As a comment, the biggest complaint the naysayers have, is that a
horse that starts with points off, really has no chance of winning.
>From my experience on rides this year, on some rides this was true,
but on others it was not. I won a ride this year with minor interference
on 3 legs and I would have much preferred to have the option to
protect his legs abd lose some points up front (his shoeing was incorrect).
-Jim
jferris@cwa.com
Morgan Hill, CA
> From: "Joe Long" <jlong@hiwaay.net>
>
> Jim, I have some questions for the NATRC board:
>
> If the use of interference boots violates their philosophy, why do
> they allow shoes? For that matter, why do they allow saddles and
> bridles? I'm not being facetious ... I do not see a substantive
> difference between use of an iron horseshoe to protect the hoof, when
> some horses can ride our trails barefoot, and the use of boots.
>
> And how can it possibly be in keeping with that philosophy to protect
> the hoof wall, but not the sole? It makes no sense to me.
>
> Certainly a horse that doesn't normally interfere is a better trail
> horse, all else being equal, to one that frequently interferes. One
> reason Kahlil stayed sound for over 11,000 miles is that he never
> beat himself up (and has never worn an interference boot in his
> life). So, take that into account in the scoring -- assess a horse
> wearing boots the same penalty as if he had come in with interference
> marks. But why make the horse suffer the injury to prove a point?
>
> Their philosophy also doesn't consider the fact that not everyone can
> afford to sell a horse with a minor fault or two (or that they may
> have an emotional attachment to the horse) to go and buy one without
> that fault. Don't make a horse with faults a champion, but why deny
> his owner the opportunity to enjoy your sport?
>