Available Trimmer certifications?

appellativo · Available Trimmer certifications?

Hi y'all. I am researching organizations that offer certification and I want to be sure I don't exclude anything here's what I know of so far:

AHA (certification process only, initiated by Pete and Ivy Ramey but don't know who's running the show now)

AANHCP

Liberated Horsemanship (http://www.liberatedhorsemanship.com/) which so far looks the best to me in the way of getting intensive instruction, field help, and a final evaluation/certification.

Who am I missing? (I'm talking barefoot hoofcare/trimming here, not horseshoeing.)

karmikacres

KC LaPierre. Very well defined pathway to certification.

http://appliedequinepodiatry.org/

Mike

learningthedance

The ESA has a certification program as well.

Edit to add: It's more a "whole horse" approach to trimming.

appellativo

So I googled ESA.....

Would that be the Entomological Society of America
or the Entertainment Software Association
or maybe the Ecological Society of America {ESA}
no no, how about the European Space Agency

???

learningthedance

LOL.

Here ya go.

http://www.equinesciencesacademy.com/index.htm

And the co-founders credentials.

http://www.equinesciencesacademy.com/esa_00001d.htm

Kim Cassidy

The AHA was never run by Pete and Ivy Ramey. It was Pete's idea to form a group and he sent emails out to all the names he knew, who were trimming professionally.

13 people formed the AHA initially and after a year started reviewing and accepting members. It is a peer reviewed organization, much like the AFA.

It is not a training organization per se, most members do offer clinics but not as a means to be certified into the AHA.

You must be trimming professionally for a minimum of 2 years.

There is a elected Board of Directors as well as an elected Evaluation Committee.

If you are interested in learning how to trim, my vote is for the ESA. I personally know two of the instructors, Gil Goodin and Chad Bembenek (also AHA members) and I know "of" of the remaining members. It really is a thorough program and you learn about more than just the feet.

Liberated horseman was the 3rd splintered group to come out of the Jamie Jackson fallout. I am unsure of their program so can't with confidence recommend it.

I won't even go into how I feel about KC LaPierre, since this is such a nice group :D

Lynn

Agree 100 % with ridingall day. All of it

. Anyway, Todd Jaynes teaches at the ESA and is one of my husbands mentors. Excellent teacher! Stay away from the AAHCP and or anything Jaime Jackson has a hand in. He did a lot a good things in the past, but has gone off the deep in the last few years. This I know from our personal experience.We recommend ESA to anyone wanting to trim professionally.

Leah

Cindy Sullivan is still one of the big dogs with ESA, isn't she?

Cindy is a wonderful person!

appellativo

Yeah I remember talking to someone who was AANHCP certified but when they had to sign something saying they'd trim to certain angles or something, they 'quit.'

Ok so a couple votes for ESA. Anyone else familiar with the Liberated Horsemanship guys?

Lynn

The LH is an off shoot of the AANHCP, Jaime and Bruce.Don't waste your time.
Yes, Jaime was making AANHCP members sign a legal document stating that they would trim EVERY horse with the '' 8 Step '' trim, or whatever the heck it was. That is one reason why Pete, Todd, DH and many other members left.

Lynn

Leah

yes she was-I have not been to the site in awhile but just looked it up and Cindy is still involved.

appellativo

This is the thing that gets me with any religion or organization.

It is absolutely impossible to please everyone, so we have all this offshoot and variance in belief and practice.

To me on the one hand, it drives me nuts that there is not an absolute truth.

On the other hand, it's kind of a good thing that there isn't. Of course you couldn't actually convince anybody of that (in religion, hoof trimming, or what have you) but it doesn't stop people from trying.

For me, in spiritual/religious matters, I have decided after a lifetime (what short years I have behind me) of trying to figure out who is right, that I am going to have to sift through and find out what makes sense to me and leave the rest. I can accept that, for spiritual matters.

But for a skill set...that's a little harder to leave it up to 'my experience' and judgement, knowing full well that I don't have the information I need in order to make a choice beforehand!

(sigh!)

misstux

http://www.pacifichoofcare.org/

This is also a good one.

Lynn

Leah

Nothing works everytime.

Lynn

Leah

Ummm...not all trims work every time even if all circumstances are still correct.

Nothing works every time under the best of circumstances.

appellativo

if the horse for example has enough existing damage to the coffin bone, he won't have the support and vasculature be able to rebuild...is that one of the things you're thinking about when you say it wont work every time Leah?

Leah

Well yes.

But even if all things are perfect, no single trim will ALWAYS be correct for EVERY horse.

I don't know how to say it more clearly.

appellativo

I was just on the phone with Bruce Nock and we were talking about how some people teach to trim the foot differently for different environments and his opinion was that that is not correct. Also he was saying how taking the heels down too much can put stress on tendons and how that was not correct either.

My point? You can 'say something clearly' all day long and it may be clear as day...to you. Someone else, though, may be privy to different information or experience that might not match up with your information and so it might not be clear to them. Some people are convinced that 'they are right no matter what' all day long, and this doesn't clarify things for everybody else either. And when they discovered they were wrong and their opinion changes....well that doesn't stop their ego from insisting that they are still right. Just thought you might be interested in another vantage point.

jokersmama

appellativo

[/quote]

I understand what you are saying.That being said, you can't go wrong with Pete's method, if you truly understand the science behind it and evaluate and treat each horse as an individual case. DH has been doing this sucessfully for years now and if the trimmer is knowledgeable and the owner gets with the program ( diet, trim , environment )it works every time.Not sayin' it's easy. It ain't.

If he had to do it again, without Pete and Dr. Bowker available,he'd go with the ESA. Good, smart people that know what they are doing. We know what works. Make it easy on yourself.Do you have the Under the Horse DVD's? Start there, and with the articles on Pete's website. You can't go wrong. You will get the skill set you need if you '' get it '' and find the right mentors.[/quote]

was just rereading what lynn posted...yeah she did say you can't go wrong with pete's method, but she also said to treat each case as an individual. This, it seems to me, would indicate you are NOT doing exactly the same thing for each individual ie. 'cookie cutter.' I'm pretty sure any good hoof care practitioner would address each horse individually. Just because you 'subscribe to a set of beliefs' doesn't mean you apply them rotely or glibly without using your brains. Lynn what do you think?

And, just because the most exposure I have is to Pete's work (it is the most accessible that I've seen and it is understandably presented) doesnt mean its the only way. Of course! It's just that it appears Lynn and so many others that have tried to apply what Pete has taught have had good success. Who can blame them for being enthusiastic.

I think people are way too quick to try to pick someone else apart (not singling anybody else here because I've seen lots of people pointing the blame/disapproval finger). It's just that it gets my goat, all the criticism without being willing to back it up with facts/examples. That whole 'I'm right, you're wrong and I ain't gonna share why' just really grates on my nerves, no matter who is pulling it. Anyways. I'm done, I'm willing to let it go. I'm gonna try to practice what I preach and 'allow others to their opinions/ways' with detachment. (OOOOMMMMMMMM)

appellativo

joker'smama, there is an article on the liberatedhorsemanship site called 'hoof adaptation' that goes into the thinking on this.

click the link on the left of the site called original nhc related articles. Let me know what you think. I am seriously considering attending their six day course. they have some of the original AANHCP people but got tired of the extraneous political mumbojumbo and requiring to sign a document saying they'd trim a certain way (and Jamie's ego).

Kim Cassidy

I think Pete exaggerates to sell his products and I've said that to his face.

Most horses are not Gravel Crunchers and many horses can not be trimmed sound, no matter what you do. Diet, Environment, etc. Pete's trim is a good trim and if it works for your horse, great, if it doesn't try other things, even, gasp shoes.

Barefoot has become a money maker and as soon as that happened all kinds of information is suspect.

My gauge of whether I should listen to someone or not is if they OWN and RIDE horses. Pete does not own or ride horses, nor does Jamie Jackson, nor does KC LaPierre, nor does Strasser or Dr. Kellon.

I have numerous horses, some are sound barefoot, some are not. All have had the works done to them. Diet, supplements, hay testing, blah blah blah. None of that matters, the most important factor in overall horse health is a hell of a lot of exercise.

Everything else, blehhh.

appellativo

Oh that is interesting that some of these people don't own and ride horses. I know Pete used to have that trail riding outfit in the mountains. So IMO if someone applied what they knew, even if it was in the past, with good success on their horses, that's good enough for me. I bet some of the others also probably no longer own their own horses or ride much as they are spending all their time trimming/teaching. You know what they say about when your hobby becomes your occupation, sometimes it doesn't feel like a hobby anymore. Or sometimes you just get so busy you don't have time to ride anymore. I don't know that I'd hold that against someone.

For me personally, if the horses under their care are being ridden soundly by their owners, that's adequate.

I do see where you're coming from though. I can imagine the possibility of a disconnect between someone who treats hooves from one standpoint but isn't on that same horse riding him to see the effects of his work.

On the other hand, horses are so different that the trimmer would have to be riding EACH ONE of the horses under his care to really see how that horse was going. I know THAT isn't feasible (although it would be ideal!)

learningthedance

Kim Cassidy

Leah

OK, since *I* can't seem to make my point clear (and somehow saying no one has all the answers is difficult to accept it seems), let me quote from a book I just started reading:

From Maintaining a Natural Horse, by Tim Ware

"A certain model may maximize hoof function in one environment but compromise function in another. Hoof maintenance must be flexible and adaptable, just as the foot itself is flexible and adaptable; hoof maintenance must be adapted to the environment."

NO "Method" is 100% correct. NONE. Not Pete, nor Strasser, nor KC nor ________ (fill in the blank). I am not being arrogant in saying this. It is simply fact.

Look at horses living on soft terrain vs hard terrain-which one is right? Which is wrong? Each is correct for the environment of that use and for his USE.

HOW do I know? I have personally tried each method available on the open market on several different horses-and several variations and mixing of methods and hybrids of methods.

NOT ONE SINGLE "METHOD" worked on every horse under all circumstances.

Some worked during one weather pattern, some on another...

Some horses were sound no matter what I did-top rolls, bottom bevels, leave the bars, trim the bars, high heels, low heels-others were sore no matter HOW each method was applied. I had to think beyond the methods and use common sense and tons of observation to find a solution.

Just like some people have high arches, others need a certain arch support, some people have wide feet and some narrow-horses are ALL built differently.

Each has an individual coffin bone, and every other bone-each has conformation deviations-the hoof shape will account for these deviations.

Each has a different DNA, different softness or hardness of horn. Each has preferences-some prefer more sole pressure, some prefer less.

AND add to that, each responds to his given environment differently.

The second you get boxed in to a system or method, you are destined to fail some horse along the way.

Instead of focusing on one method or any method, *I* think we better serve horses by learning every possible way of thinking-every possible theory or principle-this adds to our tool box. Somewhere, some horse along the way will benefit by a little tip or trick-another will fail with the exact same application.

Focus on principles of hoof function and structure-not trim in a box.

Yes you have to start somewhere-each of the popular trimmers have materials that are worth making the investment-I just think it is short sighted to stop there....

I have no personal issue with anyone marketing hoofcare information-I probably own every piece sold-if not, I buy it when I find a new one. Each has something good to say-UNTIL they say "MY" method works all the time.

I don't have a dog in this fight-I am not selling a book. I am not selling anything...just offering the fact that each horse is an individual and a trimmer that can sleep well at night will accept that fact as truth and learn to have a TON of knowledge to have a HUGE tool box to serve his clients well.

No one will ever know it all-that is what makes this an open ended topic (horse care in general)-there is always a new individual that does not fit in the method and forces the horse owner/care provider to learn more.

Is that a bit more understandable?

appellativo

I know it's going to be very hard to believe this....but I agree with mostly everything you're saying. I think it's just the delivery that makes it sound like certain people are trying to say something that they aren't.

I will go ahead and assume that when you say 'trim in a box' you're referring to Pete Ramey's 'method.'

However, even in his book and on his dvd's, he openly says, if you do something that doesn't work for that horse, to try something different. He's said that he was too arrogant when he first started out until he ran into that one horse that he just could not help no matter what he did, and to always be learning, always be humble. To me, that does not scream 'trim in a box' and 'trim every horse the same way.'

I do agree that if someone were to say 'this is how I trim, every time, and every horse will love it,' that person is smoking crack.

So essentially, I guess we are in agreement, even if we both may not think we are sometimes

Leah

learningthedance

Yes, and a "direct" quote from Pete himself.... "Unfortunately none of this can be “put in a box”. I can’t tell you exactly how much sole to leave or take from the center of the foot. I can tell you it is wrong at least 99% of the time to do anything at all to the outer inch of sole adjacent to the white line on a barefoot horse. The retained sole and bar that sometimes builds between this outer area and the frog, though, is a very complex variable; extremely important to optimum function and performance. No answer is always right or wrong. The best thing I can do for you here is give you something else to think about; another reason to constantly question everything you "know".

Taken from this article... http://www.hoofrehab.com/seasons.htm (very good by the way, as are all his materials) IMO

We seem to all be on the same page. Pete certainly doesn't recommend a 'cookie cutter approach". Far from it actually.

Leah

SO how can people sit here and argue that his 'method' works when by his own words, he does not advocate a method.

Same with KC-he teaches a 'level one trim'-that is not supposed to be a 10 step trim for all horses under all circumstances.

So I guess LTD, you are saying Pete has no method? And everyone running around claiming his methods works is a little off?

Think about it....

As far as his materials being good-sure-they are good food for thought. But they do not supply all the answers.

That is all I have ever said in response to anyone cheering on some method.

Heck I recommend his DVDs as a good source of information-but it is not a complete package. It is not the end run, the only source needed.

Especially when people are trimming horses for other people-holding out as professionals. Read and raspers.

Just look around the internet at some of the trims being done in Pete's name (or KCs, or anyone, or that matter). Some are purely appalling.

The fact remains, you can't learn to trim from a dvd, website, box or anything else and have it successful for all situations.

learningthedance

Leah

Another quote from Tim Ware:

same book page 11

"You can not successfully do hoof maintenance based on the appearance of the parts, based on forcing a hoof to conform to an appearance model. Hoof maintenance must be flexible for different environments so that the function of the foot, not the appearance is respected. That means the mechanics of trimming a horse living in south Florida must differ from the mechanics of trimming a horse that lives on the prairie of Oklahoma. That is not often done and accounts for many barefoot failure stories."

jokersmama

Leah

SO LTD, is there a method or not?

IF so, how does "he" (insert name of person with method) teach to adapt to different genetics, terrain, environment and use?

I am serious. I don't see these adaptations being taught in a way that is transferred to real horses in the field.

And horses suffer because of that.

The box trims sold by any guru is a trim-some theory, followed by a trim.

You don't see chapters on different terrains-there is not focus on adaptation and use-rather on the method. The so many steps to get a specimen hoof method.

Then it fails on horses not in that use/environment of said trim.

So I am back to where I started-NO method works on all horses all of the time.

Why is this so offensive? It should be liberating.

Perhaps because people want to learn to trim, ride, train and feed from a book or box. Horses just have not read those books and get confused when it is applied.

I am sure you have seen Cindy Sullivan's site-she shows horses from different environments-not western wild horses. Are those feet wrong? Should they have wild horse model feet?

They would not survive with those feet on the sandy terrain. They would not function correctly.

So which chapter teaches that trim?

Can you see the point I am making? All information is useful. None is the complete answer.

appellativo

Leah, that's a good post (the one directly above). I'm going to save that for periodic consideration throughout my education (so I can figure out for myself eventually if it's correct or not. see point made later in this post. Like I said before, I don't have all the answers, I am still learning.)

Sorry to make an assumption but since Lynn and I have been referring to Pete, and you then mentioned 'trim in a box' but didn't name names, that was the logical conclusion. I'm sorry for not confirming with you prior. So now that you're offering me to ask....who advocates their trim as absolute or what you would refer to as being a 'trim in a box?'

nextly: If Pete has a certain set of GUIDE-lines (guideline implies it is not set in stone), and says that "Unfortunately none of this can be “put in a box” and says that "No answer is always right or wrong." then THAT'S HIS METHOD! LOL! I suppose his 'mode of operating' would be a better term.

next after that: Leah quoted Tim Ware: "You can not successfully do hoof maintenance based on the appearance of the parts, based on forcing a hoof to conform to an appearance model. Hoof maintenance must be flexible for different environments so that the function of the foot, not the appearance is respected. That means the mechanics of trimming a horse living in south Florida must differ from the mechanics of trimming a horse that lives on the prairie of Oklahoma. That is not often done and accounts for many barefoot failure stories."

I would love to see the research (not opinion or anecdote) to back this up. Can you or he provide any? Because according to Bruce Nock, who is a research scientist and has instant access to vast research documents, hasn't been able to turn up anything to support this. Are you saying optimum hoof form varies according to terrain?
Have you read that article 'Hoof Adaptation' linked earlier?

Leah said, "The fact remains, you can't learn to trim from a dvd, website, box or anything else and have it successful for all situations."
I'll go ahead and say I agree, there are no absolutes. However, it may help not to be so emotionally invested in what other people think. If someone's going to come onto a forum and hear someone saying 'this works every time' and then run with that, that's their problem and it's not up to any one person to argue it to death. And I suppose it's not up to me to stop them from doing so so I guess I need to take my own advice

So Leah in the interest of discussion, and everyone else, I'd love for y'all to read that 'hoof adaptation' article and give your impressions on it.

Leah

Research on hoof adaptation?

1. Umm common sense observation? That seems fairly scientific to me.

2. Look at the hooves of the wild west compared to Cumberland Island.

3. Basic physics-form reflects function.

You have the function of each structure-and the form that best achieves that function based on environment.

Since you are a fan of Pete, I will refer you to his article entitled "A Hoof For All Seasons " (or something like that). That should answer any questions you have about one hoof fits all situations.

Do you were hiking boots to swim or flippers to hike?

If you answered no, then you gave the common sense answer to hoof adaptation.

No I did not read the article.

appellativo

well in order to have an intellegent two way discussion on this subject, you need to read the article because it points out the flaws in your argument.

edit to add: I'm not saying I have all the answer on the 'hoof adaptation' debate. But the article cited has some very good points.

Leah

OK I read the article and I think the article is flawed.

So where would an intelligent conversation go from here?

Again, I use common sense observation.

You and others are convinced that Pete has all the answers and he and I are actually on the same side of this discussion.

So now what?

I just know if you put a wild mustang hoof on a horse used in deep sand, it impacts his biomechanics negatively.

I just know that from common sense observation.

Often that is more valuable than all the studies in the world-let's face it, just because it is a study, doesn't mean it is correct.

Just because a hoof adapts, does not mean it is correct for all uses. It is correct for THAT use.

The best part? You don't have to agree and it is not my job to convince you.

Take a horse-any horse and adjust his foot and see how his gait changes-then move him from hard terrain to soft and watch again.

No, we don't want horses to grow toes so long and stretch the white line then get on and ride...that would be nuts.

I am talking a range of healthy-a median of correct-with slight deviations in either direction.

A horse is supposed to weight each structure of his foot in a certain fashion-if he is weighted on hard ground the impact is different than on soft.

What is correct stimulus on one terrain is not on a different terrain.

How can this not make sense?

Nashama

Just our own observations as people that trim and treat 100-150 horses over a large area with several distinct terrains and then several soil types within those terrains, if you trim every horse the same way then you soon end up in trouble with hoof bruising -> abscesses. In winter we leave the hoof wall slightly longer and in summer if we don't take out more bar the horses end up badly bruised.

Our terrain varies from granite tors to lush floodplains to heavy clay and sandy semi arid (welcome to the eastern Riverina and South West slopes!). In some places it can snow; others have not had decent rain for 13 years.

Leah

Nashama-that would be common sense observation.

Nature knows better than we ever will.

Nashama

Yep, and the bar thing that works out here goes against most of the barefoot tuition we have had. Glen learned it off David Farmilo.

appellativo

I'm not saying that it doesn't. Necessarily. Like I said, I'm still learning, and part of that process is playing the devil's advocate so I can eeek out a discussion which will unearth information

I reserve the right to change my tactics at will.

I don't think the article is flawed.... I think it makes you think. I think if you assume it's talking about one thing (as in, if you think it's saying there is only one correct trim) and it's really saying another (whether hoof changes in various conditions can be automatically be considered beneficial adaptations in all cases), then you're likely to get your panties in a twist over nothing.

I think the supposition that the changes in horse feet on varied terrain (read: terrain that would never naturally occur in horses given their native environment) are automatically 'beneficial improvements' is ridiculous. Anybody can see the various situations horses are kept in and have been introduced to non-native places where their feets needs obviously are not taken care of. (see example in article for one of them). Is anyone crazy enough to think that those adaptations are necessarily beneficial to the hoof and the horse it serves? (According to the author, apparently there are barefooters out there who do. I'd like to know who so I can be sure not to study with them.) That's the only point the article is trying to make, I think. Like you said, of course one wouldn't want to encourage stretched white lines and flares etc.

I reread Pete's article you cited and with the above said, I do agree that hooves on different terrain will seek to provide each structure with its ideal corresponding contact. I'm not saying that is incorrect or subideal. I'm just saying that sometimes the hoof just can't do an adequate job of it. Is it wrong to force a horse driving on concrete roads to have a deeply concaved 'wild horse foot?' Yes, probably!

You said, "I just know if you put a wild mustang hoof on a horse used in deep sand, it impacts his biomechanics negatively."
I would have said, "I just know if you put a wild mustang hoof on a horse used on concrete, it impacts his biomechanics negatively." since those two terrain are more different and would make your point better. Sand and rock are both pretty abrasive and conforming to the foot (depending how small the rock is I guess)

My brain is fried from this so I gotta take a break. (no poking fun at my fried brains, I'm sure that by now I think you all think I am a crackpot)

Nashama

The Brumby Research Unit at University of Queensland did this with a brumby mare with some fascinating results. If you look up Chris Pollitt's and Brian Hampson's research, you will find some fascinating reading when your brain is a little less frazzled.

learningthedance

Yes, I have been following that too. I have to wonder though, how her feet would be if she could grow out a full year of hoof growth?? I know she wasn't doing so good, but she was walking around on hoofs that had not completely grown in from scratch yet. Very interesting study.

Nashama

Glen's the hoof guru; I am the tendon fixer, so I am fascinated by what is happening in her legs rather than her hooves. Gives me some really interesting things to think about every time I look at a horse with blown tendons.

Leah

Honestly apple, believe as you wish, do you research, trim for a few more years and see if you change your mind.

I really don't have interest in playing devil's advocate just to influence conversation. The tactic is actually a bit annoying.

If you want information, simply asking might be a better approach-then those with different experiences can share based on those and you can use the information you see beneficial.

It is one thing to have a discussion or disagreement when someone can offer experience to back it-quite another when one just wants to argue to argue.

And that is how this conversation feels.

Leah

appellativo

Are you talking about the mare Christine, the one whose hooves looked better at the end of the three months but she was in such poor condition that the experiment had to be terminated?

Leah, not meaning to argue. it's just that I can see pieces of truth in both sides of the fence.

Nashama

These are the mares they transported from their mob in Queensland to the NT, and they did the reverse with another mare, being sandy -> rocky -> sandy. They did have to terminate the study as one of the mares, the one that went to the sandy terrain, did not cope. Her hooves were not too bad but the structures higher in her legs were not good from the photos and she became very poor.

Interestingly, we see this regularly in endurance horses where if the terrain changes from their native hard tracks to sand or from sand to hard tracks, they get footsore and tendon/shoulder sore. This is not an unusual condition in Australia at all. The study ran long enough to confirm what barefoot endurance people have known since barefoot became popular.

Leah

OH yes! I did read that

thanks!

oldmac_donald

Sometimes I'm appalled at who would be willing to allow that mare to suffer in pain for a whole year just to prove a point that she would either:

a) adapt
b) perish

in her new environment.

(Not pointing fingers on this forum, but this mare has been discussed elsewhere before, and the attitude of "with enough time ANY horse will adapt - including this one!" was certainly prevalent in some of the more impassioned barefooters)

That's something I don't get with some folks - when does the cost outweigh the gain? Some folks just don't CARE about the cost to the animal's comfort or health... so long as they get their chance to prove a point!

Nashama

These guys are animal scientists at the most basic level and don't have the touchy feely attitude most of us have to our horses. They take the view one animal may suffer for the good of millions world wide, and interfering in wild cycles is just not done. I don't really have a position either way on it as I do know how the laminitis research was done and I have to admit every foundered horse we have dealt with since has benefited by the research team's findings.

I guess I grew up a lot on this issue when watching the Documentary "Faces in the Mob". I understood at the end of watching them document the death of one of their subject kangaroos that these scientists and behaviourists do not interfere with the cycle of life for the most part. They just go out and observe. If you then take that to this study, the mare was luckier than if she had suffered similarly in her own mob. Because they interfered with the natural cycle, she was not simply allowed to die as would normally happen among scientists doing a study.

learningthedance

What I WAS saying, is it would be interesting to know, how she would have functioned (her feet) if they had of had a full year for her to grow out a hoof that would then be acclimatized to that particular environment, movement, food. She obviously would have needed help in achieving this and time to adjust. As already mentioned, even her body was unprepared for the drastic change. The other thing they will never know for sure is how genetics played a role in that scenario, although, I am most certain it did. Obviously, taking her there and just throwing her into that situation wasn't going to work, and thankfully, they had radio transmitters on her so they could track her and keep a close eye on her. It was a tough study. Tough on that horse.

Just wanted to clear that up. I never said to leave her there and, "allow that mare to suffer in pain for a whole year just to prove a point".

wow.

Nashama

I just checked back on the study and Christine's decline was linked to her hanging on to one waterhole for comfort after the relocation.

oldmac_donald

LTD, notice the disclaimer of "no one on this forum". That include YOU. I was not picking up on what you said, I was going on discussions I have heard of this case before.

Nash, sorry!! I did NOT mean the scientists at all! I didn't even think that what I wrote would be construed like that. I think they did a great job of pulling the mare out, good on them.

This case was discussed on an Aus. barefoot site at some point. Some attitudes towards the ability of ANY horse to adapt to that terrain was pretty ignorant, and downright close-minded.

Not the scientists. Not THIS discussion.

I was always getting upset when I was little, about watching the zebras getting eaten. I remember the "Faces in the Mob" doco too. I guess wildlife docos are a bit different in that no animals are deliberately placed in situations causing pain or death. The mare was placed in a situation in which she suffered, and she was removed. Good for them! The zebras, not so much... Plus their suffering is usually over quickly.

learningthedance

Nashama

This would be the Yahoo list? I am on them, but like many of the long-term barefoot people, mostly I don't go near it.

The team copped a lot of flack but the truth is had it been a less public research project then Mother Nature would have ruled whether Christine lived or died.

I own Faces in the Mob and I bought it because I found it to be one of the most difficult documentaries to watch that I have watched. Every now and again I watch it to remind me that when these sorts of studies are done then Mother Nature dictates what happens to the animals being studied; and that even in a well fed, domestic herd of horses, it's rough out there.

oldmac_donald

Well, I just read that article by that liberated horsemanship dude (heh). He seems very closed minded about the possibility that some horses DON'T ACTUALLY LIVE IN SEMI-ARID TERRAIN!

He's kind of going "wild model is best, LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAAARRR YOUUUUUU!"

How about horses that are genetically built different to mustangs (who have small boxy feet to begin with)? What about horses who ride only on sand, grass, gravel, dirt, asphalt? What do his horses do? I'm sure that many horses would be perfectly sound barefoot when doing nothing but loafing in the pasture. Take that horse and expect him to work 2-3 hours per day, in an environment that he doesn't live on, and see how happy he is after a while...

For a so-called scientist, his papers leave MUCH to be desired. My uni lecturers would of been appalled.

As for the whole thing about the native horsemanship being superior in that THEY don't need shoes, go watch a Mongol tribesman treat colic with an icepick to the abdomen, and then come let this dude know that the fact the horse A is off in the right fore is REALLY troubling to the horse's rider!

appellativo

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. So if this line of thinking (as in Bruce Nock's article) is flawed, (I believe he is an administrative presence in LH, not a teacher) I wonder how his views have (or if they have) affected how the course is taught. He was one of the original in AANHCP. In the 'contact us' link, the names are: Ann Corso, Richard Drewry, Jean Putz, Tom Croce, John Graves, Steve Hebrock, Cynthia Niemela. I don't know what/how they teach so if anyone has any feedback, I would be grateful.

I'm not sure but it sounded like someone earlier thought that the mare who did poorly, Christine, had been left out for a whole year. In fact she was only left out for three months. I too am glad that she was brought back in. I too questioned whether or not her extreme hardship was worth that method of improving her hooves.

Maybe a smiliar study could be done with horses that were born from the wild, have been in captivity for a while and developed poor feet due to mismanagement, so that they will more easily be able to adjust because they have their original survival instincts.

Do I have it right that faces in the mob is about kangaroos?
Have y'all seen that documentary about what the penguin goes through (it was done a few years ago). Now that is something!!

Nashama

Yes, our experience is the assumption that one trim fits all is flawed.

Faces In the Mob is 12 months documenting the happenings wiht a mob of kangaroos, yes. They watch one of their main subjects die of injuries. You or I would pick that animal up and take it to the vet, but that's not their job, their job is to not interfere with the natural cycle of the mob. It's very difficult to watch.

appellativo

Yeah that's pretty tough. Hors Blue Matine just died from a pasture accident where she broke her leg. As if that wasn't bad enough, she was in foal. I kept thinking wasn't there some way they could stabilize her till she foaled. but that would probably been pretty selfish to make her suffer some months in the interest of saving the baby. Sometimes life is just cruel.