# What age does everyone think it is correct to start a horse?



## .Delete. (Jan 7, 2008)

ReAlly it depends on what you want to do with you horse. Most of the time people start horses before 2 years of age because of money either racing industry or shows. Or just plain ignorance. It's really personal preference when it comes down to it. Personally I like to start a horse (depending on it's development) at 2.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SarahRicoh (Jun 23, 2010)

When you say start do you mean like get used to tack etc? Or do you mean break them in and start riding etc?


----------



## SarahRicoh (Jun 23, 2010)

Oh and il be wanting to break the horse in to be ridden by me. To do a bit of everything.


----------



## Eolith (Sep 30, 2007)

It depends quite a bit on the breeds and the disciplines, not only the horse. Warmbloods and such tend to mature a little more slowly than something like Quarter Horses and Thoroughbreds (or so I've been told). There are several people in the warmblood world that would agree 4 years old is the best time to start a horse.

My personal preference is to start backing them around 3 years and doing the easy basics (steering, halting, changing gaits etc)... but not seriously riding and training until around 4 years.

It's your choice really. I personally like to err on the side of caution and have the horse be a little more mature both physically and mentally. That isn't to say that you can't do a whole TON of groundwork, desensitization, and other training "games" starting as early as 2 years old.


----------



## gypsygirl (Oct 15, 2009)

^^ all horses mature about the same rate, but some breeds look more mature than others at a younger age- that doesnt mean they are.

i like starting at 2yo [riding w/t/c] then throw them out for a few months to grow up. or start them riding at 3 with no break, but gradually longer and harder work.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

I am an open-minded person most of the time, but this is one area I am quite judgmental about. 
In my personal opinion, a horse can be worked with from the time they are a foal, but I don't believe a horse should have anyone on its back until age three. I think at age two it is fine to saddle up and do some light ponying but nothing long or strenuous. Between three and four it is fine to ride but no jumping, speed events, or serious work. By age four you can start the horse's "career" so to speak, but I wouldn't consider a horse fully mature until age five. 
Of course many people start horses much younger than I believe is right. I also don't believe a mare should be bred until age four or five. 
My beliefs are based on many years of seeing how young Thoroughbreds snap their legs while galloping and how horses that are started young are almost expected to have joint problems by their early teens. People who start horses young also think a horse can be ready to retire at twenty.
Horses that are started later in life can reasonably be expected to be used into their late twenties or early thirties. My mare who was started late is twenty and is as sound as she was at ten. I don't have her on joint supplements or arthritis medicines and I don't expect her to need them until she is actually "old." 
Of course I feel my horses' health is far more important than earning money or fame with them, and that's why I pour money into my horses and watch them poop it out their back ends.


----------



## Eolith (Sep 30, 2007)

gottatrot said:


> I am an open-minded person most of the time, but this is one area I am quite judgmental about.
> In my personal opinion, a horse can be worked with from the time they are a foal, but I don't believe a horse should have anyone on its back until age three. I think at age two it is fine to saddle up and do some light ponying but nothing long or strenuous. Between three and four it is fine to ride but no jumping, speed events, or serious work. By age four you can start the horse's "career" so to speak, but I wouldn't consider a horse fully mature until age five.
> Of course many people start horses much younger than I believe is right. I also don't believe a mare should be bred until age four or five.
> My beliefs are based on many years of seeing how young Thoroughbreds snap their legs while galloping and how horses that are started young are almost expected to have joint problems by their early teens. People who start horses young also think a horse can be ready to retire at twenty.
> ...


I couldn't have put it more eloquently myself. I think this is very well said, and I agree 100%.


----------



## SEAmom (Jan 8, 2011)

I have a coming 3 year old Arabian and I have no plans on breaking him to ride until he is grown enough to handle it. There's really no age limit. It depends on the horse and the breed. Some horses can handle a rider at age 2 while some need to wait until they are 4. For my horse, I've had ignorant "horse people" tell me I should be riding him already and that I'm doing both of us a disservice by waiting and I enjoy telling them what I think of their opinions. He bits well, he saddles well with a cutback saddle, and we can lay across his back while stands calmly. That's good enough for where he is in his growth and development.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SarahRicoh (Jun 23, 2010)

Ddraiggoch Welsh Cobs

The filly im thinking of getting is in youngstock-valerie but there is also another colt and filly for sale.

What do you guys think of them? They are very well bred youngsters for low money and exactly what I want.


----------



## MacabreMikolaj (May 9, 2009)

You have to consider the fact that no horse, regardless of breed or sex, has ever matured fully (full skeleton fusion) before the age of 6. The legs are done fusing by 2-3 years old, usually averaging about 2.5 years. After that, it's the spine that takes so long, starting from the tail and moving up to finish fusing in the neck.

So at ANY point until a horse is at LEAST 6 (more likely 7-8, especially for bigger breeds), you have the ability to cause severe damage in an unfused spine.

What does this mean? It means that we have hundreds of thousands of completely competent trainers every single year successfully break in reining prospects at 2 years old and have them competing at 3 years old. We also have many many people completely screw up a 3-4 year old horse due to total inexperience.

Obviously the longer you wait the better - the legs are a HUGE one, and I do believe most people consider 3 years old that sort of acceptable age because the legs joints WILL be ready to go by this age, only leaving the spine to be mindful of. And unless you have a horse that REALLY bucks, you don't typically see a lot of spine issues unless a horse was ridden HARD as a baby.

It all boils down to experience - a 2 year old could be MUCH better off in the right hands then a 4 year old could be in incompetent hands. There is no magic age, unless you consider 6-8 years old the "magic" age upon which the entire skeleton has fused, and the horse is sturdy and ready to be worked HARD (which would be AWESOME if we could, we'd likely see way less injuries). But outside of this age, it really all boils down to personal preference and experience.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Gottatrot summed up my feelings on it nicely....

The last one I broke we didn't get on him until he was 4, big chunky Fjord x QH, needed all that time for both his brain and his body to mature to the point that I felt comfortable backing him. 

He was played with as a yearling
Introduced to tack as a 2 year old
Lunged, ground driven, worked in side reins as a 3 year old

then backed at 4.

Because of the extreme winter here, youngsters get to rest each winter, so a summer of work then a winter off, before starting again. It seems to work well.


----------



## SarahRicoh (Jun 23, 2010)

Thanks guy. I am in the frame of mind that the later you start them the better and I dont agree that 6 etc is to late as my first horse I broke in aged 12 (She was a broodmare til then) and she was amazing.

I was just looking to see everyones opinions and a lot of you know more about the physical things than me.

To me the youngsters im looking at look very immature (the 1 i like is only 2 in may) but I dont want to buy her and just leave her in a field so I was just seeing what everyone did with their 2 year olds.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

I just went and had a look, they have some nice looking horses there, but did you see their Jacks Russels?? 

*MELTS* in a pool of gooey stuff, they are just so darned CUTE


----------



## Sunny (Mar 26, 2010)

MacabreMikolaj said:


> You have to consider the fact that no horse, regardless of breed or sex, has ever matured fully (full skeleton fusion) before the age of 6. The legs are done fusing by 2-3 years old, usually averaging about 2.5 years. After that, it's the spine that takes so long, starting from the tail and moving up to finish fusing in the neck.
> 
> So at ANY point until a horse is at LEAST 6 (more likely 7-8, especially for bigger breeds), you have the ability to cause severe damage in an unfused spine.
> 
> ...


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## TeamPenner17 (Feb 21, 2011)

My 4 year old appy has just started her training ...I think 4 years old is pretty reasonable


----------



## SarahRicoh (Jun 23, 2010)

I am by no means amazing but I am experienced enough to start and bring on a youngster and I hope id know enough not to damage them like everyones saying.

Im going with 3/4 as an age to start them, thanks guys


----------



## myhorsesonador (Jun 21, 2009)

Golden Horse said:


> I just went and had a look, they have some nice looking horses there, but did you see their Jacks Russels??
> 
> *MELTS* in a pool of gooey stuff, they are just so darned CUTE


 
I was looking at the jacks myself. ooo soo cute! I have a 10 month old jack right now. love him to peices!

*off to start a thread about her puppy*


----------



## SarahRicoh (Jun 23, 2010)

lol  never mind the puppies haha... what do you lot think of the horses?


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

DITTO to gottatrot and MacabreMikolaj

Personally, I think it is best to handle them as much as you can from the day they are born. If you get the comfortable with handling and random objects (sacking out) from a young age, it will be more second nature. Of course, the younger they are the shorter you should keep your sessions because their attention span is very short. Also, it is very important during this time to work on respect (leading nicely, no biting allowed, catching and haltering easy, etc).

I do like to saddle them up and do some very light riding in the fall when they are 2 years old, for about 30 days (depends on the horse). Mostly, I just want them to understand general concepts like giving to the bit/pressure, turning, the meaning of "whoa", and just figure out that a saddle and rider on their back is no big deal. You can really teach a lot in short 15 minute riding sessions and it doesn't need to be any longer -- just real light stuff. Then turn them out for the winter to "be a horse"!

That way, when you want to get on and start doing some regular light riding in the spring of their 3-year-old year, they've kinda got an idea of what is going on. At this age, I don't focus on their career but rather on basic things every horse should know. Again, the riding is kept fairly light due to the fact of all those growing changes MacabreMikolaj mentioned, so I don't want to over-stress growing bodies!

I think their 4-year-old year is when you can start refining their training so it's specific to what career you have in mind for them. And based on each individual horse and the situation, you maybe can start pushing them a little bit, or else when they turn 5. 

Of course, all this is just a general guideline that will have to be altered based on the individual horse. But that's kind of what I personally like to do. 

And if you plan on doing futurities and things like that, of course everything is going to get pushed up and pushed faster to get to those goals.


----------



## SarahRicoh (Jun 23, 2010)

Well said 'beau', I agree totally


----------



## A knack for horses (Jun 17, 2010)

MacabreMikolaj said:


> You have to consider the fact that no horse, regardless of breed or sex, has ever matured fully (full skeleton fusion) before the age of 6. The legs are done fusing by 2-3 years old, usually averaging about 2.5 years. After that, it's the spine that takes so long, starting from the tail and moving up to finish fusing in the neck.
> 
> So at ANY point until a horse is at LEAST 6 (more likely 7-8, especially for bigger breeds), you have the ability to cause severe damage in an unfused spine.
> 
> ...


Agreed.

I don't think it matters so much _when_ you start a horse rather than _how fast _you start the horse.

I feel its ok to start breaking a horse as a 2 year old, but you have to take it slow. Walking/trotting around a roundpen for 10-15 minutes is ok, but heavy cantering on trail rides is not. I really don't think horses should get medium riding until they are three (occasional short trail rides, occasional small shows). They shouldn't start getting heavy work until they are four.


----------



## SarahRicoh (Jun 23, 2010)

That makes sense. I never really thought about it because I suppose naturally its obvious to me that the younger they are the less time spent on one session due to attention span (like a puppy).

Im more worried about the physical side as I know little about when bones/joints fuse etc?


----------



## irishbutterfly (Jan 24, 2011)

I agree with a lot thats been said. it is very dependent on the horse and exactly what you mean by "starting"
You can play and socialize and desensitize when they're younger but i dont recommend any tack other than a halter before 3 and not full out riding before 4.
I agree that 4-6 is a good age to really start a horse.

I'm currently training my appy stud(will be gelded once he is paid off) and he is 6, and was started under saddle when he was 5. he is still very green but i think he will be fully ride-able by summer.
i cant help but shake my head at those who start 2 year olds under saddle, i mean, they arent even fully grown. its like having a little kid training to be a body builder


----------



## A knack for horses (Jun 17, 2010)

SarahRicoh said:


> I never really thought about it because I suppose naturally its obvious to me that the younger they are the less time spent on one session due to attention span.


That too. Just like a young child or puppy, a young horse doesn't have the focus like thier adult counterparts. Also, it seems you get more accomplished if you work in short 10-30 min sessions, rather than spending 2-3 hours working a young horse.


----------



## EternalSun (Mar 29, 2009)

I bought a yearling APHA cutting bred filly last June who will be 2 on May 22nd. I plan to start introducing her to a saddle and bridle, teaching her to move away from pressure from the ground, round penning, and all that stuff this summer. I'm not even going to start to get on her until after her third birthday, so basically I've got more than a year to get her 100% solid on the ground. My intentions for her is to get back into the NBHA circuit and be a competitive barrel racer again, but I wont start her on a pattern until she's at least six. My coming 21 year old QH gelding was started at 18 months and he is just a mess now. He's had navicular since he was 13, has bowed both front tendons, has more splints than I can count, and has recently developed high ringbone in both front legs. I spend a fortune on corrective shoeing and supplements just to keep him comfortable. It's a miracle he's even able to be pasture sound, though some how he is. That's the main reason I'm taking things slow with my filly - I've seen and am dealing with the consequences of what happens when people start horses before they're physically ready. I personally think 3 is a good age to start slow and don't start heavily working them until at least 4. Starting any horse before they're 2 years old is just completely unacceptable in my book.


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

As a reiner we start our horses as 2yo. I find that in the long run this does not hurt the horse in any way when the horses is started properly. There are so many benefits from starting then at this age and working them correctly. One by the time you are really working them they are in better shape better muscling they have learned to balance the rider they have learned to move away from pressure and since they are started younger more time can be and is taken at the basic level to make them sound in the basics before they are asked to do more. Starting them older people tend to think or need to push them faster and harder which in turn leads to more problems.


----------



## SarahRicoh (Jun 23, 2010)

Theres definitely a lot to think about after reading peoples opinions. It seems that in America people seem to start their horses earlier than the UK (Except for racehorses).

There is no way I want to rush whatever horse I buy or damage them physically and I can always borrow a horse if I want a ride.
The youngsters I am looking at are just turned 2.

I agree with the route of starting at 2(eg. used to tack/groundwork etc) and building up correct muscle and manners and then light basic work aged 3.

Can some of you please write exactly what you do with your 2 year olds in term of groundwork? Its very interesting to see what everyone thinks and does with their own horses and new ideas are always a benefit


----------



## equiniphile (Aug 16, 2009)

Obviously there is a world of dissension on this, and it varies a lot on the individual horse. Breeds like Arabians mature very slowly, and their physical and mental maturity is often equal to that in human years. Because of this, hard physical labor at the age of 2, 3, or 4 is often very detrimental. However, horses like Thoroughbreds and Quarter Horses are bred very hardily, and have been started at 2 for years, so they have adapted to be able to sustain this.


----------



## SEAmom (Jan 8, 2011)

A problem with breaking a horse to ride older than 5 is if you plan on showing them. Most shows have junior classes for horses 5 & under. They're judged as novice horses. At 6 & older, they have to show with the "big boys" and it can be more difficult for them to prove themselves and do well in the show circuit being novices and still young. Of course, I'm referring to under saddle only - not jumpers, eventers, or anything like that.


----------



## equiniphile (Aug 16, 2009)

SEAmom said:


> A problem with breaking a horse to ride older than 5 is if you plan on showing them. Most shows have junior classes for horses 5 & under. They're judged as novice horses. At 6 & older, they have to show with the "big boys" and it can be more difficult for them to prove themselves and do well in the show circuit being novices and still young. Of course, I'm referring to under saddle only - not jumpers, eventers, or anything like that.


 This is a good point. Also, in many Western shows only horses 5 and under can be ridden in a snaffle/direct reined, so if they're started at 6, they have to wait a while before they can show to catch up on learning what is required for the seasoned 6+ year olds.


----------



## momo3boys (Jul 7, 2010)

SarahRicoh said:


> Can some of you please write exactly what you do with your 2 year olds in term of groundwork? Its very interesting to see what everyone thinks and does with their own horses and new ideas are always a benefit


I started my RMH the end of his second year with just the basic haltering and manners. He hadn't been taught how to lift his feet either so that was a challenge. He is just turned 3 now so we do a lot of dog walks (I want him as a trail horse), and basic yielding to pressure. He has had all the tack on him, this took some serious desensitizing, and I have let him walk with me in the saddle. This is about as far as I will go with him until he is almost four. 

His attention span just can't handle more that 10-15 minutes of training at a time and I don't want to push him.

I hope this helps.


----------



## MacabreMikolaj (May 9, 2009)

As a bit of an example, me and Shay-la have two fillies the same age - I have a Paint and she has a Clydesdale/Thoroughbred. We started them both very lightly late in their 2 year old year, and did short light rides throughout winter into their 3 year old year.

This past summer was their 3 year old year, and my Paint filly is awesome on trails, we have fantastic rides, and we even did our first small show in October at 3.5 years old with flying colors. She will be 4 in a couple of months, and is ready to start some harder training - she has a fantastic attention span, she's a hard worker, and you can really push her.

Shay-las filly? Going into her 4 year old year, she's been given the entire fall and winter off with only very very light trail rides. Despite being equal on physical maturity, Eve is still a yearling mentally. They were getting nowhere with their rides, she was constantly spooking and scatter brained and just would NOT focus on anything. Shay-la has stepped back and given her some time to grow mentally, and I have a feeling they're going to be BRILLIANT this year.

Mental maturity is definitely something that differs GREATLY from breed to breed.


----------



## SarahRicoh (Jun 23, 2010)

Thanks everyone... It really is a controversial subject


----------



## slc (Jan 30, 2011)

"When should a horse be started?"

Under saddle: 3 1/2

Longeing: starting six to eight weeks before 3 and a half, but not longer than 5-10 min.

No longeing, ground driving, long lining til then.

A youngster can be trailered, handled, shod/trimmed, ponied (in mostly straight lines) from much younger ages than that of course.

Research has shown that all horse breeds mature at the same rate: slowly.

Why are horses broke to ride at 1 1/2, 2, 2 1/2, shown as weanlings and yearlings on the longe line, ridden in classes when not yet 3?

Money. 

That part is very, very simple. Money.


----------



## SEAmom (Jan 8, 2011)

I don't see anything wrong with showing a horse on the ground that isn't ready to be ridden. I've shown my horse in halter classes since he was just barely 2 and he's done a couple of longe line classes as well. I want him to be accustomed to a show environment and trailering now because I know we'll be showing more in the future. Doing halter, showmanship, and longe line classes with young horses isn't going to hurt them. Also, it generally costs a lot more to show the horse than anything they may win. Only a couple of our classes have had paybacks and they were barely enough to cover the cost of the class itself.

I do agree that it's typically not good to break a horse to ride under 2 because they aren't developed enough.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SarahRicoh (Jun 23, 2010)

I agree with seamom... the experience of going to a show would be good for a youngster.


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

I wont break mine untill they are 3 and a half going on 4.

Reeco was sent away when he was 3.5 and I think I was possibly a bit early in that just for his mental maturity. He has gotten the concepts but it has taken a while.

Section D's In my experiance are slow to mentaly mature. I wouldnt break one untill they were good and ready. The last one I had broken was close on 5 before she was mature enough in her head!

That said Reeco was lunging well aged 2.5 and he went out to partys inhand to have a look round. We also went on inhand "hacks" so he is very good in traffic.
He was bitted aged 2.


----------



## gypsygirl (Oct 15, 2009)

starting at a younger age [2-3] can also help bone strength, although overwork [like racing] can be detrimental


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

I have a very big problem when people seem to think that the only reason why a horse would be started at 2 is b/c of money. I have an entire barn full of horses started at 2. I also have one who was started for about a month close to 3 and not worked again until he was 5. I also have one who was never ridden at all. I would love to have you try and figure out which one is which. Not to mention that the ones started at 2 are all reiners. They all have retired sound and/or are still being shown. 

They all love their job love to be worked and are not happy just sitting around.

Why do I do this? B/C in the long run it helps the horse. They are started slowly and have a very very solid handle on the basics. The horses I know who are started later are pushed more and faster. People seem to think b/c they are older they can work them harder and need to to catch up.

It is like some people seem to think that people who show are only in it for some alternative motive. The horse could never enjoy it. That show people do not care about their horses and once they are done with them they do not care and just dump them.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

If futurities started at five and the early horse races were for five year olds do you think people would still be saddling up yearlings and two year olds? That tells me SLC must be right. It's about the money.

NRHA, at what age do your horses retire? When you say they retire sound, what does that mean? Can you expect them to be ridden for two hours walk/trot/canter/gallop into their late twenties? If they really are lasting like that, then you must realize your horses are the exception and not the rule for horses that are started early.

If starting horses young helps strengthen their bones, then why do so many of them end up with stress fractures and joint issues? Why do racehorses have to have cortisone injections when they are still babies? I don't know of any human kids who have to get regular injections to help with pain from overuse injuries so they can run around. Perhaps that is because most parents don't take their little kids out and force them to run for miles every day.

I would think that most people who are sensible enough to wait until their horse's body was mature enough for enforced work would be sensible enough to not rush a horse's training as well.


----------



## SEAmom (Jan 8, 2011)

A lot of people seem to be misinformed about what is typically done with 2-3 year olds that are broken to ride. I've seen many horses broken young and working well into their 20s. My best friend has a 23 year old nsh that showed English pleasure from 3 until...well, now. He has a supplement for his joints, but he performs well to this day. In fact, at 20 he went regional top 5 in English pleasure. He can do 2-3 hour trail rides and is more sound than just about any horse out of the 23 at my barn. In fact, he is hardier and in better shape than her 12 year old Arab stallion. He was started at 2. I've known horses started at 10-12 that went lame in only a few years. Just because a horse is started at 2-3 doesn't mean it's doomed to be unrideable at 10 or even 15 years old. In my experience, they're started slowly and gradually increased in duration and intensity. Good training means you don't have to work as hard or as long to achieve the same results.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

gottatrot said:


> If futurities started at five and the early horse races were for five year olds do you think people would still be saddling up yearlings and two year olds? That tells me SLC must be right. It's about the money.
> 
> 
> *It would not change anything. This has been discussed several times with in the NRHA. What was found out is that it would just give trainers and owners more time to train and work their horses. It would not change when they started them.*
> ...


This is not at all true. Tell me how much time do you spend doing very basic training when you start a horse under saddle. IE: how much time do you spend at the walk before moving up to the trot or lope?


----------



## SEAmom (Jan 8, 2011)

Very true nhra. Also, a 3 year old horse is roughly 16 compared with humans physically. By that measure, should we not allow kids to play competitive sports until they're full grown adults? There are years and years of training that go into a strong, healthy athletic person and it generally starts at a young age (I played soccer from 4-18 years old). Typically kids aren't started full on in sports and neither are young horses.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## .Delete. (Jan 7, 2008)

Lovely post nhra i always enjoy reading your posts.


----------



## MacabreMikolaj (May 9, 2009)

Awesome post nrhareiner.

I guess it sort of boils down to money, but then again, doesn't everything? In the old days, horses were started young because having a mouth to feed that didn't earn his keep was almost impossible. In a lot of ways, that holds true today - it sort of set the tradition of starting them early. But people educated themselves and learned how to best start youngsters to help them stay sound.

I think the middle ground falls somewhere between running young racehorses into the ground and the European tradition of starting their horses so late (and having less injuries). Not all racehorse owners will kill a 2 year old, and not all Europeans will have sound horses despite being started late. The same holds true for any discipline, and virtually any age of horse (the exception obviously being riding a 6 month old).


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

It's true there are many factors to long-term soundness including whether a horse has good conformation and whether a horse is used with no regard for proper conditioning or what the horse is built to do best without breaking down.
I believe part of the problem with racehorses is that they are trained to the extent where their muscles and explosive power are developed beyond the capacity of the rest of their young bodies. They also do not do a lot of slow conditioning work to strengthen their tendons and ligaments.
NRHA: It sounds like you personally must be doing a lot of things right to have horses that are usable into their old age. I'm not trying to criticize you.
Even if futurities starting at a later age did not keep some people from starting their horses too young, it seems to me that there would be horses that would benefit from it. Even if your personal horses are not rushed in their training there must be a lot of trainers that push the young horses in order to get them experienced enough to show in their discipline at such a young age. 
I don't believe a two year old horse is physically or mentally like a two year old human. I believe like someone said, a three year old horse is more like a sixteen year old human. So therefore ready for some serious training without overdoing it, just as a sixteen year old human would be. A sixteen year old human if over-trained is more susceptible to problems than a twenty-five year old human is. 
If people feel the need to start seriously riding and training their horses before age three, then they need to be aware of the fact that the horses are not fully mature and be very careful and aware that they could cause problems for the horse later in life if they push them too hard. It sounds like hopefully some of you are very careful even if you start horses young.
While I personally do not feel the need to school a horse at the walk for an entire month, I do not rush a horse that is started older. However, I do not train with specific time lines in mind i.e. preparing to show as a junior horse before the horse reaches five years old. So I can see how that could be a temptation for people who start an older horse.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

:shock: I did put paragraphs in the above post but I don't know what happened to them. !!


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

It is not just me. There are a lot of reiners out there still showing that where started at 2yo. Look at all the green rookie and youth horses. Most of them (not all) are geldings who where trained and shown as aged event horses and since they are geldings they are not retired to be breeding horses. Those horses are still going strong. 

I gave my mares full brother as an example. He was started as a 2yo. His first show was the Tradition. He won that show. He then went on to finish 4th ate the NRHA Futurity. Now at 14 he is still going strong. He has been shown quite a bit every year since then. He is now on his 3rd owners in his show carrier. Taking green reiners and showing them the ropes.

Rocky Dare has a long line of horses he has trained that are still showing into their 20's. He is a big one for starting horses early. 

It takes about 2 years to get a reiner ready to show and about on average about $35K. So trainers are very careful to keep these horses sound. Are there some that do not stay sound? Sure. There always will be regardless of when they are started.

The time spent at the walk is what helps these horses in so many ways. One they are very very solid before they move up to the trot. Then they spend anouther 30-60 days at the trot with some loping but not much. If they are not solid at the trot why would you move them up to the lope anyway?? So by the time they are loping they are in very good shape they know how to balance the rider and they know how to move their body's when asked.

Dose training have to be done this way? No. However I have found that this way of doing things pays big time down the road and fortunately so does my trainer.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

I have been in barns where people start two year olds and watched to see how they are trained. At least around my area it's like most Western people (not being biased, just stating a fact) can't wait for their horse to turn two so they can start using them. They have that saddle on as soon as they're two and of course some of them use January as the birthday no matter when the horse was born. They saddle up and are riding regularly within a month, working the horses at walk/trot/canter, lunging repetitively, and expecting the horse to be ridden in the same manner as an adult horse for the rest of their two year old year.
They will start doing pattern work, running barrels, anything they can teach the horse seems OK in their mind. They will take a horse out on a three hour trail ride and ride them hard. To them the horse is an adult now and they use the horse that way. 
This is what I disagree wholeheartedly with, as well as TBs that are ridden as yearlings and galloping regularly as two year olds.
I don't like that so many horse owners as well as the general public have the impression that some horses mature early or are somehow ready for hard work at that age.


----------



## SarahRicoh (Jun 23, 2010)

Good post gottatrot


----------



## slc (Jan 30, 2011)

It doesn't matter how many reiners are still going that were broke at 2. It doesn't matter how many horses of ANY sport are still going a long time after they're broke at two.

What matters is the ones that don't keep going on and on forever.

I don't care if it's 1 in ten, 1 a hundred or 1 in a thousand. 

I play poker. If there is something I can do to increase my odds of winning, I do it. You can say all you want that some people have won at poker with a bad hand, I'm going to play a winning hand.

To me, winning with horses is, I buy a young horse, and I can train and compete on it for 20 years, MINIMUM. I'm cheap. I don't like to waste one year, two year, ten years, training on a horse that then doesn't last.

I'm going to do anything that will up my chances of not wasting time training a horse 6 days a week for a month, a year, 10 years, and seeing it then break down. My time is money. Every hour that I ride, I could be working for hourly pay.

But in fact, everyone's time is money. And every hour one spends on a horse is an investment, whether it's for your own pleasure or to compete or resell, it's an investment in the future. 

I want to get a horse that's going to last. There's enough research to throw doubt on early starting of youngsters. I've had enough of mine that were started early be retired at 5, 7, 10, 12. Even at twelve, that's seriously a problem. That's when a dressage horse should be at his peak, you should have a good 12 more years to enjoy all that effort you put into training.

Doubt: that's enough for me.

To me, that's winning, the training time I invest, I get to enjoy for years and years and years.


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

slc said:


> It doesn't matter how many reiners are still going that were broke at 2. It doesn't matter how many horses of ANY sport are still going a long time after they're broke at two.
> 
> What matters is the ones that don't keep going on and on forever.
> 
> ...



Everyone invests in their horses some more then others. A horse who will not at the very least re pay the cost of training is a wast. B/C of the cost to train a reiner care is taken to make sure they stay sound. However in the end there is so much more that goes into keeping a horse sound then just the age they are started.


----------



## Marecare (Jan 1, 2009)

Here is one that I have all saddled up and ready to go.
I think I am going to take her to the Yearling futurity and see if I can get a 20 foot sliding stop out of her ...ha!


----------



## QHpaintlover (Feb 24, 2011)

i like to start puting saddles on them at 2 but never backing them till 3. maybe put my 3 year old son on them at 2.


----------



## slc (Jan 30, 2011)

I've had 3 that were started at 2(one at 1 1/2) by someone else, they were all retired by seven and lived on my dime for a good many years, which had a big financial impact on me as well as affected my riding progress as I could not do anything or get another horse til those horses were ok in new, good pet homes. Some of us board, some of us aren't infinitely wealthy, and such a situation can be a disaster.

I regularly see people having to retire horses they start so early, a few years later, and I've seen it too many times for it to be this great and amazing coincidence. It crosses all lines, too - feed, riding style, training method, and settles right in very reliably on that one factor. 

You're gonna keep breaking 'em at 2 or 1 1/2 or whatever, I'm not worried about getting through to the people who already have it in their heads that this is fine, because that'll never happen. 

But maybe one young person coming along or just one person getting a youngster will let it have a little more time, and that'll be good.


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

slc said:


> I've had 3 that were started at 2(one at 1 1/2) by someone else, they were all retired by seven and lived on my dime for a good many years, which had a big financial impact on me as well as affected my riding progress as I could not do anything or get another horse til those horses were ok in new, good pet homes. Some of us board, some of us aren't infinitely wealthy, and such a situation can be a disaster.
> 
> I regularly see people having to retire horses they start so early, a few years later, and I've seen it too many times for it to be this great and amazing coincidence. It crosses all lines, too - feed, riding style, training method, and settles right in very reliably on that one factor.
> 
> ...


Thing is how do you know it was just from starting them at 2? How do you know there are not other factors that went into it? How do you know that the same thing would not have happened if they had been started latter? Fact is you do not know. There are so many things that go into keep a horse sound. Take a good good look at the ones you say where lame early. Look at their keep their conformation their legs and feet. Even their breeding. All these things play into it. It is not just when you start them. Also when you are looking at them as 2yo. You again have to look at all these things. They decide if they are ready to be started. If not then you do not start them.

The fact is there is not just one thing that goes into keeping a horse sound latter in life. 

Take a look at horses like Rowdy Yankee. He was still showing at 12-13 and winning. He was started at 2 and was also a breeding stallion so you have that ware and tare on his too. Still going strong and still sound.

Look at all the horses at the WEG in reining. Again all older horses all started at 2 all still sound and showing.


----------



## Sunny (Mar 26, 2010)

Since I am in the process of backing my girl, I'll give my own input.


I got Sunny as a 21 month old, and had saddles and bridles on her almost immediately. I have put all of my weight on her.. -pauses to count-.. 5 times since I got her, and only one of these times did we tell her to walk (no more than 20 seconds of walking). She will be three in one month. I am waiting on a few items I ordered to arrive, and then we will begin the real training.

The thing with Sunny is that, mentally, I could have started her as a long yearling and she would have handled it fine. She is more than mentally ready to be backed. 
I am waiting for the "real" training until she turns three for the physical side of the situation.

I plan on having this girl for a long, long time, so I definitely don't want to rush her training.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

Marecare said:


> Here is one that I have all saddled up and ready to go.
> I think I am going to take her to the Yearling futurity and see if I can get a 20 foot sliding stop out of her ...ha!


I know this is more tongue and cheek kind of thing but this is one of the things that really gets me a bit ticked. People seem to think that when a reiner is started that we are sliding and stopping them at 2. This is the farthest from the truth. 


I see more horses started letter who are worked much harder then I work my finished horses when they are being legged back up. It is not when you start them but how.


----------



## MacabreMikolaj (May 9, 2009)

QHpaintlover said:


> i like to start puting saddles on them at 2 but never backing them till 3. maybe put my 3 year old son on them at 2.


There is so much wrong with this statement I'm not sure where to begin. :-|


----------



## MacabreMikolaj (May 9, 2009)

nrhareiner said:


> Thing is how do you know it was just from starting them at 2? How do you know there are not other factors that went into it? How do you know that the same thing would not have happened if they had been started latter? Fact is you do not know. There are so many things that go into keep a horse sound. Take a good good look at the ones you say where lame early. Look at their keep their conformation their legs and feet. Even their breeding. All these things play into it. It is not just when you start them. Also when you are looking at them as 2yo. You again have to look at all these things. They decide if they are ready to be started. If not then you do not start them.
> 
> The fact is there is not just one thing that goes into keeping a horse sound latter in life.
> 
> ...


My Arab gelding didn't have a thing done with him until he was 3 years old - he was born on my grandpa's farm, handled regularly but only as far as proper health care as my grandpa was in no condition to train him. My aunt finally took him when he was 3 years old (summer of his 3 year old year, born in April). She was doing light rides by that autumn, and coming into his 4 year old year, she increased his training and began light jumping at 4.5 years (crossrails).

He popped his splints in both legs. And he foundered by age 7. He was essentially a pasture pet and light trail horse for beginners by the time he had recovered at age 10 with badly rotated coffin bones.

Obviously the splints did not lame him, but it's a perfect example of "everything done right" and he's still a cripple by age 10. The hand he was dealt!

My Arab mare wasn't started until she was a late 3 year old, got her 3 year old winter off, began trail rides at 4 and didn't start any jumping until 5. She's spent the last THREE years out of work because of damage to BOTH her tendon sheaths because of bad farrier work. It's doubtful she'll ever return to full work without risk of re-damage. Again, "everything done right".


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

MacabreMikolaj said:


> My Arab gelding didn't have a thing done with him until he was 3 years old - he was born on my grandpa's farm, handled regularly but only as far as proper health care as my grandpa was in no condition to train him. My aunt finally took him when he was 3 years old (summer of his 3 year old year, born in April). She was doing light rides by that autumn, and coming into his 4 year old year, she increased his training and began light jumping at 4.5 years (crossrails).
> 
> He popped his splints in both legs. And he foundered by age 7. He was essentially a pasture pet and light trail horse for beginners by the time he had recovered at age 10 with badly rotated coffin bones.
> 
> ...


That is just it. It would not have changed anything if those horses where started at 2 or 10.


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

Then there are horses like my old guy Flash. He was started as a short 2 year old to be a roping/reining/performance horse. He was all fine and dandy until he was 5, when he was diagnosed with Navicular. BUT, it was all caused by a long period of very horribly shod feet (verified by 3 different vets). It had absolutely nothing to do with when he was started. After we got him and my Dad started doing some corrective shoeing on him, he ended up sound as he ever was. He was competing in team ropings, doing full ranch work, and showing up into his mid teens (when we stopped competing and showing). He continued to do ranch work until he did finally have to be retired at 23 due to complications from the Navicular. I have known a great many horses who were started at 2 and never had a lame day in their life and were used up into their 20's and I've known quite a few horses who were started at 4 or 5 and were constantly on down time because of injuries and break downs.

I'm not necessarily condoning starting all horses at 2. I prefer to wait until 3 for any kind of real work, but that is all preference. Like NRHA said, it's not really so much _when_ they're started as it is _how_ they're worked.


----------



## currie17 (Feb 26, 2011)

You should definitely start handling them (grooming, leading, etc) as young as possible so that they learn good manners and how to deal with humans. I would say that you could conservatively start under saddle at 3, but do not push their training along too quickly. Good luck!


----------



## MHFoundation Quarters (Feb 23, 2011)

I'm with you on this one NRHA. We have always started ours at 2 unless their knees weren't closed (and breeding well boned foundation and working lines, there have been very few over the years that were not ready) As far as the debate about longevity of horses started at 2, here are a few examples that I own personally. 

Buttons - age 22, was IQHA snaffle bit futurity champion as a 2 yr old, my personal youth horse for a decade, then shown by a cousin as her beginner horse for 4-H and is now ridden by my 5 yr old and used in my lesson program. Forgot to add that in those years she has had 9 foals and was ridden lightly through each pregnancy. 100% sound. 

Jana- age 23, money and pt earner in reining, reined cow horse, trail and shomanship. Also started at 2 and shown her entire life. Now being shown by a 10 yr old in showmanship, wp, hus, hunter hack, reining, trail, and all speed events. 100% sound.

Hondo - age 29, started at 2 with a year at Findlay college with Clark Bradley and Dale Wilkinson. Pt earner in WP, HUS, Trail, Showmanship, Reining, Barrels, Champion halter stallion for our state qh assn 3 times, 15 AQHA all arounds and has a superior in WP and a ROM in HUS. Not too mention hundreds of hours of trail riding, he has taught over 60 kids how to ride, still ridden 3 times a week by my 5 yr old daughter and still 100% sound and still 100% breeding sound as well.

Of course a 2 yr old can be ruined by over training at a young age, but in my experience (my family has raised quarters for 40+ years) it tends to be their minds that are blown not their legs.


----------



## bronson3000 (Feb 5, 2009)

I'm not really comfortable with the "well broke 2 y/o" ads I see everywhere.. it seems really cowboy attitude -ish to me but I'm totally not well informed on it so I'm sure I could be wrong! (No offense meant to anyone who starts horses at 2!!)

My mare didn't have a saddle on her back until she was 4 and a half (by accident really.. she was rescued as a 2 year old and the owners did a lot of ground work with her until she was in great shape all healed up), I bought her a year later. She has always been a lightning quick learner and very willing partner but that could just be her personality! Anyways, I say 3 very earliest.


----------



## welshies rule (Feb 7, 2010)

hmm lets c if this helps. Im from england only further north than you and I have a 4 yr old welsh cob. he's 5 at the end of next month

up until 2 years old - walked out in traffic, feet picked up, groomed, farrier, bitted ground work

2 1/2 years old - more ground work - backed

3yrs old - LIGHTLY RIDDEN - 

4 Years old - small poles, hacked out, more school work then turned away for winter and I brought him back into work in the middle of feb


----------

