Re: RE: Bibliographies on Barefoot Info for Sue, Truman, etc.

["Susan Garlinghouse" <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>]

> that respect!  I have tried using various translating programs, but unless
> you really know what it *should* be, there's a lot lost in these verbatim
> translations.  And, as this forum is for, you were able to come back and
> say:

I didn't read the entire articles, though I am familiar with Adams' Lameness
in horses and such.  I could just read the title enough to be able to figure
out whether they were talking about specific pathologies or general anatomy
and such.  Or, were familiar with the journals cited.  I didn't see any
specific titles that would lead me to believe they constitute empirical
studies about the specific subject at hand, not that you ever claimed they
did.  But, my German is also pretty sketchy.

> because I had a great mental picture of "Just Say NO to Alfalfa" signs on
> that bandwagon!

Ah, you know me well...:-)))


>
> But Susan, I have to disagree here in this respect:  this is not a case of
> science being "wildly extrapolated", at least not by me.  All I have done
is
> compare and contrast the things I've learned and the things I've read with
> what I was taught in school.

The wild extrapolations I specifically refer to were suggestions that
changes in blood flow to the sole and hoof could have an effect on kidney
and liver function.  And, previous suggestions that the protein consumed
through hoof growth has any significant affect on the rest of the body and
its excretion of excess proteins, etc.  Plus the comments about hoof tissue
being constituted of toxins, though that seemed to change every five minutes
as to what those toxins/proteins were.  I assume those theories (and yes, I
*would* consider those wild extrapolations) came from Strasser, but don't
know what the origins are.  I disagree with them, regardless of the source.


> have taken great pains to be objective in what I've read, and am not a
> Strasser-devotee by any means.

I certainly don't mean to sound like I'm binking on you personally, Tracey,
because I'm not.  Just disagreeing strenuously with some of the
opinions/theories/ whatever being put worth from the Strasser school of
thought.


> potentially recommend using their dogma as the
> >solution for virtually every ill, including colic, laminitis and a poor
> fashion sense.
>
> Susan, I can certainly understand the source of your exasperation here,
but
> let's leave the drama and exaggerations out; no one benefits from that.
> Let's try to keep this as educational as you usually do.

But was there not an excerpt from somewhere or another stating that proper
trimming affected all those things---colic, laminitis, kidney function,
lower heart rates, sweating, etc etc etc?  I apologize if I'm more colorful
than usual, but this doesn't strike you as lending some pretty far-fetched
qualities to a good trim?

> As I took great pains to maintain impartiality earlier, I did include in
> that same post,
> "But, it is good to see where and how Dr. Strasser is basing her findings.
> People need to be able to make informed choices in times of stress or
need,
> and these things help them feel better about having made a truly educated
> decision."

I think you're doing a good job of remaining impartial, Tracey---sorry if
I'm lumping together excerpts from multiple posts, nothing against you
personally.  I do agree that people need to make individual and educated
opinions for themselves.  In fact, all of my lectures and seminars are
always based on explaining *why* things work a certain way, so that people
can come to their own conclusions; as opposed to just jamming my personal
opinion don't their throat and saying Do It My Way.  But my experience in
talking to people about nutrition is what leads me to making my comment
about people deciding a laminitic horse needs a trim instead of a vet,
*because I've seen that happen in nutrition*.  People read a nifty article
about some new herbal this-or-that, believe it all without analyzing it
objectively, and every once in a while, it's the horse that has to pay
dearly for it.  THAT'S what I object to, whether we're talking about
nutrition, shoeing, or any other aspect of horse health.


> How did what I say evolve into religion? From the very beginning of this

Don't get upset.  Again, I'm lumping alot of different posts into one reply,
and the reply is not aimed necessarily at your responses specifically, so
I'll try to be more precise.  But you oughta read some of the nasty,
strident, hysterical emails I'm getting privately, some of them accusing me
of not being interested in horse welfare because I'm not embracing thiese
theories without thought or question.  "Religion" and "dogma" would
definitely be a very apt terms.


 As it is, alot of folks tend to believe everything they hear and
> spout it as verbatim without having even checked it out or researched it
> further, and *that's* what I have a problem with.  Give me numbers, facts
> that I can chase down, sources to research.  I think you and I are saying
> similar things;

I think so, too. :-)))



> Gee, all I want is to be able to ride my horse without shoes (if that's
what
> makes sense at the time) at rides and not get discriminated against.

If it's all working well for you and the horse, that sounds perfectly
reasonable to me.


Have I
> ever said - or even implied - that anyone who has shoes on their horse's
> feet are nuts?  Or that this is the only "right" way?

Nope.  Nor have I.


> The only extremist gleanings you've gotten are those you've reached for.
> And I do mean *reached*.

In reviewing the posts from my Deleted file, I don't think so, but whatever.


> Can we please get back to the more educated banter we were having earlier?
> If you have facts to share (like you did at first), then I embrace and
> encourage them... your particular "buckets of

Well, I've pretty much said my piece and have other fish to fry.  I wasn't
even following this thread until someone forwarded some of the
more...interesting...comments about toxins and things and asked for comment
and I thought those comments wild enough (sorry, but they are and were) to
justify a challenge.  Sorry if you disagree with my comments, opinions or
choice of adjectives in communicating, but as I've remained polite and
respectful of other's rights to do what they please with their own horses,
(despite the spate of private posts from others who cannot return the
favor), so I stand by my earlier posts and current comments.  :-)

Glad it's all working for you and anyone else, though.  As long as the horse
is doing well by objective standards, it all sounds fine to me.

Susan G