher species) has much to do with it.

Got to leave now...need to get my little dog to the vet....

CarolU

08-23-2006, 01:51 PM

I have not read a study on donkeys, only horses. I guess I would question the assumption that it is okay to overweight donkeys either. In most places that I have been to where they use donkeys as pack animals, once the donkey breaks down, they would eat it. So, I'm not sure how many have survived long enough to be studied.

The point is that YES you can overweight a horse or donkey and have it carry that weight. Obviously you can, since we do it all the time. The point is at WHICH point it starts to harm the animal. SCIENTIFIC studies showed damage to joints starting at 25% of the animals 'in-condition' weight. Maybe we should all remember Cowboy Ed's experience last year, when a 300 lb man BROKE THE BACK of an Arabian in an Endurance race and had to be put down right there in front of everyone. We KNOW it happens.

Rueben, God also gave us a brain. We can either use it to learn from our mistakes and change, or to rationalize our misbehavior.

TrueStepPaso

08-23-2006, 01:53 PM

Cindy, that is a really good question, and I wish I had some answers....but I don't :(
Hopefully someone will enlighten us.....
Does anyone know if there's any SIGNIFICANT difference in physiology between donkeys & horses? Hello?....anyone?......

Terry Wallace

08-23-2006, 02:53 PM

yes...there is significant differences... but Lordy..too much to TYPE!

The article in Equus tells of how the spines of 36 TB racehorses were necropsied by Dr. Kevin Haussler, DVM, (Cornell University)This was in an attempt to "stir up some of the dogma" about the rigid nature of a horse's back, and to have a look at anatomy & function of the spine....

Tell you what..PM me your address if you would like a copy of this 8 page article, and I can copy it on my office coiper and you will have it...its just TOO much to type here....

If your local lobrary has the three volumes of Principles of Conformation analysis...borrow them! It is really unfair of me to skim the article as there is soo much more...about 58 pages in the beginning of what a horse IS....skeletally and musculature wise....

Be back on the "donkey" subject....

Vet cannot see Arlo my dog until 1:45 pm....

Terry Wallace

08-23-2006, 03:11 PM

The donkey subject...significant differences in the hoof (there are more differences than this..but I'll start here)...

Quoting from da book!

"Even relatively fine differences in adaptation to the types of level ground -hard, medium or soft- are reflected by limb structures of different species within the genus Equus. The horse genus includes a range of species adapted to climates and soil types from semidesert at one moisture extreme to fen and marshland at the other. The living equids adapted to the driest conditions and the hardest ground are the donkeys and their wild relatives, members of the species equus asinus.Also adapted to traversing hard, dry ground are the true zebras, members of the genus equus zebra. All these animals possess small, rather upright hooves with thick walls and the over-all texture of flint. The frog and bulbs of the heels project to the rear to occupy a relatively larger proportion of the hoof in these species than they do in the riding horse, while the sole is thicker, tougher and more cupped. "

"These adaptations serve to make a hoof a hammer-hard toe-tip that protects the softer structures, which are held higher during running than they are in the riding horse"

PasoVicki

08-23-2006, 03:22 PM

Lets use this in a sentence "Never walk UBER a ladder"

"The cows UBER was full of milk" "It was not you it was the UBER guy"

How about "UBER not disagree with me or I'll take my toys and go home."

Terry Wallace

08-23-2006, 03:55 PM

yeah Vicky...that is it I think!!!

people rationalize what they "Want".... not ncessarily what "is"... ;-)

TrueStepPaso

08-23-2006, 05:13 PM

Darn that vet...hopefully Arlo is okay......

Anywhooo, YES...I want that article! That would be awesome if you could send it to me (if it truly isn't too much trouble..??). I'll PM my address in a sec....

The apparent differences in hooves is interesting, and all the while while reading your quote I was thinking of how Zebras & wild Donkeys are so "untouched" because they aren't as desired as "riding horses"......hmmmm :lol: (oh no...not again.... ;-) )

I'm likin' it! Learning somethin' here.....

motorgypsy

08-25-2006, 03:29 AM

Ruthie they had this great program on RFD TV done about a girl who rides a steer using a saddle. She explains how she trained him, how to properly fit the saddle, how to trim the feet and all kinds of great stuff. It showed her riding him also. It really was neat!!

Terry, no my comments dealt strictly with the shape of the spine of a horse being an arch as opposed to a sigmoid curve which a human's is and which is terrible for weight bearing. That was all. From there I pointed out that arches can carry weight from both above and below equally because of the shape and the way forces are distributed in that shape. An arch will indeed fail if it is overweighted also but it is the ultimate design for weight bearing and if the horse didn't have it we could forget about riding them. Now after that of course all other systems, ligaments, tendons, cartilege, joints, muscles, proper alignment of the legs all the way down to the feet have to be functioning properly for the horse to be able to carry extra weight or even it's own weight. So when I made my comment it related strictly to shape and structure and distribution of forces within that arch support system, not to the muscles or tendons or anything else. That shape is the foundation of the suspension system. Without it none of the rest would matter. But then again, one little tunnel in the white line in the hoof can cancel out all the other perfect structures and lame them up. Just like a car. All it takes is a flat tire and it doesn't matter at all what's under the hood.

I didn't hear about the Arabian and the heavy rider. That is horrible!! If any horse staggers even remotely the rider is waaaay too heavy and I don't care if the rider is only 15% of the weight of the horse.

You want to hear my pet peeve - it's not the huge people on the horses although of course that is a concern, it's people who ride horses whose fetlocks are touching the ground because of hyperflexing. Again I don't care if the rider is a featherweight. If the fetlocks are flexing that much they need support or don't ride them. This is why you need to take someone who knows horses with you when you try one out and are thinking about buying one. Hyperflexing is not uncommon in our breed and if you keep support boots on them they stay sound but it is a pain and you have to be very careful to keep the weight waay down on hyperflexy horses. One good thing though - they do improve with age IF they are given support and not overworked because the tendons and ligaments tighten.