Re: Stone Bruise (was Re: lameness question)

On Jul 11, 7:04 pm, Bill Kambic <wkam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:55:26 -0700 (PDT), LandShark

> What pushes the lady a few degrees off plumb is her RABID defense of
> the theories of Pete Ramey

I've studied some of Ramey's barefoot philosophies.  I do not agree
with all that he says and does.  A rabid defense?  Well, again...
that's her opinion.

> (he could fix my mare with frankly average
> feet so she could go barefoot even though her hoof quality is is no
> better than average; unless the boy has perfected gene splicing for
> hoof tissue that's not going to happen).

I understand.  I wish I could bottle Sparky's genes that make his feet
so rock hard and somehow, pass them along to all horses.

> She has fundamental contradictions in her postings.  She says that all
> horses can go barefoot, then backtracks and says a few might need
> shoes.

Well, at least she's willing to admit it (that some need shoes).
Changing one's mind or backtracking does not make one a loon.

> She says that shoes cause injury but it's not cruel to use
> them.

Ok.  And the issue with this statement is...?

> She says it's wrong to cause pain to horses with shoes but it's
> OK to let them go sore for weeks at a time to "toughen" them up.

Shoeing may cause unavoidable injury (to the hoof wall), but it does
not necessarily, mean that it causes pain.  To allow a horse to go
sore for weeks at a time, with this, although I understand the
statement, I completely, disagree.  Ramey does not necessarily,
advocate this philosophy, either.

When talking shoes vs. barefoot soreness, you are talking apples and
oranges, when in the world of barefoot advocates.  Barefoot, they can
toughen up and not require shoes (according to the theories).

You can help them (horses) with boots, pads, etc.  When using shoes,
there is no toughening up.  Again, I disagree with these theories for
us, for my horses, for this area, but there are those horses, people,
places, for whom it works.

> And, while not a contradiction, let's not forget the time she gave a
> horse that was a hard loader to the guru, then posted the video, then
> admitted that the guru didn't teach the horse to load.  I mean, what's
> up with that?!?!?!?!

Sharing.  I remember that one.  She tried her Parelli methods on that
horse and they didn't work.  She took the horse to that guru and it
didn't work.  Anyone can call proclaim to be a "guru."  It doesn't
mean sh*t, as you well know.  Years and years and years around horses,
doesn't mean sh*t, either.

> Flake?  Somebody without a clue?  Something else?  You tell me.

Someone with a differing opinion.  Someone who is a strong advocate of
something because it works for her.  Someone who is willing to qualify/
explain the defense of her beliefs because she is willing to listen.

 I'd also wager, someone who was perhaps, misinterpreted, too.  It
gets a tad difficult to defend oneself when you've been misinterpreted
or you've been somewhat, inarticulate.   Oh, and heaven forbid, you
change your mind or consider another position as being remotely,
viable!

No, I still do not think Cindi is a flake, a loon, or someone without
a clue.

Ruth W.