Why would I need a file? You post something contradictory so regularly! Keep it up–it’s cheap entertainment! :lol:
10 Likes
I think that the biggest problem with trying to create a standard is that there is a there is a relatively wide range of differently sized and shaped feet that are healthy. How would the standard be defined? In inches? No, because a mini’s feet are so much smaller than a draft’s. By ratio? No, because some horses have narrower feet, some have wider feet, some have oval feet, and some have spade-shaped feet. Some are naturally more upright than others. And what about horses with abnormal feet that are still sound, as long as they’re trimmed/shod appropriately? There are some horses who are sound and athletic but who would suffer if shod like every other horse. Or maybe a general standard without specific measurements? If it’s up to interpretation, I don’t think much will change.
I think there are some really awful shoeing trends but I’m not sure how a standard could be written that would apply to every horse (or even to the majority of horses).
4 Likes
You actually do this a lot, and several have called you out on it.
The whole reason this thread exists is because someone else (meaning, not me) brought up the issue of the typical Scotch Bottom shoes and the purposefully deformed (flared) feet to suit an artificial aesthetics of how a draft horse should move to win. You act like this is something I saw once and decided it’s a problem everywhere. I’ve never stated it’s a problem for all drafts (because I’ve clearly stated I’ve seen normal draft feet with epoxy attached to allow for the giant shoes and “flares” to alter their gait), let alone a problem across breeds or disciplines.
I haven’t generalized a thing. Since you seem to think I have, I would love for you to quote where I did, so I can make clarifications. If you can’t produce the quotes, well, I can’t help what you infer.
You’re both missing the intent of this. I wish I had not use the original wording I used, I was typing fast in the heat of the moment. I thought I had explained better in this thread what my intent was, maybe you haven’t read my clarifications.
Of COURSE you can’t compare a mini foot to a draft foot - why would you? No competent farrier defines a healthy foot by dimensions. No competent farrier trims to dimensions or angles or tries to make all 4 feet look the same or all horses look the same. Dimensions and angles end up being what they end up being when the foot is properly trimmed. The “stilts” commonly seen on ASB feet, and the extreme flares commonly seen on the show drafts in the context of this whole thread, are not properly trimmed, period, and that is what started all this on the other thread - how do we get rid of that.
My 1250lb TB mare’s feet will never be the size of my 1500lb WB’s feet. But they are all healthy feet without flares, including her more upright RF. No matter the size of any of my horse’s feet, they are not remotely looking like the deformities talked about here.
4 Likes
But JB…how DO you define “normal”? Measurements or ratios or whatever are impossible because of the reasons you list–there’s so much variation. A standard that’s Potter Stewart claiming “I know it when I see it” isn’t very useful, or enforceable.
You can write up what a foot CAN’T look like–crazy stacks, scotch bottoms, big grabs on racing TBs–but people just figure out how to massage the limits and work around it. Kinda like the drug rules. NO ONE cares that any performance altering med is banned…just what tests.
Didn’t they (the USDA?) just outlaw giant stacks on walkers recently, or am I misremembering? That might be something interesting to watch, in this vein. Their efforts to ban soring weren’t terribly effective, IIRC :-/
I get what you’re saying, but just how do you see getting there?
1 Like
That’s the gray area I was talking about. At what point do you look at a foot and go “well, you need a new farrier”, vs “clearly that was done on purpose to try to alter the way of movement”? I don’t know the answer to that. At some point you CAN look at a foot and tell it was done on purpose. But once you get farther from the extremes, it’s a large area of uncertainty. I only know that it has to get there at some point. Will it? I don’t know. But that is the goal of the other poster who started the other tread.
And yes, stacks got limited to a certain height, I don’t remember what. Soring is banned, and thankfully getting the attention it needs to actually be enforced.
My original comment in the other thread wasn’t to start writing the “rules”. I only stated that until something is put into place to at least limit the purposeful deformation of feet, it won’t stop, because it won’t be self-policed, clearly.
I have no idea how to get there. Sparrowette asked some of these questions in her OP. I don’t know the answers 
2 Likes
I almost hate to bring Klaus into this thread, as I don’t think we need to have the same conversation going in 2 different threads, but since he’s the one who started all this, maybe he can give us some insight into what thought, if any yet, he’s given to how one might go about ending this.
There are several different questions here.
-
Can we define the limits of a healthy normal foot from a veterinarian and farrier perspective? Yes, we can, and its not that hard.
-
Can we convince people in disciplines that rely on deforming the hooves to get exaggerated movement, that they should stop doing this? Maybe, maybe not. Can we convince hunter trainers to stop drugging horses with things they hope dont test? Can we convince halter breeders to breed functional horses? Maybe, maybe not
-
If the horse owners and trainers involved do not want to stop these practices, how do we enforce them? To what extent are people allowed to do what they want with their animals? Some jurisdictions have banned declawing cats and docking dogs’ tails, by convincing veterinarians not to do these procedures, for instance.
But can we have a standard? Is a different question from, can we enforce a standard on people who put ribbons ahead of the horse’s welfare.
5 Likes
:applause::applause: That is exactly it Scribbler :encouragement:
Reasonable guidelines already exist, and have for a long time. I have no idea the criteria to be met to be a judge at shows like these, but I would assume there is some sort of test or qualifications to be met, just as there is for judges for rated Hunter and Dressage shows. So, you add in being able to identify a reasonably healthy foot, and anything else gets points docked, or outright eliminated.
And as I was wide awake at oh-dark-thirty again the other morning, this subject came into my head again. Shouldn’t part of judging horses, no matter the breed or discipline, include their representation as a healthy, functional, useful horse? Representative of their breed when it’s a breed show, able to do a job if it’s performance. And shouldn’t that include the health of their feet?
But it still all comes down to getting buy-in from high enough up to enforce it on down the line.
The screwed up feet came into being as a way to gain an advantage. That advantage got lost when everyone started doing it. Going back to normal feet is just a different, level playing field.
2 Likes
The breed shows in question exist outside of any larger equestrian governing body and evolve their own standards over time. Much of what goes on in simple rail classes at those shows looks all wrong to me, and nowhere near functional riding styles. But it’s evolving within a closed community where people train and show within their own little playground and don’t need to think about how far their riding, breeding, aesthetic, has deviated from the principles of good horsemanship. And it attracts those who love a particular form of exaggeration, so its self reinforcing.
The only standards that come from outside that are even theoretically enforceable would be ones that involve cruelty to animals and actual legal sanction. Soring falls into that category. I would argue stacked hooves can and should also. However that might be a harder point to carry through law makers.
Other than that really people have a lot of leeway with their livestock.
1 Like
First of all, there are sufficient standards for deciding what a correct hoof looks like and they have to do with the angle of o the hoof, respectively the pastern, which should be within 45 to 47 degrees for the front, and 50 to 55 degrees for the hind feet. Then we have to look at the heels, the bars and the frog. Every good farrier knows that and can help. Unfortunately it is left to the experience of the horse owners in this country as to what makes a good farrier for lack of certification, so one has to do one’s homework. Too many horse owners choose farriers by pricing than by skills and also do not inform themselves enough. Literature is available and so are other horse owners whose experience could be tapped.
The breeding associations could play an important role as well, but they often times do not seem to consider themselves as regulatory institutions( which they should be in my opinion).
Snipped for brevity.
If, by this, you are aiming at “anatomical correctness” as a base standard then we have no real issues. I would add that a deviation from strict anatomical correctness to accommodate the horse that is in an environment where such a strict adherence could be detrimental is acceptable.
Too many people, when they hear the words “universal standard,” translate that as requiring fixed angles, lengths, trim styles, shoe styles (or maybe no shoes ever) as the true meaning.
G.
You had me until you got to specific degrees.
While those might be what the average front/back hoof looks like, trying to trim/shoe the front foot of a long, sloped pastern into 45* angle may well get you a broken forward HPA,. I almost guarantee that foot will be at a lower angle (less than 45*) in order to properly align the hoof-pastern angle to a straight line.
Trying to put a genetically upright foot down to 47% may well get you a broken back HPA and a worsening of the issue (and a sore horse).
You can also have a very straight HPA, but have a very tall foot with long toes and underrun heels that happen to stand up and not crush - poor trimming. So it’s not as simple as “straight HPA, and angle between X and Y”
Then we have to look at the heels, the bars and the frog. Every good farrier knows that and can help. Unfortunately it is left to the experience of the horse owners in this country as to what makes a good farrier for lack of certification, so one has to do one’s homework. Too many horse owners choose farriers by pricing than by skills and also do not inform themselves enough. Literature is available and so are other horse owners whose experience could be tapped.
I’m not disagreeing with you when it comes to creating a truly healthy foot. I don’t see a need for the judges to determine the competency the farrier/trimmer to this degree - I don’t even think we should be doing that. I agree that in general, it comes down to the education of the owners in being able to see gross incompetency, choosing quality over cost (to a point), and in general, being the stewards they should be when it comes to hoof health.
The breeding associations could play an important role as well, but they often times do not seem to consider themselves as regulatory institutions( which they should be in my opinion).
I agree that they should, but most don’t. The WB registries are much better examples of regulatory institutions, as they have a stake in the long-term soundness of their performance horses, and yes, this does include hoof conformation to at least some degree - club feet for example are frowned upon and even cause for non-approval if it’s bad enough.
:yes: I agree.
JB, the angles that I referred to are averages, of course there are slight deviations, but would you agree that any judge should see at first glance if the angle of the pastern and the one of the hoof are broken? Oftentimes the hoof’s angle has been changed by faulty trimming and/or shoeing, not everything necessarily as excessively wrong as what I described in my thread about Scotch Bottom shoes.
By the way, breeding can also contribute to excesses, for example when bad conformation (in this case affecting the length and angle of the pastern) is supported by accepting the carriers of such faults within a breed instead of banning them.
As to the breeding organizations or any other organizations that conduct events, they have a responsibility towards the well-being of the horse, at least as much as they seem to favor marketability of certain fads and therefore should intervene when the former one is negatively impacted. I do not attempt to speak for other uses of the horse, but when it comes to show-hitches one can see horrible examples of how it should not be done - and I do not only mean the oversized feet and the overchecks too tight. Judges have to start to go against the grain here and they probably won’t until the public stops tolerating these aberrations. And therefore people need to be educated an need to educate themselves about these issues. And the guideline can not be whatever the market bears as we have seen that the market is quite tolerant of even horse abuse.
Yes, any monkey can tell if the HPA is aligned or not. It was just concerning to see you state that angles should be within a certain range. If we go there, then we are getting into just how good quality, genetically, the feet are, and that opens up a whole new can of worms. Unless it’s a breeding class, or “best of breed”, I don’t necessarily think the judge should go that far.
I definitely agree that things should not go the direction of whatever the market bears. We’ve seen how badly that goes :no:
My mare had the best trimming experience of her life, when our farrier balanced each hoof individually. Her sport horse canter improved, her comfort improved and her confidence increased. We had a long history of flares and high heels courtesy of her breed’s impact on our past farriers. Except we did not do main ring Arabian, we rode dressage. I am so thankful.
1 Like
Sorry JB, I do not think you can set a standard for healthy hooves that will work for everyone. Quoting angles, things “every Judge, Vet and Farrier should know” gives them more credit, possible experience, than they may deserve. Even talking older folks, years in horses, won’t agree on healthy hooves or good shoeing. People are tainted by their experiences with other breeds “strange” hoof looks as compared to what that person commonly views as “normal”.
I run into plenty of comments about my horses’ shoe jobs, mostly questions of folks trying to learn. Bit depending on the place we are visiting, there can be “helpful” comments by people who think I am ignorant on shoeing, have a terrible Farrier because my large horses have such big hooves! They scome over to me, whisper that they can give me the number of a Farrier who can reshoe the horses to give them “normal sized” hooves. People ARE TRYING to be kind, not embarass me being ignorant about the hooves, so I just thank them, tuck the phone number in my pocket and move on. There have even been a couple Farriers who did this! Have to say most of these are Western horse folks, used to seeing small, neatly shod hooves even under large horses. None were used to seeing proportionate sized big hooves under big horses. Sometimes the horses they were riding were actually lame, but they didn’t even know it!! Hooves cut too short, shoes too small, for the animal above. Heck those hooves were too small even for a little horse! Horse didn’t know which leg to limp on, they were all sore.
Vets do not actually get all that much time in school allotted to legs and hooves, so unless they take specialty training, their hoof knowledge is not that deep in what a “healthy hoof” on various breeds looks like.
Farriers tend to shoe the popular breeds in their area. At times they just never encounter other breeds mentioned here, Arabs, Morgans, Saddlebreds used for general riding activities, not to mention show shoes on those breeds. All have the more proportional sized, bigger looking hooves, longer natural toes protecting the inner hoof, just as barefoot horses. Shod flat, they look big hoofed next to most QH and other western breeds. If the Farrier cuts them shorter he/she will have sore or lame horses. They naturally need a longer toe and heels to be comfortable moving. You can’t set a standard measurement that fit all 14.2h horses for example. My old western horse had a natural 3 and 3/4inch toe length, wore cut off size 2 shoes in front, size 1 shoes behind. She was in proportion to her 900# working weight, never lame, worked hard most of her life on those proper sized hooves. Not heavy boned, actually somewhat refined in the bone area. Another horse the same height and weight, different breeding may have much smaller hooves, without even being trimmed too short.
Folks who do not like the pad stacking of Saddlebreds, Park Arabs, Morgans, may not realize that those horses actually have a bigger surface on the ground for support. They tend to stay sounder longer, often working well into old age shod like that.
Not talking TWHs, that is a whole different game with their practices.
Just trying to present the idea that people are heavily influenced by their own horse experiences, often think “other breeds” practice bad horse keeping or shoeing. What WE THINK is reasonable, simple ideas, is not simple or reasonable at all to other breed/discipline horse people!!
So I say no to setting a healthy standard, because it can’t work with all of us having such varied concepts of what healthy truly is. Letters after your name may not make a person an expert on ALL horses.
I do not think attacking a person for their views is a good idea in a forum like this instead we should try to reasonably come to common understanding by discussing the issues. People tend to be defensive when their practices or their horses are criticized and that very human tendency can affect their judgment on what others say. While it is certainly true that not every shoe fits all sizes (not to avoid a pun), on the other hand certain ways of shoeing (and in this case also a trimming) can cause discomfort. That is what those of us who are critical of certain practices are trying to convey. here. Most easily to observe is when the angle of pastern and hoof is broken or when hooves are either too steep, have no heels or too much, or too flat. It just is not true that every breeding results in acceptable conformation and therefore breeders, judges and owners have to develop an eye for what is okay. The farrier’s job is to make it easy for the horse to move in comfort, not to help owners indulge in fads (see my second sentence!!). I may rile some here, but my son who has been shoeing for well of 20 years says that it is easier shoeing European horses than American ones because generally the former ones have better feet. The reason for that may well be, that ,I can say that at least for Germany, breeding associations and show judges are stricter with the feet and do not let people’s whims get in the way with their judgment.
The US is country number one within the advanced countries when it comes to the ratio of horse per inhabitants, but that does not mean that all that is done here should be supported.
2 Likes
I have been following this thread, and thank you to all the knowledgeable persons who have contributed. It’s apparent that there won’t be any magical mathematic formula coming out any time soon on what a good hoof will look like. But it’s also apparent that we are in agreement, that SOME hoof practices, approved by breed associations and shows, are detrimental to the horses affected.
What if we attempt to approach the issue from a different angle?
Some parts of the issues, are that gimmicks are used to increase action, and create a gait that appears showier, with more accentuated leg movement of one sort or another. When gimmicks are used, we humans start going “a little is good, more is better!” to the point where you wind up with the TWH disasters, all in the name of winning. One big problem is that the show standards never seem to present a place where it’s called “too much”. When it becomes too much, we see halter QH’s looking like beef cattle standing on little peg hoofs, the “Big Lick”, ASB’s higher and higher knee action, and the list goes on.
When a gimmick is used, the gimmick is what creates the action, not really the horse. The horse is only reacting to the gimmick. Using gimmicks does not show what the bloodline of the horse has produced, it only shows how well bloodline react to the gimmick.
IMO, the breed associations should be promoting how the breed, on its own, does wonderfully in what the original horse was valued for.
My horse is a Saddlebred. When the ASHA asked for public input a few years ago, I replied to them, that if they really wanted to promote the breed as “the horse that can do it all!”, they really needed to start rewarding horses that actually DID IT ALL! AND NOT JUST IN THE SADDLE SEAT SHOWS! It’s been only recently, within the last couple weeks, that I have seen the ASHA promote Saddlebreds for Dressage.
And someone has started a web page promoting ASB’s for endurance, but I don’t think that site is ASHA.
When I saw the horse in the above image, my first thought was that this is what the horse was originally used for, and excelled at. Back in the day, in the early US, a horse that could move through rough country, safely and quickly was an extremely valued asset. This is what the breed was originally valued for. Because of the limited promotion by the breed association, ASB’s are looked down upon as nothing but funky-hoofed freaks, when in my mind, they shouldn’t be. AND, I must admit, some (not all) of that “look-down” is valid, because the abilities that originally made the horse the most popular breed in the US before the Civil War, have not been bred for since, and so have atrophied, in favor of horses who react to gimmicks. This is really sad, because the ASB was the original endurance horse.
Gimmicks are a huge problem. They prevent the horse from showing what they can really do, on their own, as a representative of the breed. They present a lie. They are part of the sliding slope of “if a little is good, more is better” destructiveness that leads to atrocities. I’m really hoping that this group of wonderful, thoughtful and knowledgeable people should be able to come up with something. We can’t give up.
1 Like
Sparrowette, " gimmicks", I think that sums it all up neatly! And every horse lover should want to avoid them. Unfortunately there are many out there who use the horse as a tool for satisfying a need to shine, to promote their ego, when winning is the most important goal, not as a tool to get something done. We will have to work at making this unacceptable when it conflicts with the needs of the animal. Show organizers and breeding associations do not have to give in to selfish motives that hurt the horse. Horses naturally are very willing and compliant animals, in over 55 years of having owned and worked with them I am still awed and baffled at the same time how much they want to do for us! There is no need for us to exploit this willingness with gimmicks that are causing discomfort, may hurt and actually are dishonest, because they artificially change the natural abilities of our equine partners. What cannot be accomplished with training and breeding cannot be justified being forced on the horse with artificial means. In my mind that is nothing else but cheating.
1 Like
Maybe I should add to my last post, that I do not believe that all people who use these gimmicks,like for e.g. Scotch Bottom shoes and overchecks that are too tight, are aware of what they are doing to the horse. They are just following trends and fads they have observed and in that sense, of course, cannot be accused of cheating consciously. But the cheating lies in the act of adulterating the horse’s natural abilities with devices that are changing the conformation. It is, let me repeat that, the obligation of the people organizing the shows to offer corrections of fads, especially when these have reached excessive stages!
1 Like
