# Bareback pads get a bad wrap...but this one?



## homesteadhorses (Dec 13, 2013)

Triple E Waxwear Bareback Pad w/Grip Bottom - Statelinetack.com


----------



## Endiku (Dec 6, 2010)

My personal advice? No, no, no, no, no. Bareback pads with stirrups can be considerably dangerous because the pads tend to slip and do not have the support of a tree or any other rigging to distribute the weight. They also give a false sense of security. 

You say the mare is 200 lbs underweight, so my thought is that since it will probably be a good 5-6 months (maybe longer) before you can ride her at all, start saving for a saddle. If you put even $50 away per month, you'll have a good $250-300 stashed away by the time she's getting close to healthy again. That should be enough to get you a nice, used saddle (DO NOT but a brand new one that costs under $300...it is likely garbage) that will fit her. I'd also make sure you don't buy a saddle and fit it to her until after she as at her ideal weight, because otherwise her shape may change and the saddle will stop fitting.

How much experience do you have with riding and rehabbing horses? You might want to look into some professional help if you haven't done it before or if you haven't done it in a while. I worry that if you can't afford a saddle, you may not realize how much money it will take to rehab this mare. She is likely going to need her teeth done ($100+ depending on your area) and a LOT of food...possibly a good vet exam too. Do you know why she lost weight in the first place?


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

I just no not one with stirrups. I had a Stacy Westfall one I liked really well.


----------



## homesteadhorses (Dec 13, 2013)

story behind her was the past owner saved her from another bad place, but then didn't have the funds to feed her. i took her in 2 weeks ago she has already gained 30+ pounds as of today, she is already vet checked. only reason why she is underweight was from lack of care. she is taking everything really well and doing great.


----------



## Endiku (Dec 6, 2010)

Good to hear ^_^ poor old gal, glad she finally has the food and care she needs. How are her teeth?

If you get a bareback pad, definitely go for no stirrups. There is nothing WRONG with the pads themselves, just with the fact that the ones with stirrups mimick saddles, which they are not.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

A while ago there was a bareback pad that had a plastic "wither clamp" that just went over the wither. This would keep it from sliding sideways, as long as it didn't slid back off the wither. It had a breast strap you could use with it.

This one had stirrups that I might use in a ring environment. Sadly, these pads don't seem to be sold today. As a rule, I say absolutely no stirrups with the treeless bareback pads.


----------



## homesteadhorses (Dec 13, 2013)

her teeth are OK for a 20 year old, fine with eating hay and feed.


----------



## NorthernMama (Mar 12, 2008)

I don't understand the use of bareback pads at all except if a rider is very thin and finds it uncomfortable to ride bareback. 

Endiku posted that a pad will not distribute the weight - correct, but neither will riding bareback. So, if you need a saddle to ride, save up and buy a saddle. In my area it is not too difficult to find a decent saddle for less than $300. English or western. You have time to save and time to shop, so I would do that.

In the meantime, get the mare's weight up and do lots of ground work. She will likely be more energetic once she is feeling better so don't letter her surprise you one day  If she is ready for a rider before you have the saddle, then ride her bareback. If you were looking at a bareback pad, then you should be a reasonably competent bareback rider. I've never figured out how a bareback pad helps anyone ride. False sense of security for sure.

Do we get pictures of your new horse?


----------



## PunksTank (Jul 8, 2012)

Honestly the price of a good bareback pad is comparable to a cheap saddle.

I'd prefer a good bareback pad. I wanted one with stirrups, I know "big no-no" - but I'm a balanced rider and have ridden bareback most of my life - the only reason I was looking into this option was the same as you, a spiney horse. Mine is a Belgian and was about 300lbs underweight on arrival, obviously I waited until he was healthy before riding, but I hopped on him bareback our first good ride out - 3 hours later we came home and I don't think I was able to sit for 3-4 days!! That spine was vicious! 
So here's what I got: 
Amazon.com: Down Under Saddle Supply Kimberley Ultra Light Treeless Saddle, Black, Medium: Sports & Outdoors

It's a "treeless" saddle, but not up to par with the true treeless, well developed brands - this one I would call more of a glorified bareback pad. It has firm foam built up and a removable gullet plate to give it shape and help prevent rolling. If you are a competent rider with relative balance this should work for you. 
With my obese mare she can ride with a regular pad with this saddle because she has rolls of fat on either side of her spine - as that goes away I'll be using pads. My Belgian doesn't have those fat rolls and he uses a home made version of these pads: Amazon.com: Hilason English Treeless Memory Foam Saddle Pad With Anti-Slip - Black: Sports & Outdoors

What I did was I bought a nice saddle pad for him, that wasn't too thick,I got a sheet of soft fuzzy fabric and 3/4" memory foam, I sewed the memory foam on either side of the spine of the saddle pad. This provides spinal clearance for him.

All in all I'm very happy with my purchase - great saddle, it's larger than it says - I got a medium and wish I got a small. But we use it on all the horses at the rescue and no one has complained  The kids use is and haven't had trouble with twisting. If you do end up having trouble with twisting you can add a breast plate.


----------



## Haileyyy (Mar 10, 2012)

NorthernMama said:


> I don't understand the use of bareback pads at all except if a rider is very thin and finds it uncomfortable to ride bareback.


I prefer to ride bareback without a pad but the orange clay here stains EVERYTHING and does not come out. No matter how many baths or grooming sessions our horses get your pants still get stained from it. I wouldn't mind if it came out but my pants end up looking like I rode a cheeto so I use use a bareback pad.


----------



## Endiku (Dec 6, 2010)

Haileyyy said:


> but my pants end up looking like I rode a cheeto .


 :rofl: 

I'm sorry. But that is a hilarious image. 

I like the idea of bareback pads too because where I live, summer days are 100+ degrees and the horses SWEAT even walking. That mixes with their hair and the dirt, and it equals..._nasty_. I have a bony butt too, and both mares that I ride bareback are rather bony (not thin, just not couches o.o) too. It hurts me to ride bareback and I'm sure it can't be comfortable for the horses...so I usually use a cheapo pad with no stirrups just for the sake of comfort and cleanliness. I stay far away from stirrup pads though, and on undermuscled or older horses I refuse to ride bareback at all even with a pad.


----------



## EmilyJoy (Dec 30, 2011)

^^PunksTank, any photos? It sounds like something doable. I've thought a bareback pad of some type with "stuffed rolls" on the front and on the back would be nice. Sometimes I like to take a quick ride but 1. don't want to get a dirt line on my clothes, and 2. Red kind of "throws" you on his withers it seems when running, it's really hard to find balanced spot, so a roll on the front would keep me from going forward.


----------



## NorthernMama (Mar 12, 2008)

I have "horse only" pants - summer and winter. Sweat and stains - no problem. But, I ride in my backyard and no one has to put up with the smell, nor do I need to get into a vehicle after.

Heh, maybe I should dust off my bareback pad that was given to me and give it a whirl next summer. Though, if I'm going to put on a "saddle" it may as well be my western... so why bother? Nah, bareback or saddle. That's my game.


----------



## waresbear (Jun 18, 2011)

Many years ago, I only rode bareback, for hours at a time and almost everyday, yeah I was a kid, I lived on my horse. Anyways, I developed a massive boil on my behind that had to be lanced by a doctor, who said, no more bareback. After that I used the bareback pad, no stirrups though, never liked them anyways. I owned a saddle the whole time, rarely used it as a kid. So I do see the purpose of them. I will occasionally ride bareback now, but only for 15 minutes or so, if I was doing any kind of regular bareback riding, I would get a pad just to protect my behind.


----------



## EmilyJoy (Dec 30, 2011)

Yeah I toy with that too, which is why I haven't bought one... Saddles do the job quite nicely don't they?


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

I use one so my butt is not filthy,sweaty and nasty. I just can't stand that. And some days it is much easier to throw the bareback pad on than a 35# saddle, and I am lazy. Plus it helps with balance, and, I love working with my horse with no reins bareback and playing with his responsiveness sometimes, or just walking in the woods.


----------



## PunksTank (Jul 8, 2012)

EmilyJoy said:


> ^^PunksTank, any photos? It sounds like something doable. I've thought a bareback pad of some type with "stuffed rolls" on the front and on the back would be nice. Sometimes I like to take a quick ride but 1. don't want to get a dirt line on my clothes, and 2. Red kind of "throws" you on his withers it seems when running, it's really hard to find balanced spot, so a roll on the front would keep me from going forward.


I don't have pictures of the pad I made not on my horse.. But this is the "saddle" I use with the pad under it. The pad is made to create spinal clearance in treeless saddles, not a bareback pad.


----------



## Sharpie (May 24, 2009)

I have a Best Friends bareback pad and I love it and recommend them. Agree on the no stirrups thing though- they're only a dangerous invitation for trouble. I use one because a) I don't always want to have gross sweaty pants and b) my guy has both withers and a stop. Combining the two can be painful and a little extra padding is well appreciated, by both of us I think.


----------



## homesteadhorses (Dec 13, 2013)

your post made me remember a ad i saw on ebay looking at saddles...treeless.. i heard that word often when it can to looking up if "bareback pads" are safe, which the mean answer leading to "no because its treeless."

Check this ebay add out, i know its CHEAP, its from India and would take over 2 months for it to get here, but is it worth a shot? i have very rarely rode English (western 99% of the time) but am really just looking for something with stirrups, am not going to be doing any crazy riding, just around our own farm. hour or less. 

give me your review.

YESRD Quality Synthetic English Treeless Horse Saddle Many Colors | eBay


Oh and as for dixie here is a photo from this morning running around the yard, week by week i can tell she is feeling better and better!


----------



## Foxtail Ranch (Mar 10, 2012)

^^^That looks like a happy horse! Is she smiling? 

Nice work, OP!


----------



## CaliforniaDreaming (May 8, 2011)

homesteadhorses said:


> your post made me remember a ad i saw on ebay looking at saddles...treeless.. i heard that word often when it can to looking up if "bareback pads" are safe, which the mean answer leading to "no because its treeless."
> 
> Check this ebay add out, i know its CHEAP, its from India and would take over 2 months for it to get here, but is it worth a shot? i have very rarely rode English (western 99% of the time) but am really just looking for something with stirrups, am not going to be doing any crazy riding, just around our own farm. hour or less.
> 
> ...


I know someone who got a saddle that either looked like the Kimberly one posted above or the one in your link. Someone had given it to her and she passed it on to me. I looked it over, and honestly, it's utter junk. It wouldn't even have looked that great on my horse who had had a treeless saddle until he lost weight. I ended up giving it to another gal at the barn who has a two year old filly, not to ride her in, but to start getting her used to the feel and weight of a saddle.

I wouldn't have put it on my horse and sat in it.

If you absolutely wanted a "bareback pad" with stirrups, get a Cashel Soft Saddle. Rode in one once and it was thick and comfy at least to walk around in. Their new version seems to look better than the old one and it's under $300.

Cashel Company: SOFT SADDLE G2


----------



## aureliusandoinky (Nov 28, 2013)

I like the Little Joe bareback saddle. It doesn't slip unless you're leaning way into one side or the other. I mount often from the ground so I know!! Here's the link to the website, actually their saddle pads but it has a nice picture of the bareback saddle.

Saddle blankets: innovative, horse-contoured designs from LittleJoe


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

A bareback pad, in my mind/opinion, is for the rider's comfort. To me, that's neither here nor there.

Unless it has stirrups. That's a no no, and can make for an ouchy back.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

homesteadhorses said:


> ok so i really want to ride one day ((i used to ride/work with horses) i just saved this 20 year old mare, she as sweet as can be, i have been told she is a wonderful ride, however she is 200 pounds underweight, so i have TIME to shop around, the cost of a saddle is CRAZY so i looked into "bareback pads" i know i know. they get a really bad wrap, but this one brand i noticed is very highly rated. much more then all the others. give me a idea on what you think.​
> 
> 
> 
> Triple E Waxwear Bareback Pad w/Grip Bottom - Horse.com​


I'm not going to read pages of comments so sorry if I'm repeating something.

The problem you have a bareback pads is the same problem you have with riding bareback.
Riding bareback means tuberosity (yes, that's a real name :lol of your ischium bone is concentrating all the weight of your body distributed at two small places (under the tuberosity) on the horse's back.
A pad does not eliminate this. All it does is put more cushioning between the bone and the back, but doesn't not redistribute the weight so the pressure (padded now) still bares down where the bones are above the back.
That is the reason why (long, long ago in a place far, far away) they invented the saddle "tree". The problem of horses being out of action as a result of sore backs plagued campaigning militaries for a long time. All the major military powers that used mounted troops experimented with going without saddles, treeless saddles, and anything someone could think of to cut down on the number of horses unfit for duty due to the need for their back to recover.
A properly fitting tree solves the problem, but for the militaries that was a hit and miss deal. The cost of getting a correct fit for every horse just wasn't practical. So you have a few basic sizes and used the closest one.
The Hungarian and German Cav came up with a new design a few hundred years ago (today the English speaking world calls it the "English" saddle for reason the I'll never understand) that they thought would be the answer. It was light, easier to fit and most importantly gave their cav greater mobility of action than the previous styles. Problems solved, right? Well, not quite. Once these armies left the confines on home where they only rode for a few hours a week and had to ride all day for days on end it was discovered that this (then) new saddle's tree did not displace the weight of the rider and gear over a wide enough area (that whole point of having a saddle tree) and once again they have the problem of dealing with a large % of horses unfit for duty from sore backs.
Around the mid 1800's enter some bright young British officer(s) who took on the problem of designing a saddle that would cut down on this problem.
Surprisingly the result was the best solution (to date even) for a mounted military. It became known as the Universal Pattern (UP). The tree displaced more weight. They still came in a small selection of sizes, but a trained person could modify the tree slightly for a better fit (has to do with using metal for the pommel and cantle). Still not an answer making the bar twist perfect, but certainly better than what had been available.

That saddle is still used to today by mounted military and constabularies in most of the English speaking countries (US being an exception).
They make a civilian version of this saddle called the Trooper.

Sorry, it's like teaching a class....you end up giving way more information than what is needed :lol:

Bareback pads will always have a bad rap, because they will always fail to displace the riders weight and still allow the weight to be focused on two relative small points.
That's not to say that if you ride a few hours a week that your horse will end up with a sore back. You can ride bareback with or without a pad for a few hours a week and not take your horse out of action. But don't use a pad as a replacement for a saddle. Serious riding like someone who spends most of their week on a horse for most of the day will need a saddle with a well fitted tree that displaces the weight over as large an area as possible.


----------



## Endiku (Dec 6, 2010)

I would absolutely not buy a cheap saddle. Like I said, just hold off on riding and pitch $50...or whatever you can afford, a month, into savings for a saddle. In a few months you'll have enough for a decent one, and your horse will be in good enough shape for one.


----------



## TrailDustMelody (Jun 23, 2013)

I have a Best Friends bareback pad which I am very happy with. I used to use it a lot more when I went on short trail rides (less than an hour) 3-4 times a week. My mare always did fine with it and I noticed a big improvement in my balance. The pad just adds some cushioning and keeps your pants cleaner. I don't see why it would be a problem to use; just don't get one with stirrups, keep your bareback rides short and easy, and see how she does with it.


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

I'd work her on the ground before getting on her back to build what little muscle she may have AND allow her to gain weight.


----------



## verona1016 (Jul 3, 2011)

Another vote for Best Friend bareback pads  I have the Western style pad and love it. 

Another option that I ran across the other day (but have no personal experience with) is something like this: Total Contact Revolutionary Saddlery Solutions It's essentially a surcingle with stirrup bars built in. Seems a bit expensive for what it is, but interesting, nonetheless.


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

People have ridden bareback for years and I've never heard of a horse getting a sore back from this, a saddle yes but not bareback, with or without a pad.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

Saddlebag said:


> People have ridden bareback for years and I've never heard of a horse getting a sore back from this, a saddle yes but not bareback, with or without a pad.


Tell you what. Ride your horse 15 miles (or more if you like) a day (which is not a lot), 5 days a week with 2 days off each week, for 5 weeks. Then have your horse's back examined. The examiner will find the same thing mounted troops found out when they tried treeless saddles. Sore back muscles that will keep getting worse until eventually the horse requires an extended recovery time.

There is a reason that trees are used. Especially by people who do serious riding (lot of miles and hours of an extended period of time...weeks and months). if going bareback didn't cause a problem then the tree would have had a relative short life and stopped being used long, long ago.
(it would also mean that the laws a physics have suddenly stopped applying to a horse's back :lol: as it apples to yours.). Here's an easier test you can use and it won't hurt your horse.
Lay on the floor with a 3'x4' sheet of plywood over your back and have your spouse stand on it their heels on top of the sheet of ply wood for 2 hours. Then have them stand on their heels on the same part of your back without the plywood for two hours. Let us know how your back feels after each .
(have your spouse wear shoes so their heels don't end up hurting). :lol:


----------



## EmilyJoy (Dec 30, 2011)

^^ I looked up those Trooper saddles, awesome!!! Do you personally own one? If you do I'd love to see it on your horse. Would a person be as secure in one of those as in a western saddle? Could you jump in them?


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

EmilyJoy said:


> ^^ I looked up those Trooper saddles, awesome!!! Do you personally own one? If you do I'd love to see it on your horse. Would a person be as secure in one of those as in a western saddle? Could you jump in them?


Yes, I own one. I own three different styles of saddle. No pictures of just the horse and saddle, but I have one of Kit being ridden with one. It's posted on my "barn" selection from my horses, but I'll throw it up here.

There is no one style of saddle that I would recommend for everyone, because there is no one style of saddle that fits every need.
I would recommend getting a saddle (or saddles) that best fit what you want for the riding you plan to do. There are saddles with trees that displace more weight than the Trooper. Even saddles of the same style can have different rates of weight displacement (generally from different tree makers). It's based on the amount of tree that's spread out over the horse's back, not just the style of saddle. Western saddles have large trees. So does the McClellan and many other saddles. The one thing they all have in common is the larger bars and they use (or need) flocking like the "English" saddle. Even the trees of an "English" saddle will do the job for the amount of riding that the vast majority of todays riders in the US do. And of course depending on what you're doing a certain style of saddle might be an actual requirement (you wouldn't compete in Western Show on a Dressage saddle)

(Going on the premise that all things being optimum (saddles of the correct size, etc....)

No, they are not as secure (for the rider) as a Western style saddle or a stock saddle or any other saddle with pommel and cantle or anything in front and back that's been made significant enough in size to help keep you in the saddle. The are as secure as an "English" saddle.

Yes, you can jump with them. The designers of the UP saddle were military officers. They didn't want to give up abilities, just get more weight displacement.

No matter what style of saddle you get there are two major items that matter most. 
First and foremost the tree needs to fit the horse's back. This can (almost always does so "will" might be a better word) change over time so you'll never find a saddle that will always be the perfect fit. The vast majority of horses in the US are being ridden with saddles that are not the best fit. It's not as simple as it might seem to fit a horse with a saddle (no matter how easy all these saddle makers make it seem) :lol:
Most of the trees used in making saddles come from a handful of tree makers who do what's been done for a long, long time. They make a selection of sizes (like the FQHB) and no matter what size your horse actually is they saddle maker (hopefully) picks the one of those standard sizes that come closest to fitting your horse (without being too narrow...we hope). It's a bit like going to the store to buy shoes. You pick what fits best from the sizes they have vs going finding a professional that can make a custom pair of shoes (at a hefty price) that perfectly fit each foot (they are not both exactly the same) :lol:
Second, (almost as important as it fitting your horse) you'll want a saddle that's comfortable for you to ride. The reasons for that should be obvious (if not ride 100 miles one week in a saddle that's not comfortable for you :lol:....you'll need time of to recover)


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

(typing too fast the fingers don't always keep up)

"The one thing they all have in common is the larger bars and they *don't* use (or need) flocking like the "English" saddle"

(one word can change the meaning :lol


----------



## Foxtail Ranch (Mar 10, 2012)

its lbs not miles said:


> I'm not going to read pages of comments so sorry if I'm repeating something.
> 
> The problem you have a bareback pads is the same problem you have with riding bareback.
> Riding bareback means tuberosity (yes, that's a real name :lol of your ischium bone is concentrating all the weight of your body distributed at two small places (under the tuberosity) on the horse's back.
> ...


Could you share your sources for info? I would like to read about this.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

tiffanyodonnell said:


> Could you share your sources for info? I would like to read about this.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm feeling lazy (and I have to cut a load of wood today so I need to get started) so I'm going to cheat and just give a link to get started.

There is more out there, but this is as good a place for you to get started as any I guess  (and it's even more current than some things :lol

Forces and pressures on the horse's back during bareba... [Vet J. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI

Vet J. 2013 Jan;195(1):48-52. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.06.002. Epub 2012 Jul 15.

Forces and pressures on the horse's back during bareback riding.

Clayton HM, Belock B, Lavagnino M, Kaiser LJ.


Source

McPhail Equine Performance Center, Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, D202 Veterinary Medical Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. [email protected]


Abstract


The objectives of this study were to measure forces and pressure profiles when riding with a conventional saddle compared to bareback riding. An electronic pressure mat was used to compare contact area, mean total force and pressure variables for one rider riding seven horses at sitting trot with a conventional saddle or bareback. The use of a saddle was associated with a larger contact area and higher mean total force compared with the bareback condition. Mass normalized mean total force for bareback riding was lower than expected based on the rider's body mass, suggesting that shear forces exerted by the rider's thighs were not being registered by the pressure mat. In spite of the lower total force, the bareback condition was associated with higher average pressure, higher maximal pressure and larger area with mean pressure >11 kPa. Focal pressure concentrations were present beneath the rider's ischial tuberosities in the area of the horse's epaxial muscles when riding bareback but not when using a saddle. It was concluded that bareback riding was associated with focal pressure concentrations that may increase the risk of pressure-induced injury to the horse's epaxial musculature. The findings also emphasized that researchers should remain cognizant of shear forces, which may not be registered by the pressure mat, but may contribute to the effects of riding on the horse's back.

Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

tiffanyodonnell said:


> Could you share your sources for info? I would like to read about this.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


My original, first source wouldn't have been much help. It was my grandfather, an old horseman born in the latter part of the 1800's, who was a wealth of information that many people still don't follow. However equine medicine and studies are proving him right all the time.
(don't feed grain, don't blanket, don't shoe, etc.) 
I swear the man should have written it all down and published it, but it wasn't anything new for him. It was how they'd always done things. He just saw the folks who did it different as ignorant about horses (and he was obviously correct).


----------



## Foxtail Ranch (Mar 10, 2012)

its lbs not miles said:


> My original, first source wouldn't have been much help. It was my grandfather, an old horseman born in the latter part of the 1800's, who was a wealth of information that many people still don't follow. However equine medicine and studies are proving him right all the time.
> (don't feed grain, don't blanket, don't shoe, etc.)
> I swear the man should have written it all down and published it, but it wasn't anything new for him. It was how they'd always done things. He just saw the folks who did it different as ignorant about horses (and he was obviously correct).


Thanks, Lbs.!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ponyboy (Jul 24, 2008)

its lbs not miles said:


> Tell you what. Ride your horse 15 miles (or more if you like) a day (which is not a lot), 5 days a week with 2 days off each week, for 5 weeks.


Most people don't ride anywhere near that much though.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

ponyboy said:


> Most people don't ride anywhere near that much though.


Which is why in my first post I stated: 
"That's not to say that if you ride a few hours a week that your horse will end up with a sore back. You can ride bareback with or without a pad for a few hours a week and not take your horse out of action. But don't use a pad as a replacement for a saddle. Serious riding like someone who spends most of their week on a horse for most of the day will need a saddle with a well fitted tree that displaces the weight over as large an area as possible."

The post you're referring to was in response to:
"People have ridden bareback for years and I've never heard of a horse getting a sore back from this, a saddle yes but not bareback, with or without a pad".
Of course they never asked the horse or had the horses muscle tested when they got off :lol:....they just noticed that the horse didn't act up and base it all off of that. Based on that system of determining what's good for a horse sweet feed and grain are all excellent feed for horses. They love to eat it and never complain so it must be good for them :lol: (actually it's terrible feet for horses and should never be fed).

But I've also posted the results of some of the actual testing that has been done (recently even) that continues to validate what I was taught as a child. Riding bareback is not good for the horse. Doing it some is not usually going to take them out of action if it's limited, but that has a LOT to do with the fact that horses are rather stoic and will tolerate a fare amount of discomfort (up to a point and that point depends on the horse). The proof of that can be found every where (the discomfort from reduced blood flow in the feet from being shod...to the point that it becomes an unhealthy, but accepted norm to the horse; probably over 75% of the horses being ridden on saddles that don't fit properly and yet they endure it and continue on so long as it's not too bad or until it becomes more than they're willing to endure).

Just because a horse endures it without complaint doesn't mean it's not uncomfortable or that it doesn't become painful. Of course I just had to take my grandfather's word for it and it made sense logically when you look at it (the laws of physics don't stop applying just because I want to ride bareback). Today there's enough scientific evidence from studies that have been done to prove that the old man (and those before him) were right.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

Of course my grandfather would have looked at:
"Mass normalized mean total force for bareback riding was lower than expected based on the rider's body mass, suggesting that shear forces exerted by the rider's thighs were not being registered by the pressure mat. In spite of the lower total force, the bareback condition was associated with higher average pressure, higher maximal pressure and larger area with mean pressure >11 kPa. Focal pressure concentrations were present beneath the rider's ischial tuberosities in the area of the horse's epaxial muscles when riding bareback but not when using a saddle. It was concluded that bareback riding was associated with focal pressure concentrations that may increase the risk of pressure-induced injury to the horse's epaxial musculature."

and said something like "That's a lot talking just state the obvious. That you butt bones will hurt the horse's back"


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

That's what I was thinking^^. Shoot, if I rode bareback 15 miles I would have WAY more issues than the horse, and I have more than enough padding on my "tuberosities,", thank you very much. 

I have actually seen one of those saddles…and bought it was amazing. It was being used by a guy who had his horse at the same trainer I did-he ONLY rode for hunting up in Canada somewhere. THe folks who did this hunting rode gaited horses and had these saddles…….


----------



## EmilyJoy (Dec 30, 2011)

^^Do _you_ have any pictures of that saddle with the horse etc. FranknBeans?

fftopic:

Also, its#notmiles, just out of curiousness, did your grandfather ever feed his horses oats? I know you mentioned he didn't think they needed grain, but I know some of the older generation fed their horses oats (no corn or sweet feeds), especially if they were working horses regulating their portions with how much the horse worked. Anyway was just curious if he did that or not.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

franknbeans said:


> That's what I was thinking^^. Shoot, if I rode bareback 15 miles I would have WAY more issues than the horse, and I have more than enough padding on my "tuberosities,", thank you very much.
> 
> I have actually seen one of those saddles…and bought it was amazing. It was being used by a guy who had his horse at the same trainer I did-he ONLY rode for hunting up in Canada somewhere. THe folks who did this hunting rode gaited horses and had these saddles…….


I'll guess that you're referring to the Trooper saddle.
They're not a bad saddle depending on what you're planning to do. I wouldn't work cattle from one. They can serve as a good hunting saddle. The design lends itself to being modified good bit without altering the frame (e.g. different rigging, you can lose the flaps and go with fenders, etc....). I enjoy bushwhacking in mine, but I don't use it that often. What I plan to do and the horse I plan to ride will have more to do with what saddle I use.

No one makes the saddle I really want :lol:.

UP frame concept (an strong, but acceptably malleable metal for the pommel and cantle) to allow adjustments to be made if needed for that perfect fit with the suspended seat (better for the center of the horse's back).
Wide bars like a Western saddle.
No flaps, fenders or "extra" material (like a McClellan saddle).
Poleys like a stock saddle.
Front and rear rigging.
(Since no one makes it I may as well ask for it to be made with beta synthetic material....so easy to clean and maintain and still looks like leather :lol

Would probably come in close to 18 lbs in weight which is acceptable.

Well, we're allowed to dream :lol:.


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

No, Emily, I don't. Honestly, I was too busy watching the owner try and learn how to ride this horse…..keep in mind that he travels regularly with horses, dogs,, etc…..over 12 hours north into the far reaches of Canada-(I do not remember exactly where)…and he was a new rider and a new horse owner….interesting challenge. He had more to learn than he knew. His saddle actually looked higher up off the horse than yours, lbs. Reminded me of something up on shock absorbers.


----------



## EmilyJoy (Dec 30, 2011)

Huh to bad. I wonder if a person could find actual pictures of troops riding in this saddle...


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

EmilyJoy said:


> ^^Do _you_ have any pictures of that saddle with the horse etc. FranknBeans?
> 
> fftopic:
> 
> Also, its#notmiles, just out of curiousness, did your grandfather ever feed his horses oats? I know you mentioned he didn't think they needed grain, but I know some of the older generation fed their horses oats (no corn or sweet feeds), especially if they were working horses regulating their portions with how much the horse worked. Anyway was just curious if he did that or not.


No, not as part of their feed. His thing was "grains are too hot and bad for their gut" so we didn't feed grain. But they were often pastured with the cattle and if, during the Winter I put out some oats hay while they were in with the cattle they'd scarf it up. I could get away with a little bit of that, but if I was going to be feeding oats hay (which we had for the cows) I would end up having to relocate them or the cows to a different pasture.

I would also turn them out with the cattle on Winter grazing sometimes, but that was limited too. We usually planted rye or oats for Winter grazing and it was "too rich for the horses" so I had to limit how much time they had.

Salt, minerals, hay and grazing made up almost all of their diet, but they got a lot of treats too (apples, carrots, etc...). It was a farm after all so there was always something as a treat. Sometimes I'd even let them have a few minutes in a soybean field after being harvested. They were like kids in a candy store (but it was a short visit) :lol:.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

franknbeans said:


> His saddle actually looked higher up off the horse than yours, lbs. Reminded me of something up on shock absorbers.


The UP design has a suspended seat which is great. keeps everything off the horses spine and allows for great air flow. They did a pretty good job (from the horse's perspective) when they designed it.
Mine is actually up enough I can almost fit my fist between the cantle and her back.
The seat is actually adjustable (if you know how) with the lacings that are underneath it. I've never learned how so I leave it "as is" (rather not mess it up :lol


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

EmilyJoy said:


> Huh to bad. I wonder if a person could find actual pictures of troops riding in this saddle...


Yes, but not US troops.

Watch the movie "The Lighthorsemen"

Go to 

http://www.horseforum.com/horse-videos/favorite-horse-movies-311921/page2/#post4254106

I posted the youtube clip of the charge on Beersheba and they are all riding UP saddles.
But you'll have to pause it at points if the view of the saddle is clear enough to see, because it won't be for more than a short moment.


----------



## EmilyJoy (Dec 30, 2011)

Thank-you on both the oats and the saddle, I'm going to watch the clip now. So what did the U.S.A troops use as a saddle? Sorry if I seem ignorant, they don't teach this stuff in the normal U.S.A history.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

EmilyJoy said:


> Thank-you on both the oats and the saddle, I'm going to watch the clip now. So what did the U.S.A troops use as a saddle? Sorry if I seem ignorant, they don't teach this stuff in the normal U.S.A history.


It would depend on what year.
At first there was a variety of saddles that came into use and some hung around as new ones came into use. I guess most notably there was the dragoon saddle, then the Ringgold and the Grimsley (which was still used by some in the Confederate Cav along with the Jenifer).
Sometime around the 1950's (I think) Captain G. B. McClellan coming back for his European tour with his design for a new saddle that the army adopted and used variations from prior to 1860 until the mounted cav was "retired" from active service in the 1940's. 

The only reason I can account for them no adopting the UP saddle (which was already in service before the McClellan) is that it would have been slightly more expensive and of course McClellan would have pushed hard for his idea instead of what the British Cav was using :lol:.
Biggest problem with the McClellan was it came in about 3 sizes so you had to find a horse that fit one of those sizes, but that's not too far removed from what it's like with most of todays saddles anyway :lol:.


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

I rode my gelding almost daily for 15 years bareback on the trails. I didn't sit on his back like a lump on a log so there was no steady pressure in one spot for very long. And yes, I checked his back. The horse preferred my riding him bareback rather than a saddle be it English or western and my saddles were a good fit. To mount, I'd get on the truck bumper and with no help or signal from me he'd sidle over until he was in the correct position. If his back was sore, he'd have let me know. I pay careful attention to my horses and watch for subtle signals.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

Saddlebag said:


> I rode my gelding almost daily for 15 years bareback on the trails. I didn't sit on his back like a lump on a log so there was no steady pressure in one spot for very long. And yes, I checked his back. The horse preferred my riding him bareback rather than a saddle be it English or western and my saddles were a good fit. To mount, I'd get on the truck bumper and with no help or signal from me he'd sidle over until he was in the correct position. If his back was sore, he'd have let me know. I pay careful attention to my horses and watch for subtle signals.


Well, lets see. I've produced the tests and proof.
What have you got besides you've ridden bareback and didn't notice any problems.
That's about as good as people shoeing their horses for years and they never noticed or saw evidence of any reduced blood flow in the feet.

People have fed horses grain for centuries and the horses didn't die (not right away at least) so obviously the people who said it wasn't good for them didn't know what they were talking about. The modern understanding of the equine digestion system is obviously flawed since it bears out that grain is bad :lol:

Do what you want and believe what you want. Feed your horse corn for all I care since obviously what many long time horsemen from 100 years ago knew and scientific testing has proven in more modern times have validated doesn't matter. :lol:

It's of not matter to me. I just answer the questions posed and provide hard evidence. Can you do the same? Not opinions (that's what my grandfather gave me...even though he was right), hard evidence that can be medically substantiated.


----------



## KigerQueen (Jun 16, 2013)

I have a bareback pad with stirrups. If my mare was not a calm horse i could have ended up in the hospital. Pad slipped back and the strap managed to get tight around her flank. Before i could hop off the stirrup got stuck... Yeah if i want to ride bareback i dont bother with a pad.


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

lbs not miles, you are comparing apples and oranges. None of us are riding 8 hrs day 5 days a week, like the cavalries did. Also, they had to sit almost rigid as part of their discipline. We might ride bareback two hours at most and on the trails there are constant weightshifts.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

Saddlebag said:


> lbs not miles, you are comparing apples and oranges. None of us are riding 8 hrs day 5 days a week, like the cavalries did. Also, they had to sit almost rigid as part of their discipline. We might ride bareback two hours at most and on the trails there are constant weightshifts.


I gave that example to give you something that even you could notice. The point of the thread is why does riding bareback have a bad wrap. I gave one proven reason why (there might be more).

The actual testing that's been done was not for long hours and still showed effects. Just because you're not making the back sore enough to take the horse out of action and just because the horse isn't showing signs doesn't mean that you're bones aren't having an effect.
As I already said. Horses are stoic. If they weren't they'd never be able to wear shoes (to bad they're that stoic....it was mean a lot more healthy feet :lol and they'd have never been successful as a means of transportation and labor for humans, because their "aches and pains" would have rendered useless to much of the time.

I don't expect you to take my word for it. Logic alone dictates that it's true, but actual testing as confirmed the logic.
It's a bit like some endurance riders who's horse is carrying close to 30% of it's body weight. The horse passes the vet test and finishes the race in "good" condition. So many think (not all) that the horse, being conditioned for this has suffered no ill effects from it. However, if they took blood samples for biochemical analysis they'd find that the horse has been stressed. It's not generally severe enough to matter since if the horse is conditioned (and is usually given some R&R -rest and recover time- afterwards), like a well trained athlete, it's been conditioned to deal with it (marathon runners have the same issue, but in their case it's caused by pushing the speed for an excessive distance....even though they have trained and conditioned themselves to do it...instead of carrying more than a certain amount of excess weight).

Unless you're sliding all over the back of the horse every couple of minutes (which would likely be even harder on the horse) the bones in you butt are going to impact the horse's back. Common sense should tell us that, but just in case, the studies and tests confirm it.

But as I said in my first comment. The daily bareback ride to the mail box and back is not likely to result in a breakdown. The horse will still feel it. There will still be muscle stress where the person sits, but the horse will be ok. Our shoulders survive caring a backpack despite the pain from the shoulder straps (even though we'll shift them from time to time it still impacts our shoulders).
Saddles with a proper fitting tree spread the weight out so that it's not concentrated at two small points and as a result has much less impact on the back.

So as I said already. You're free to believe what you want. Everyone does :lol:. Just like there are people who, despite all the scientific proof, still don't believe that smoking is unhealthy and even educated people (I knew one) who still believed that two blue eyed people can't have a brown eyed child. They can usually find something or someone somewhere that will support their disbelief (there were medical "experts" that claimed smoking wasn't harmful....hired by the industry and couldn't disprove the test that showed otherwise...., but they could "say" it :lol


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

Saddlebag said:


> lbs not miles, you are comparing apples and oranges. None of us are riding 8 hrs day 5 days a week, like the cavalries did. Also, they had to sit almost rigid as part of their discipline. We might ride bareback two hours at most and on the trails there are constant weightshifts.


OH, I forgot. Cav did not ride rigidly when on a long ride. That was for the parade ground. Just like foot Infantry on a 20 mile road march doesn't "march" as they do on the parade ground, but are basically walking along at an easy, steady pace. The mounted troops rode in a relaxed and comfortable fashion. They had to last for days just like the horse and riding as if on parade they'd have never lasted through the second day (if they managed to make it through the first day).


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

Actually, lbs, the question was about bareback PADS, not bareback riding.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Just like there are people who, despite all the scientific proof, still don't believe that smoking is unhealthy and even educated people* (I knew one) who still believed that two blue eyed people can't have a brown eyed child*. They can usually find something or someone somewhere that will support their disbelief (there were medical "experts" that claimed smoking wasn't harmful....hired by the industry and couldn't disprove the test that showed otherwise...., but they could "say" it :lol



serious? I always thought that blue eyedness is recessive, and thus requires BOTH color alleles to be blue , thus two parents with blue eyes would only be able to produce a blue eyed child. So, it's NOT true???


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

tinyliny said:


> Just like there are people who, despite all the scientific proof, still don't believe that smoking is unhealthy and even educated people* (I knew one) who still believed that two blue eyed people can't have a brown eyed child*. They can usually find something or someone somewhere that will support their disbelief (there were medical "experts" that claimed smoking wasn't harmful....hired by the industry and couldn't disprove the test that showed otherwise...., but they could "say" it :lol
> 
> 
> 
> serious? I always thought that blue eyedness is recessive, and thus requires BOTH color alleles to be blue , thus two parents with blue eyes would only be able to produce a blue eyed child. So, it's NOT true???


Actually this is pretty old information. They've know it wasn't true for very long (at least over 40 years). Although I've know people who received their degrees in the last 10 years who were still being taught it. It's sad that some professors and text books don't keep up and that schools don't pay closer attention.

 That the blue eyes are recessive is true. However, the human genome is bit more complex than the garden peas that Mendelson's used :lol: (we have more than just two alleles for our eyes ).

Since it's totally off topic, but I do believer that knowledge and the quest for it should always move forward and be available (I guess the podium never really gets out of your blood :lol: and I'm still dumbfounded that there are professors younger than me still teaching that) I'll post something to help get you started.

I do apologize that this information is a bit simplified. I couldn't find a anything really good with more information to link to (and believe me, I don't want to have to pull out the books and write a dissertation on it here :lol. However, this should give you a very basic idea. I had hoped to find something with better and more detailed information. Sorry. I'll keep looking to see if some geneticist has put out a good write up on line. This will have to do for now.

BLUE OR BROWN EYES

Sandwalk: The Genetics of Eye Color


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

tinyliny said:


> Just like there are people who, despite all the scientific proof, still don't believe that smoking is unhealthy and even educated people* (I knew one) who still believed that two blue eyed people can't have a brown eyed child*. They can usually find something or someone somewhere that will support their disbelief (there were medical "experts" that claimed smoking wasn't harmful....hired by the industry and couldn't disprove the test that showed otherwise...., but they could "say" it :lol
> 
> 
> 
> serious? I always thought that blue eyedness is recessive, and thus requires BOTH color alleles to be blue , thus two parents with blue eyes would only be able to produce a blue eyed child. So, it's NOT true???


Still not the level of information I'd like to find for you, but it's better and the chart does give a better example on how blue + blue can = brown.

(oo Hh = blue + Oo hh - blue, offspring Oo Hh = brown)
very simplified, but should be easy to grasp.
Of the 5 different configurations that produce blue eyes it's only if *both* parents are *oo hh* that a brown eyed child can't happen.

You were taught the old Bb system, where all blue eyes were bb and anything that had B (BB, Bb, bB) was brown, but that's very outdated (and didn't you ever wonder who green, hazel, etc.... happened?) :lol: Yes, there's even more to it than just the o's and h's in this simplified example. Just wish I could find it online to link here for you.

How Blue Eyed Parents Can Have Brown Eyed Children | Understanding Genetics


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

franknbeans said:


> Actually, lbs, the question was about bareback PADS, not bareback riding.


And I addressed that in my first post. 

"A pad does not eliminate this. All it does is put more cushioning between the bone and the back, but doesn't not redistribute the weight so the pressure (padded now) still bares down where the bones are above the back."


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Very interesting. I did wonder about hazel, as I am hazel eyed.


Back o your regular programming . . .


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

its lbs not miles said:


> The point of the thread is why does riding bareback have a bad wrap.


The point of the thread was not bareback riding, but bareback *pads*. 

Note the title of the thread: Bareback pads get a bad wrap...but this one? 

Reread the OP's first post:


> ok so I really want to ride one day ((i used to ride/work with horses) I just saved this 20 year old mare, she as sweet as can be, I have been told she is a wonderful ride, however she is 200 pounds underweight, so I have TIME to shop around, the cost of a saddle is CRAZY so I looked into "bareback pads" I know I know. They get a really bad wrap, but this one brand I noticed is very highly rated. Much more then all the others. Give me a idea on what you think.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

updownrider said:


> The point of the thread was not bareback riding, but bareback *pads*.
> 
> Note the title of the thread: Bareback pads get a bad wrap...but this one?
> 
> Reread the OP's first post:


As with my answer to franknbeans (who made basically the same comment) I addressed that in my first post. :smile:

"A pad does not eliminate this. All it does is put more cushioning between the bone and the back, but doesn't not redistribute the weight so the pressure (padded now) still bares down where the bones are above the back." 

Pads are just riding bareback with a little more padding they the tissue on our backsides provide. The issues are still the same (two small areas of pressure bearing all the rider's weight onto the horses back).
Of course that's not to say that it's the only problems with pads. Just the one I'm most familiar with. Since it doesn't correct the problem that comes from riding bareback.

A bit like the story of the young man who joined the US Cav during the unpleasantness that took place in the first half of the 1860's. He felt sorry for his horse having to carry the all the extra weight of his excessive amount of army issues gear/equipment (Union Cav initially equipped the trooper with basically everything the infantry soldier had plus the extra that the mounted soldier needed....later they learned to trim it down a LOT). To make it easier on his horse he loaded it most of his stuff in a backpack like the Infantry so now he was carrying the weight (then then he gets on his horse happy in the knowledge that he's carrying it for the horse :lol. He really didn't change much for the horse.\
Pads are for people. They don't correct the issue for the horse. In the horse riding world I grew up in that was why they had a pad wrap.


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

lbs-I have tried to be as nice as I can, and really do not want to sound rude. However, I don't think the OP is looking to do the amount of riding that a calvary officer from the 1860's would, nor do I think she will be carrying all that equipment. Therefore, I find all that info impertinent, over and over again. It really has nothing to do with people doing TODAYS riding, unless they are endurance riders, and I doubt there are many of those here looking to ride bareback for many reasons. JMHO.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

franknbeans said:


> lbs-I have tried to be as nice as I can, and really do not want to sound rude. However, I don't think the OP is looking to do the amount of riding that a calvary officer from the 1860's would, nor do I think she will be carrying all that equipment. Therefore, I find all that info impertinent, over and over again. It really has nothing to do with people doing TODAYS riding, unless they are endurance riders, and I doubt there are many of those here looking to ride bareback for many reasons. JMHO.


:lol: You're missing the point. So I'll do my best to make this as understandable as I can.

Riding with a "bareback pad" is just riding bareback with a little extra padding so if you understand the problem with riding bareback you'll (hopefully) understand the problem with a bareback pad (any pad...the issue is the same).
As the tests (one already provided) show, riding bareback impacts the horse's back negatively. How long you ride only impacts overall amount of negative impact. But people don't get it when you say it does damage, because they don't "see" it since they don't ride long distances which is why from most riders perspective it's not an issue....they don't ride much (and often don't get it even when they look at the test results), but it still impacts the back whether you ride for 30 minutes or 10 hours. So you put into a context that (hopefully) most people can understand.
The somewhat illogical trooper didn't get grasp the fact that his carrying the weight while still riding his horse didn't change what the horse was carrying so what he did still had the same impact (weight wise) for the horse (probably worse in reality since he would have had a tougher time with balance). Most of us would understand that though so it makes an example for why a pad doesn't solve the problem that comes with riding bareback with a pad.
The example of riding a long distance is to point out that even if you don't readily "see" the effect on the horses muscles doesn't mean it's not happening. So riding a long distance will make it obvious after awhile (the problem is there, but our stoic horses deal with it until it reaches a point that they won't anymore OR the fact that they're sore becomes obvious even though they're still enduring it).

All these explanations are because some folks don't seem to be grasping that particular problem with bareback pads. Of course that doesn't mean you can't have more issues with them. That just the one I grew up with. I'm just as well off throwing a saddle blanket on and riding with that (which heaven knows I've done before in a hurry to protect my pants) vs spending money on a pad (unless of course I think it's only MY backside that's important and then I guess I'll look for something for my comfort, because the horse is going to feel it, to some degree, anyway :lol.


----------



## Sharpie (May 24, 2009)

lbs, I get that bareback (or bareback pad or saddle blanket) put pressure points into a horse's back muscles and that can be a problem. But carrying a rider also puts more pressure on their hooves, fetlocks, stifles, knees, spine and everything else too. We see soreness and issues there moreso over long distances and higher loads as well, just like issues with our seatbones causing back muscle soreness.

Riding is not natural, but it is what earns my horse a relatively cushy life and IMO, riding bareback is no worse than riding is in general. Potential strain, yes. Especially considering weight and skill of a rider. Worse than a saddle? I'm not convinced. Worse than a perfectly fitting saddle, probably, and certainly in theory but considering how many saddles are put on horses and ridden in that don't really fit as well as we would like, I don't see a real difference in the practical, real-world application.

Love the story of the Soldier. I'm sure the poor guy honestly felt he was helping his mount. There but for the grace we all go, right?


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

and you are missing mine.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

franknbeans said:


> and you are missing mine.


So what is your point? :lol:
That I've over explained it? (gave detailed reason why I didn't think much of bareback pads)
That I've gone to the point of making it ridiculously obvious?
Or is it that I've used examples to show how people seem to not realize that what they think has no impact does have impact. Of course everything we do with a horse has an impact. The trick is to avoid what doesn't have to be and lessen what can't be avoided.

:lol: I read what the OP said.
Basically:
New, 20 year old horse, a bit underweight, bareback pads have a bad wrap, but what do you think about this one....

The question was, in spite of bareback pads having a bad wrap, what did I think about that one. So I gave what I thought.
I stated what I think about ALL bareback pads (same problem no matter what the pad), but of course you have to understand the problem with bareback too since that's why there's the problem with the pad. Gave the reasons for it. Per request provided one (more recent) study that supports my reason. For those who didn't seem get it I gave ways they could find out for themselves (won't be pleasant, but it will demonstrate it).

Think, believe and do what you want. I can't explain the facts of what the issue is with bareback pads any better :lol:.
If you don't get it it's not a crime :lol:.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

Sharpie said:


> lbs, I get that bareback (or bareback pad or saddle blanket) put pressure points into a horse's back muscles and that can be a problem. But carrying a rider also puts more pressure on their hooves, fetlocks, stifles, knees, spine and everything else too. We see soreness and issues there moreso over long distances and higher loads as well, just like issues with our seatbones causing back muscle soreness.
> 
> Riding is not natural, but it is what earns my horse a relatively cushy life and IMO, riding bareback is no worse than riding is in general. Potential strain, yes. Especially considering weight and skill of a rider. Worse than a saddle? I'm not convinced. Worse than a perfectly fitting saddle, probably, and certainly in theory but considering how many saddles are put on horses and ridden in that don't really fit as well as we would like, I don't see a real difference in the practical, real-world application.
> 
> Love the story of the Soldier. I'm sure the poor guy honestly felt he was helping his mount. There but for the grace we all go, right?


No one who deals with horse is going to dispute that what we use horses for (even eating them :lol is going to have some form of impact on the horse. Even if we just have them as a pasture ornament we're impacting their natural tendency to roam.
Riding is certainly one of the things we do that is most unnatural for the horse. They're built like a basic beam style bridge (only supported on the ends) so riding on their back is about the worst place to be (and if you dig a bit you'll find that the back was the only location on a horse that people rode ....check out the "donkey seat" sometime...it's a better location for the horse, but not for us).
Actually, the feet, legs and associated joints are areas that we have the ability to have some of the least amount of impact on (that's not to say that we don't, because we usually don't do it right). If you wait for a horse's joints to finish their growth before placing demands on them that lessens the impact on joints. If we don't shoe them and take the time to condition them (or use boots if we can't wait) that lessens the impact and damage on the feet. If we take the time to remodel the bones enough (makes them denser, thicker and stronger) we lessen the impact on the bones. There will always be some impact, but if we don't rush time and use it to the horses advantage we can reduce the amount of impact we have.
Of course, even doing everything right, the back is going to be toughest in that we can only strengthen the muscles and (if everything is perfect :shock:...:lol displace the weight carried to the maximum allowed by the type of saddle we end up using (which is generally dictated by either how we are using the horse or what our personal preferences are). If we ride we're going to put weight on the back which really isn't designed for carrying it. It's unfortunate, but it's the way it has to be or else we'd have to give up riding (and that's not likely :lol. And, as you so aptly put it, it's how they earn their keep.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

"IMO, riding bareback is no worse than riding is in general. Potential strain, yes. Especially considering weight and skill of a rider. Worse than a saddle? I'm not convinced. Worse than a perfectly fitting saddle, probably, and certainly in theory but considering how many saddles are put on horses and ridden in that don't really fit as well as we would like, I don't see a real difference in the practical, real-world application."

Actually, barring certain rather obvious cases (e.g. like where the saddle is too narrow at the whither or so wide that the pommel actually makes contact with the whither and extreme situation of that kind) even a saddle that has a less then perfect twist on the bar so that say only 75% has good contact (not a perfect fit and will leave some dry spots) still displaces more weight across that 75%, and therefore has less impact, than all the weight being distributed on those two relatively small bones we sit on .

But as I've said (more than once here :lol while the 30 minute bareback ride to visit you friend will result in your weight being concentrated at two small areas on the horses back (about the worst thing, which is why narrow saddles are among the worst cases too) it will not (or should not with a horse that does not already have a sore muscle issue) disable your horse or prevent you from doing it again the next day :lol:.
Remember that horses deal with something uncomfortable every time we get on their back (with or without a saddle). It's really only a question of how much discomfort you want to or are willing to impose.
For me it's never been a question of what people do with their horse or use their horses for. I just think that people should be aware of the results of their actions. People who are informed and aware of it are more likely to take actions to alter, lessen, mitigate or compensate for it. In doing so they make it better for their horse (and possibly better for the person too in the long run ).
But I still believe that "it's your horse, you can do what you want" (even if the person is an informed individual and chooses to ignore what they know).

As for your opinion "riding bareback is no worse than riding is in general". That's the beauty of an opinion .

There are two things that can't be taken from us and therefore always ours and we'll always have the right to them.
1. Knowledge that we already have (it might be disproved, but not taken from us).
And
2 Beliefs or opinions (even in the face of overwhelming or irrefutable evidence to the contrary we will always be able to belief or disbelief anything we want...or have whatever opinion we like). 

Everything else in life can be taken away from or denied to us.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

When I was a child loads of kids (myself included) rode in 'felt pad saddles' this is the closest pic I can find to what they looked like, the girth was attached and they had stirrups. 
They were cheap, you could throw them around for everyday use without your parents moaning at you for getting your good leather one scratched and damaged and they were really light to carry.
I would ride miles in a day from early morning to evening and my ponies never showed any signs of being sore or uncomfortable.
From the adult riders point of view - nowadays I wouldn't want to sit on anything that didn't have some comfort padding in it!!


----------



## Foxtail Ranch (Mar 10, 2012)

Since reading this thread, I have paid more attention to my riding and noticed that when I ride bareback, I don't sit on my butt bones as much as I ride on the inside if my thighs. I post and "2point" by doing this and it is most of the time. I really only sit when walking.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------

