Re: Stone Bruise (was Re: lameness question)

On Jul 12, 6:04=A0am, Ocean of Nuance <lizzardwomanRM...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

> I wonder how many BF only types would agree shoeing is both appropriate
> and not harming these horses? =A0I wonder if Cindi would agree.

When we sent S.'s three year old to one of the trainers we use for two
months of under saddle training, he insisted on shoeing her, even
though he lives and trains in the same hills we ride on for fun,
barefoot.  He says if he tries to take them up unshod, their feet
break all up.  I can tell why some of his horses' feet will break all
up in the hills - they are not trimmed right.  At all.  But some look
OK with their trim.  Do I think he would absolutely NEED to shoe the
ones who have been having good, barefoot quality trims for at least
the last year?  Probably not.  Am I positive he would not need to shoe
a single one?  No - I can't be that sure.  I know our horses do fine,
and I can see that some of his horses don't have the right trim.
That's all I know.  :-)

Shoeing for 2 or 3 months so a horse can be with a certain trainer who
requires it is not going to kill the horse.  Or to be more precise,
Bowker says that circulation to the foot is compromised immediately
upon peripheral loading, which occurs immediately upon shoeing, but I
don't think 2 to 3 months of compromised circulation will kill the
horse.  I don't know if the Cariboo has worse ground than at our
trainer's - it sounds like it might.  After two months of shoeing,
S.'s little girl came back with heels a tad high and of course she
broke up at her nail holes a week or so after the shoes were pulled,
once the nail holes were close to the ground, but she looks fine now.
She's actually back at the trainer's - I took her back when S. broke
her leg so the horse wouldn't just be sitting around doing nothing.
They agreed not to shoe her for this one month but they won't take her
on the trails as they are too worried.

cindi