# Why start them so young?



## gssw5 (Jul 30, 2013)

I agree with the OP so no fireworks here. I like to wait until at least 4 or 5 before starting to ride them.


----------



## Horseychick87 (Feb 5, 2014)

I subscribed to this thread :-D

I don't like starting a horse until they are older. I will however get them used to tack "long" before that. I won't back them, but just so that they know the feel of a saddle, girth, and bridle beforehand. They may get long lined or hand walked, but again, no riding. I like to start the 'tack' process around two or three years, but wait until they're 4-5 before backing them, and then it's just short periods each day, building up from there.

I think a lot of people are in too much of a hurry to see a 'return on their investment'. You could blame that mentality on horse racing as they start their horses very young and many people will see that (especially those new to horses) and say' well they do it, so it's okay for me to do it.' 
But show organizers follow along with that by offering Futurities for 2 year olds. I don't like seeing young horses under tack and being ridden in shows before they are 4. You can do so much with a younger horse from the ground, I'd love to see more classes for lead line, In-Hand and the like.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

I did say it would probably start arguments but I am sick of seeing broken down horses that have been worked too hard too long. Mine have done basically everything there is to do on the ground by the time they are old enough to be ridden so a rider isn't scary and they are much better rounded individuals for it.


----------



## Woodhaven (Jan 21, 2014)

With race horses it's a matter of money. I don't agree with racing 2 yr olds as I think they are still growing and developing.
I worked with my young horses, ground work, getting them used to a saddle, leading, ponying etc. I would often get on them in the fall of their 2 yr old year but just for a few minutes each time to walk and teach them to start, stop and turn. Just do this for a couple of weeks then leave them for the winter and in the late spring start working with them again. They never forgot what they learned the fall before. I don't even like to see 3 yr olds worked hard but often they are.
By not rushing young horses I think I give them the opportunity to have a longer more useful life with less soundness issues.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

I'm going to type the same thing that I always type on these threads.

I have worked for show horse trainers and I have rode and started ranch horses. For the most part in the western show world, yes, colts are started as two year olds. Working on ranches I have started colts as 3, 4, 5 and even older horses. I have lost count of the amount of colts I have started over the years, not saying that I am good at it, but I have started a lot. Here is what I have noticed.
_Horses will stay sound or become crippled regardless of the year it was started._
I have seen two years old started, shown futurity, shown derby went on to aged events, packed non-pros then went well into their teens and twenties packing amatuers/novices and retire sound. Seen horses started as two years not stay sound and not make it to the show pen.

Also seen horses started in their 3,4, 5+ year go on to live a long life as a ranch horses still using them in their twenties teaching kids how to rope, cut and work cattle. Seen that same age group of horses be crippled and unuseable within a short amount of time.

The thing that people that only looking at the age of the colt don't take into consideration is the _individual _horse. 
There are other factors; conformation, physical and mental maturity, the amount of riding done, the ground the horse is worked in and the difficulty of work being asked of the individual.


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

Agreed with Cow chick 100%

I start them at two. It's just how it goes. It works for me.

Another thing people forget about is how to keep a horse mentally sound. They don't know how, so they fry a horse's brain regardless of age. You come across a talented horse who takes everything so well, and then they get excited and keep asking more. They forget they are on colts because the colts act like they're broke. A reiner might get excited and stop a horse too many times. A barrel racer might try to add speed too quick. A rail/eq person might try to get their lead changes too soon. 

A huge thing that people don't understand is that dry work in particular is extremely hard on horses mentally. I find that the two year olds I put on cows often are way more willing and mentally able than the ones who don't get to see them much. I find barrel prospects who work the pattern or drills on the pattern seem happier than the ones who don't. Giving them that object and that job, and doing it right, is imperative to a sound mind.


I've had a lot of colts, particularly in the past couple years, and none of them are lame due to early riding stress.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

One flaw in your theory cowchick all horses physically mature at roughly the same age with the last growth plates in their spines fusing at around 6. Yes horses started at a reasonable age can and do go lame early but why would you risk a youngster who's skeleton is years of maturing and therefore putting them at a much greater risk of their ridden live going to a have painful and abrupt end all too soon just because some one has been lucky and their horses have stayed outs (from the outside). I wonder how many of these 20 year olds would actually pass a vetting.


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

OP, I choose real life experience with horsemanship rather than the numbers preached on a forum. No offense. Between the incredible trainers and horsemen/women I have had the privilege to meet, I have learned that sometimes the science doesn't always add up. You have to be intelligent and have enough horse sense to know when you're pushing your horse and when you are not. They will tell you if you have the sense to listen.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

rbarlo32 said:


> One flaw in your theory cowchick all horses physically mature at roughly the same age with the last growth plates in their spines fusing at around 6. Yes horses started at a reasonable age can and do go lame early but why would you risk a youngster who's skeleton is years of maturing and therefore putting them at a much greater risk of their ridden live going to a have painful and abrupt end all too soon just because some one has been lucky and their horses have stayed outs (from the outside). I wonder how many of these 20 year olds would actually pass a vetting.


Don't know the studies that you are referring to, not going to pretend I do, I am basing my opinions on experience not something I read on the internet. This is what I mean by physical maturity; if he is too small to handle my weight I am not going to ride him. If he seems to having problems balancing is not ready for what I am asking he gets turned out. Again it's up to the individual. If I start two year olds it doesn't mean I am riding the **** out of them.

Just curious rbarlo, in your OP you stated that starting two year olds is not a common practice in the UK yet you are tired of seeing horses broken down from being started at too young of an age. Are you seeing these horses first hand or you reading about them? Where are you seeing these horses that are broken down?


----------



## SlideStop (Dec 28, 2011)

Being started as a four year old doesn't guarantee a sound future. Starting a two year old doesn't mean they will be crippled. There are so many factors that go into making and keeping a sound horse. Age is just a fraction of that. How much weight do they carry? What's their conformation? Breed? How long and they being ridden? What kind of riding are they doing?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

There is a couple up here worked too hard too young that have gone lame and had to retire, like I said it isn't common place to work them too young but it happens. Could you just imagine how much longer these amazing horses you both are talking about could compete at the top level if they had just 2 more years to mature. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but I have yet to hear a good enough reason for not waiting a couple of years before starting them. Just because it is the done thing doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. And BTW just because they look sound and healthy from the outside doesn't mean their skeleton says the same thing.


----------



## squirrelfood (Mar 29, 2014)

rbarlo32 said:


> There is a couple up here worked too hard too young that have gone lame and had to retire, like I said it isn't common place to work them too young but it happens. Could you just imagine how much longer these amazing horses you both are talking about could compete at the top level if they had just 2 more years to mature. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but I have yet to hear a good enough reason for not waiting a couple of years before starting them. Just because it is the done thing doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. And BTW just because they look sound and healthy from the outside doesn't mean their skeleton says the same thing.



Money. Yep


----------



## texasgal (Jul 25, 2008)

There is a difference between "too hard too young" and starting a 2-year-old ..... imo


----------



## Iseul (Mar 8, 2010)

I base it all off their mentality, knees (I won't get on until knees are closed), height/build, and how they seem to take everything. I'm looking at a long 2 year old colt right now if he's still available when my mare sells for another project. For him, I'm figuring on a relatively simple plan (not in stone, it'll depend on him entirely, I have other horses to ride). Two/three months groundwork and then get on and do short trail rides (about a half hour, an hour max if it's an all slow, all flat trail), winter off (maybe a ride here and there at shows in the warm up ring), and continue trail rides all next year, going to shows for experience. He won't be worked hard until his late four year old year, but he'll be well broke walk/trot by then and probably still working on the canter. I doubt he'll be crippled by the time he's 20 as long as he has no underlying issues.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

2 IMO is too young and like I said not waiting the couple of extra years is too great of a risk to be worth it.


----------



## SlideStop (Dec 28, 2011)

How about... Because every day a horse sits out in a trainers pasture they are costing them money, not making any. They start them as young as possible because otherwise it' would be impossible to turn a profit.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

If its a case of not wanting to wit the extra couple of years for either impatience or money they buy an older horse simple really.


----------



## kimberlyrae1993 (Mar 20, 2013)

I have never myself raised a foal and started it myslef but in the real world horses ate started early so they turn a bigger profit its how it goes can it damage the horses yes there is a possibility of that.. but can the same things happen to a 6 year old?? Absolutely yes if its un there genetics to have sound problems they will no matter what age
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlideStop (Dec 28, 2011)

rbarlo32 said:


> If its a case of not wanting to wit the extra couple of years for either impatience or money they buy an older horse simple really.


And if they breed horses too?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## CLaPorte432 (Jan 3, 2012)

All the horses we've had have been started at 2. It's the common age around her to start them. 

Jasper, started at 2, now 15 years old and NEVER taken a lame step.
Nutmeg, started at 2, now 14 years old and NEVER taken a lame step.
Chilly, started at 2, now 13 years old and NEVER taken a lame step.

We've had 5 other horses that were started at 2, and never had an issue with them.

Rumor, was started at 3. Put in a pasture until 5 when I purchased her. And 3 weeks into owning her, she suffered a life threatening injury that cost me thousands of dollars. ($4500+) to treat her in the past 1 year. She now is sound, but has arthritis in her hock and her future is questionable for how many years I'll get out of her.

My 15 month old will be sent to the trainer at 3 years. I'm waiting an extra year for her, but you can bet your booty I'll have already sat on her and worked her to where she will have 90% of the stepping blocks for her training already completed. I might even send her at 2-1/2, it all depends on how she is physically and mentally.

My vets have no issues with starting a 2 year old.

And my freshly started 2 years old don't canter. We do walk/trot/whoa/back for months before adding a canter in. One horse we waited until he was 3 before we added canter work.

I agree that if a horse is going to start sound, it's going to stay sound. If he's not, he's not. Horses are a gamble. Fate always wins in the end.


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

I would rather see a horse started at two properly than a horse started at four/five poorly. 

So what if it comes down to the money? The longer a horse sits the longer it has to turn into habits, and the longer you have to feed it, the more show opportunities it misses, the more money it costs, and the less it's worth. Trainers take excellent care of their show horses. They are happy, sound, and healthy. I don't see the problem?


----------



## tmhmisty (Jun 8, 2014)

The $ and the notoriety is in the futurities. They could start putting more $ in the derby and aged horse classes which might help with the pressure put on young horses. Same goes for racing, why don't they take the $ out of the 2/3 year old racing and put it towards derby races(not sure of racing terminology.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

Kiberlyrae ataking underlying faults out of the equation as we arenot talking about underlying problems. A horse started at 2 is more likely to become unsound then a horse started a 6. And for the record I'm not just talking leg problems as legs fuse relatively young 2/3 year I think it is the neck and back the suffers and unless you have x-rayed every single horse you are all claiming are still sound you don't know what is going on inside, I have a Shetland with bilateral patella luxation a genetic condition which meant he shouldn't have been able to stand when be was born yet he was and it went undetected for 11 years and even past his stallion test where he had his legs checked, so my point it unless you have looked at the inside of your horse you cannot claim for certain that your horse is sound and well.

Slipestop is see no reason why being a breeder plays a part in the age you start a horse, I breed I wouldn't start my ponies at 2.


----------



## .Delete. (Jan 7, 2008)

SorrelHorse said:


> OP, I choose real life experience with horsemanship rather than the numbers preached on a forum. No offense. Between the incredible trainers and horsemen/women I have had the privilege to meet, I have learned that sometimes the science doesn't always add up. You have to be intelligent and have enough horse sense to know when you're pushing your horse and when you are not. They will tell you if you have the sense to listen.


This deserved to be posted twice

So many of my training babies come to me as 2yr olds. An I have had nothing but success with them. However, I have backed a horse before. My personal show horse I started on at 2, he was too immature, so I put him out to a field for another year. It all depends on the horse and the situation. 

Good luck telling people that starting them at 2 is bad. You'll be yelling at most of the performance horse industry.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

If so many horses were not started at 2 then there would be more money and more classes for older horses. In the UK no show let's an under 4 year old horse enter risen classes yet people still make a profit off of their horses. And if we are talking profit like I said a horse started a couple of years later is more likely to keep competing at the top levels then that of a horse started at 2 and therefore surely making more money.


----------



## .Delete. (Jan 7, 2008)

rbarlo32 said:


> If so many horses were not started at 2 then there would be more money and more classes for older horses. In the UK no show let's an under 4 year old horse enter risen classes yet people still make a profit off of their horses. And if we are talking profit like I said a horse started a couple of years later is more likely to keep competing at the top levels then that of a horse started at 2 and therefore surely making more money.


Here in the US we have futurity classes that is where alot of the big money is. These "maiden" 2yr olds usually grow up to be faithful show horses. 

I don't know of many age restricted classes other than green, senior, futurity etc. 

Profit IS NOT in the shows. Profit is in the training and the clients you take on. The more clients the more money. To me, training a 2yr old costs the same as a 14yr old.


----------



## 3ringburner (Feb 8, 2014)

Well my current colt is 2 and we have started him and he is doing great! We can walk trot loap in the arena, no bad habits, and he listens to everything. He has been down the road by himself, he has even been to a team penning and was tacked up at the trailer and i jumped on after a little lounging. I rode him to the inside arena and he did great. He got ponied around a little before i rode him into the arena and around the cows he did great, i sat on him while the penning was going on, i rode him while the tractor was in there, HE DID GREAT! im not going so fast that ill blow his mind but im starting him early so i have a good expeirienced horse that i can use. And dont say well your gonna make him have soundness issues cause we watch for them everyday. hes maturing fast and hes a good boy.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

Delete I would more then happily go and yell at then if I thought it would make the blindest bit of difference. I don't understand the notion that just because it is done at the top levels doesn't mean it is right. Here's a couple of examples extreme but they prove a point take the big lick horses for example for a while the winning most horses were trained by trainers using spring and platform shoes yes I am sure they are most brilliant for the horse, then look at Edward Gal he is one of the top dressage riders in the world yet he uses Rolkar doesn't make it right.


----------



## SueC (Feb 22, 2014)

You can start working with a horse from day dot - training is good. You just shouldn't work it hard until it has reached maturity. That's it in a nutshell. ;-)


----------



## .Delete. (Jan 7, 2008)

rbarlo32 said:


> Delete I would more then happily go and yell at then if I thought it would make the blindest bit of difference. I don't understand the notion that just because it is done at the top levels doesn't mean it is right. Here's a couple of examples extreme but they prove a point take the big lick horses for example for a while the winning most horses were trained by trainers using spring and platform shoes yes I am sure they are most brilliant for the horse, then look at Edward Gal he is one of the top dressage riders in the world yet he uses Rolkar doesn't make it right.


Also, just because you read a few articles and saw a couple "awful" videos doesn't make your opinion right. Like I said, it all depends on the horse.

Horses have been started at 2 successfully for many many years.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

Ringburner I'm not talking about immediate effects of riding them young we well I am anyway are trying to look at the bigger picture and the longer turn effects on the horse and again all horse physically mature at roughly the same speed regardless of breed or height. And as for experience my yearling has probably seen and done more then most ridden horses, she has already got the been there done that got the teashirt temperament without e er having some one on her back. For the show world it really seems to come down to money on the most part and the rest just because it is the done thing but there is absolutely no reason in the world to start a pleasure horse at 2 not that I agree with any 2 year old being started obviously.


----------



## texasgal (Jul 25, 2008)

We could be talking breed differences also. I come from the land of ranch horses, started at 2 and built to do the job well into their teens and 20's. If a person has a slower maturing breed, then maybe they don't understand.

On the other hand, just because you know a COUPLE of horses that were worked "too hard too young" shouldn't make you judgemental of everyone that starts a 2-year-old..

If they are worked too hard, the horse and the owner will pay the price..


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

Where did you get the idea of my opinion on things being formed on a few awful videos, trust me I wouldn't do my self the discredit of forming my opinion of things based on just a couple of videos I am not an idiot.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

Taxesgirl I am not basing my judgement if horses bring startedat 2 on those few horses like I said I would not do my self the disservice of having such a poorly formed opinion. It has been proven by scientists that all horses mature physically all the roughly the same time and they have also shown the possible side effects of working horses too young so that their growth plates aren't fused yet and thus leading to damage no matter how microscopic. It is not worth the risk IMO, plus I asked for reasons for backing a horse at 2 I've yet to hear one good enough to risk a horses health.


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

Sorry










I couldn't










hear you










over the sound










of all my 










sound and happy horses











who were started










at two years old











by competent professionals










and not people who sit about on forums.










Don't mind me, just got done gathering cows minus a bridle.













(I can be allowed to be a little snarky, I've got two broken bones and am laid up on the couch for several more weeks.)


----------



## texasgal (Jul 25, 2008)

It's texasgal, and your scientists obviously don't spend much time with ranch horses.

The reason I back my horses at 2 is because they are mine, and I've always done it, and I've never had an issue doing it.


----------



## .Delete. (Jan 7, 2008)

rbarlo32 said:


> Taxesgirl I am not basing my judgement if horses bring startedat 2 on those few horses like I said I would not do my self the disservice of having such a poorly formed opinion. It has been proven by scientists that all horses mature physically all the roughly the same time and they have also shown the possible side effects of working horses too young so that their growth plates aren't fused yet and thus leading to damage no matter how microscopic. It is not worth the risk IMO, *plus I asked for reasons for backing a horse at 2 I've yet to hear one good enough to risk a horses health.*


Because the horses are physically and mentally ready. Thats why.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

Sorral horse what makes you think I sit around on forums the whole time? Just because I'm on now when it is dark out and the middle of the night? And like I said my proof about backing a horse at 2 being bad for them has been compiled by experienced bets that put a lot of time into the research and study yep I'm sure they dont know what they re talking about either.


----------



## texasgal (Jul 25, 2008)

rbarlo32, back YOUR horses at whatver age you wish...


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

rbarlo32 said:


> There is a couple up here *worked too hard too young* that have gone lame and had to retire, like I said it isn't common place to work them too young but it happens. Could you just imagine how much longer these amazing horses you both are talking about could compete at the top level if they had just 2 more years to mature. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but I have yet to hear a good enough reason for not waiting a couple of years before starting them. Just because it is the done thing doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. And BTW just because they look sound and healthy from the outside doesn't mean their skeleton says the same thing.


A couple of horses.
Do you think that _how they were worked and how hard might be the issue?_ 
What do they look like (conformation), what are their living conditions, what is being asked of them, how long, how often, what ground are they being worked on, do they enjoy their jobs?


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

I'm on a tablet then tends to autocorrect things therefore changing the words. delete as is keep saying time and time again it has been proven 2 year olds are not physically mature enough yo be ridden and I haven't met many that are metallynmatute enough for that matter. And like I said it doesn't matter what type of horse they are their skeleton is not mature enough and therefore any ridden work (more then sitting on their back for a minute or 2) could be detrimental to their health and just because you are all set in your was doesn't make them or me any less right then you all think you are.


----------



## Endiku (Dec 6, 2010)

My problem isn't the horses who are started at two for an intended purpose by a competent professional, its the backyard rider novice 'horse whisperer trainer' people and the do-it-myselfers who buy young horses, assume they're mentally mature because they're big, and expect them not to act like babies. I worry much more about the mental strain on 2 and 3 year olds than the physical strain. So many young horses would not be ruined if it wasn't for being pushed too hard too fast with too little clear instruction. If your end goal is just trail riding and goofing off, why can't you wait another few months and give them time to digest information? I also can't stand people who send 2 year olds out for 30 days training and expect them to come back as seasoned pros who can ignore rookie rider errors. 

I also don't like seeing 18 month olds being ridden actively even if it professionally for futurities or racing or whatever. They're REALLY still growing babies at that age and ate so butt high it's ridiculous. Having them loping tight circles already or running on the track just isn't OK in my books.

Other than I don't really mind seeing 2 year olds being brought along. I do cringe at some of the really physically immature ones with roping saddles and big men on them though, sorry.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

It doesn't matter what they did they were both just examples they were both show horses for most of their life and both champions with great conformation and one became a riding school horse when his owner started that up. But like I said they are just examples.


----------



## .Delete. (Jan 7, 2008)

rbarlo32 said:


> I'm on a tablet then tends to autocorrect things therefore changing the words. delete as is keep saying time and time again it has been proven 2 year olds are not physically mature enough yo be ridden and I haven't met many that are metallynmatute enough for that matter. And like I said it doesn't matter what type of horse they are their skeleton is not mature enough and therefore any ridden work (more then sitting on their back for a minute or 2) could be detrimental to their health and just because you are all set in your was doesn't make them or me any less right then you all think you are.


Can you show me where this has been proven please? I'd be really interested to read this article.

99% of the people on this forum have worked with horses that have been started at 2 and have ZERO health issues because of it.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

Again has these horses had their backs and legs x-rayed? And right now I couldn't find you the articles as I don't have access to a computer ATM.


----------



## EquineObsessed (May 24, 2013)

Most of the horses I work with were started as two year olds, ridden lightly, turned out, and got into more serious training as three year olds. None of them are ever lame, or mentally unstable. They are calm, dependable mounts who enjoy their work. 

Are there people who push 2 yos way too hard? Yep. And every other age. BUT, when done correctly, I can't think of a better way to start a horse.

Bad training is bad training, regardless of age. A good trainer recognizes what each horse can handle, and acts accordingly. There are many incompetents out there, but the folks who know how to start a horse properly can make a plan for horses of any age. We have a horse here who is being started at the ripe old age of 19. We also have a 2 yo, and a 6 yo. Each will require a different hand, and the ability to adjust is what makes good trainers.


----------



## MangoRoX87 (Oct 19, 2009)

I'm currently staring at my mare, who was broken in at 2, ridden hard for the futurity and the derby, turned into a heading/heeling and barrel horse (not to mention having two colts) and that was highly competitive until this spring when I could tell she just wasn't enjoying as much. Not uncomfortable, just no longer really trying like she used to.

She is 23. She has never had a lame day in the years I have owned her. Only issues I have had is she recently had some kidney level issues, now resolved. She has minimal arthritis, no sway back, is still perky as ever and even sometimes runs and bucks at will. You could've broke her at 4 and she would probably be the same way. It is all about the individual. Yes their bones mature at the same rate, but their minds, muscles and other parts of their bodies certainly don't.

I like to get the basics down on a horse when they are 2. And I mean minimal basics: walk, trot, turn, back up, lope. Very few, short, easy rides (like 10 minutes) because I understand their bodies and brains are still maturing. They don't start really learning hard until they are 4. Sorry, but I'd rather put up with a slightly immature horse bucking, than a full grown horse. I'm also the person who throws saddles, blankets, everything imaginable on a yearlings back.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

rbarlo32 said:


> It doesn't matter what they did they were both just examples they were both show horses for most of their life and both champions with great conformation and one became a riding school horse when his owner started that up. But like I said they are just examples.


 
It does matter! The work load is a huge factor regardless of age and you just said in a previous post that they were worked too hard.


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

My favorite part is the lack of any legitimate evidence rather than "the studies".

What, where, when, who, how many horses tested, how many different breeds, how long was it done for, what is the percentage, what other factors come into play?

Why would I trust your "studies" over my boss with 60 years experience, my trainer with 40, three area vets, and the people I have been so honored to meet and shake hands with who are in the NRCHA hall of fame?


----------



## .Delete. (Jan 7, 2008)

rbarlo32 said:


> Again has these horses had their backs and legs x-rayed? And right now I couldn't find you the articles as I don't have access to a computer ATM.


I can bet money alot of these horses have had their legs x-rayed for pre-sale soundness checks. Also, my personal show horse who was started at 2 had his legs looked at before his sale when he was 8. Guessssss what?! 100% clean. Crazy I know


----------



## kimberlyrae1993 (Mar 20, 2013)

If it was so so bad for the horse we would have stopped starring them at 2 years ago.. just saying.. almost all horses are started at 2.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MangoRoX87 (Oct 19, 2009)

When I worked for the NRHA, all the futurity sale horses had knee x-rays to show they were ready for the demands of the big time. And those trainers that are making money in the business don't push babies till they break. They don't spend $25K on a yearling to ruin them.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

Like I said delete it is their backs the suffer the most and 8 really is not old enough to see most of the long term damage, kimberlyrae race horses are backed at 18 months or so they are raced hard and most have rubbish legs because of it and just because there is a few that have had their legs damaged doesn't mean racing is good for the legs I think we can all agree on that one yet the money is still in the 2 and 3 year old races, you want to know what they are still raced at that age even though all the professionals know it is bad for them, it is the same reason for a lot of things in this world money.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

A quick search of the Internet says human males stop their bone growth around 18-25. 

Now, how many guys wait until 20+ to play sports, climb trees, lift weights, jog, go backpacking, etc? How many societies wait until 25 before they allow males to do strenuous work? Hmmm?


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

rbarlo, show your studies to my horses that were started as two year olds that are eager to do their jobs, look forward to being caught and go to work in the morning. No resentful horses in my string. 
If your a good horse owner you pay attention to your horses and realize when you are asking too much of them physically and mentally, again, regardless of age. If horses become resentful or not putting their all into the job you know that they are hurting, you adjust and fix. A horse that hurts or hates the work will not put his all into what you ask of them.


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

Clearly you haven't been around enough REAL big time trainers.

There's a difference between local hot shots and world renowned.....


----------



## texasgal (Jul 25, 2008)

rbarlo32, you keep regurgitating the same thing over and over again, despite being given multiple examples of 2-year-olds started correctly and being sound and happy into their teens.

When asked for your real life examples, you sited a couple of horses that were overworked too young.

Are you interested in real life examples and real life reasons, or just looking for an argument?

(I am also on a tablet .. but try to proof read before hitting send.)


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

If you are comparing ages a 2 year old horse would be more like a 10 year old child then a 25 year old, would you make a 10 year old do strenuous work?


----------



## southernbound (May 17, 2014)

Not to be rude, but while I DO believe well performed studies, you haven't cited any. Im on my phone and I can still use Google. If you have the internet to get on horse forum you have the internet to look up the studies youre going off of you know? So I think its hard for us to take you seriously. Also , no one here is talking about racing. Many here dont like racing either. We're talking about true two year olds bred and trained properly for ranch jobs. Your argument about xraying their backs is las hard to take seriously as logic says that a horse in pain will act like it. No one here os going to work an old horse thats showing pain. Xrays of any old animal including humans will show some damage from a lifetime of living


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

Many ten year old kids DO participate in strenuous work.

Like, maybe, every ranch/farm raised kid ever? Like me? Come on now...You can do better than that for an example.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

It changes things whilst send hardly my fault and personal attacks really is that necessary? The reason I don't have many example is because starting a horse at 2 is not a done thing in the UK and I was just using 2 horses I knew personally. I have asked time and time again has these sound horses had all their joints x-rayed and time and time again I don't get an answer apart from some that have had knees x-rayed as youngster when I have already said the back as the most problems. IAs I saidi will get the studies when I have access to a computer which will be tomorrow.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

Horses are prey animals and no amount of bound will over ride their instinct to hide pain particularly if it is only mild. I can't get you the studies because I have them saved on the computer and I can't copy links on this. I was using race horses as an example go back and reread what I put.


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

I professionally work as someone who trains and flips horses. All of mine get vet checks before they get in the trailer. I have had seven colts from various clients and private parties in June alone be sold and all of them have been sound legged. Most ranging around three years old and have been under me for a year. 

I've shown you all my success stories, and I do have more. I don't think you've really asked for anything thusfar.

That's not a personal attack. That's a smart remark from a person on a couch in a leg cast several thousand miles from you....


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

The first of my comments was posted before you comment before your last, I can't remember what that comment was aimed at now as it is 2 in the morning here so I'll be logging off soon.


----------



## texasgal (Jul 25, 2008)

Get some sleep, rbarlo32, we'll see you in the morning..lol.


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

rbarlo32 said:


> Horses are prey animals and no amount of bound will over ride their instinct to hide pain particularly if it is only mild. I can't get you the studies because I have them saved on the computer and I can't copy links on this. I was using race horses as an example go back and reread what I put.


Extremely incorrect.

Even a horse with mild discomfort will show it if you are looking. Maybe they have an ounce more resistance to the right than the left...Maybe they lift their head when you put the saddle on. Maybe they flick their tail once when you cinch up. Maybe when you ask for the lope you have to use more leg than necessary. Maybe they pin their ears at you. Maybe they stand with one foot more forward than the other, or with one turned a different direction. 

This is a twelve year old I took on for training. (A sorry son of a gun but that's another story.)

Can you tell which leg he's lame on? Because I can. A farrier who knows legs better than anyone alive showed me how.


----------



## southernbound (May 17, 2014)

Im sorry if you feel personally attacked. It doesnt seem like anyone means that. I DID read your comment about race horses. That's my point. They're bad examples because they're extreme. Of course running a horse into the ground is harmful. Drinking too much water is harmful as well. Using examples from a sport no one post ing on here does isn't a convincing argument. Also, if it counts, my 20 year mare started as a two year old just had an xray of her shoulders and neck because she was acting a bit sore for the farrier. Nada. Clean bill of health


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

Um going to go out on a limb and have an educated guesstimate at the right hind, so the hind leg closest to the person taking the photo.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

I'm going to say the right hind so the one closest tot the person taking the camera as having the leg forwards like that means he isn't putting the weight on it the same as the over hind, at least that's what my stallion does when he is lame.


----------



## squirrelfood (Mar 29, 2014)

Clue: most of his weight is pushed over his front legs. :smile:


----------



## tinaev (Dec 2, 2012)

Just for the record there are A LOT of kids in the world at age 10 or younger doing strenuous work. A lot. Doesn't mean it's right but it also doesn't mean they are set up for a lifetime of medical problems. I feel the same way about horses.

I own a horse who was worked too hard to the point of injury and lameness in his teens. Then starved because he was no longer "worth" feeding. That makes me far more angry than someone deciding to put a 2 year old in training.


----------



## EquineObsessed (May 24, 2013)

Also, comparing a 10 year old kid to a 2 yo horse is way off. Maybe a 15 or 16 year old kid. Which, if they've been raised right, can work pretty hard and won't get burnt out. Kinda like horses... And many people would argue that it's better to instill that responsibility in kids when they are younger... also kinda like horses. Nothing helps a horse more than having a job. It doesn't have to a difficult or strenuous job, but they will stay out of trouble if they have work to do... just like kids.


----------



## SirComet (Feb 21, 2014)

SorrelHorse said:


> Extremely incorrect.
> Can you tell which leg he's lame on? Because I can. A farrier who knows legs better than anyone alive showed me how.


Also going to guess...left hind? The weight is pushed onto his front legs, and the one on the right would likely bear more weight than the left given the way it's situated.

As for the actual question, I agree it depends on the individual horse, and I would say the biggest reason people start them so early is because they are impatient. Often because of money. I had a filly just for a personal horse, not to sell, and I was getting so impatient to break her out!! But I knew she was too young, so I stuck with ground work. Good thing, too, because I ended up selling her and nobody wants to buy a lame horse!!


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

I agree with the OP. No horse of mine will ever be started at 2. I lived in Europe for many years and as the OP has stated 2 year olds are not ridden. I would breed a 2 yo before I would ride one. I also have arabians that mature later than most breeds.
I' am not aiming any horse at a futurity nor for racing. Arabian race horses are not allowed to race until they pass their third birthdate. They have fewer breakdowns and more retire sound than either racing QHs or TBs. Endurance horses are not allowed to compete until they are 4. Horses are not started over fences until they are 4-5.
I prefer the european way of starting colts later
My family raised QHs for decades. We did not start them until the fall of their two year old year. Then they were backed for 60 days very lightly then turned out until the next spring. We did this so that after more training they would be sold that summer or fall as finished horses.
When to start a colt should be determined by its physical maturity, mentality, and how early a 2 year old it is. Then the work load needs to be determined.
Here in the US we are in a rush to train early for futurities, racing, and to enjoy our very expensive hobby as fast as we can. No two year old should be ridden hard and that I think we can all agree on. Yet it happens far too often.
I see the OPs point very clearly. I think she is asking a valid question. More than one of my european friends are alarmed at the age we start horses in the US. Shalom


----------



## texasgal (Jul 25, 2008)

^^ I wouldn't start an arab at 2 either..


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

While I prefer to wait until at least 3 to do any sort of real work on my own horses, I have seen and done a lot of training on 2 year olds with no ill effects.

My Dad has trained ranch and show horses for almost 50 years, most of which were started at 2 years old. Most of those thousands of horses continued on to have long and successful, and _sound_, lives. If a person knows how to do it right, a horse can be started at 2 with no real detriment to their health. If a person doesn't know how to do it right, they will either fry the body or the brain, regardless of whether the horse is 2 or 10.


----------



## kimberlyrae1993 (Mar 20, 2013)

I know much about the race industry I own an OTTB she was ran hard and is as sound as she could ever be at 14 years old.. people pay thousands of dollars on these horses there not gonna dump all that money to ruin a horse.. accidents happen but face it horses will continue to be started at 2 to 3 for many many more years to come.. EVERYTHING WE DO TO HORSES IS UN NATURAL AND CAN AND WILL CAUSE HARM.. if you are so worried about tearing a horse down don't ever get on there back that's just un natural and cruel to the horse.. 

See my point... no matter the age the day you get on there back you just raised the risk of lameness or damage to the horse in many ways.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tmhmisty (Jun 8, 2014)

http://www.equinestudies.org/ranger_2008/ranger_piece_2008_pdf1.pdf

Is this the article you are looking for?

I am not sure where I stand On the issue as I show, and so I start horses at 2 but I agree with someone here who said bad training is bad training regardless of age. So many variables go into training at any age, hard to say...


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

kimberlyrae1993 said:


> I know much about the race industry I own an OTTB she was ran hard and is as sound as she could ever be at 14 years old.. people pay thousands of dollars on these horses there not gonna dump all that money to ruin a horse.. accidents happen but face it horses will continue to be started at 2 to 3 for many many more years to come.. EVERYTHING WE DO TO HORSES IS UN NATURAL AND CAN AND WILL CAUSE HARM.. if you are so worried about tearing a horse down don't ever get on there back that's just un natural and cruel to the horse..
> 
> See my point... no matter the age the day you get on there back you just raised the risk of lameness or damage to the horse in many ways.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The risk of long term injury is less the older the horse is started. That should go without saying. Young developing bones and muscles should not be stressed too much. If you ride a two year old for several hours a day or some three year old you run the risk of long term injury. Wait until 4-5 as they do in Europe and the risk is much less.
I saw very few horses that competed in Europe retired at an early age.
Riding a two year old several times a week for an hour or less in an arena is a different story.
The problem is the uninformed owner who buys a horse marketed as broke to ride at two and who works the horse more than it should. Shalom


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

rbarlo32 said:


> If you are comparing ages a 2 year old horse would be more like a 10 year old child then a 25 year old, would you make a 10 year old do strenuous work?...
> 
> ...Horses are prey animals and no amount of bound will over ride their instinct to hide pain particularly if it is only mild.


According to this thread ( http://www.horseforum.com/horse-colors-genetics/height-guestimation-96556/ ), a 2 year old horse is about 90% of its mature weight and 95% of its mature height. At 30 months, about 95% for weight and 98% for height. That would equate to about a 15-16 year old boy. Lots of 15-16 year old boys do tremendous work prepping for football & basketball. 

Before that age, I was running 4-5 miles/day in street shoes, since jogging shoes were just beginning to be sold. At 56, I'm getting back into jogging after a back injury riding Mia stopped me in 2009. My knees are fine.

Some horses are stoic. Others, like Mia, are very expressive if their rider has the sense to listen. However, Mia was largely unridden until 8, so I won't be able to use her for an example.

I dislike the English style of riding a horse with constant contact on the bit. When I see it, I want to yell, "Get out of their mouth!". But you know, millions of horses are ridden that way by millions of riders, and are willing, eager and happy performers...so maybe the one who is wrong about it is *ME*. When millions of people ride millions of horses with excellent results doing X, how wrong can X be?

Maybe the less than impressive results I had riding with constant contact were because I was doing it wrong, and not because the style is wrong. Just a thought...:wink:


----------



## mlkarel2010 (Jan 27, 2008)

Starting 2 y/o colts doesn't bother me that much, but I know people who are riding their yearlings and it is driving me crazy! I was ranting about it to my husband once and he (not a horse person) casually asked them once "Isn't it bad for them to be ridden that early?" and their response was "No this is what you are supposed to do". I've seen pictures of the poor things (which they start sitting on before they are one!) and their shoulders aren't even as wide as mine and aren't even 13hh. It just makes me sad that they do this. Then again they think training is just getting on and riding and hitting them until they do the right thing.

Sorry for my rant, but can we agree that yearlings are too young to be ridden?


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

And I'm sure is a 15 year old was carrying some one on their back for athe same length of time as a horse they would have issues,because a human just running around is a good way to help prevent osteoporosis. bmsms there are probably millions of people riding race horses in the world doesn't make it right. ◀ and yes I'm using racing again but I'm not comparing the two.


----------



## ecasey (Oct 18, 2013)

Coming at this from a different angle ... (albeit also from a newbie perspective, not from personal experience)

2 year olds in the wild run at least 20 miles a day, sometimes at a full gallop. They rear, buck, bite, and strike with other 2-year olds at play, and do many of the other things asked of them by humans in training, without any issues whatsoever.

They do much of this starting just hours after birth, right? So why does adding the weight of a human rider for a hour a day make that much of a difference? From the people with experience here who actually train horses and follow them into their 20s (and say they are sound their entire lives), it makes _no_ difference.

I would bet that the horse's breed has something to do with their ability to be worked younger, and also that a trainer's skill and ability to listen and observe the horse and make adjustments in the training are keys to having a sound horse long-term.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

The large majority of folks have participated in this controversial topic as respectful adults , yet some just had to post worthless "popcorn" references and such kind of jokes. Thing that add nothing of value and just bring scorn and belittling to a real discussion . Those have been removed to keep the tone of the thread respectful.

Please don't waste everyone's time with "popcorn posts "


----------



## Rideordie112 (Dec 7, 2013)

I grew up riding and showing hunters over fences, particularly thoroughbreds,appendixes, paints and quarter horses. 
I was taught to start them at 2, teach them the basics, like how to flex, bend, give to pressure, back etc all the stuff necessary for a soft supple riding horse, then throw em out to pasture until they're three for the winter. 
Then start working on the trot and canter, do small shows on the flat to get them experience until they're like 5, and then we lightly start them over fences. 
Maybe cross rails when they're four, but it depends on the horse. 
and my trainer has never had a horse she bred and trained be retired due to being crippled.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## blue eyed pony (Jun 20, 2011)

I started my young horse at two because she was bored and needed a job.

She was in a herd situation but it just wasn't enough, and after INTENSIVE groundwork [several sessions a day for months] due to issues she had, she was mentally ready too. It was, simply put, the next step.

She will be started over fences soon. I've just gotten back in the saddle after non-horse-related injury and need to build myself up slowly, and she's unfit after being left in the pasture while I was out of action. So we both need to get fitter and stronger, but in 3ish months I fully intend to have her going over small fences.

Tentatively, my knee allowing, we are looking to ride an 18" encouragement round at my local show roughly 4 months from now. I don't care if we don't get past the first fence, the point is to get her out for experience. She went to the same show last year as a three year old for show hack classes and was impeccably behaved, not a single foot wrong, but hasn't been out since. She hasn't been in consistent work since - first it was a short break as a reward for her good behaviour and then summer hit and it was just too hot and then I got sick, then when I was better she just... wasn't quite right, so I gave her more time. Just as I was bringing her back in I got sick AGAIN, then once I was better and bringing her back into work [again... sigh] I hurt my knee.

Anyway, point is, it's not the age the horse is started, it's the work it's in.

My eventer was started young too but was in quite heavy jumping work from quite a young age [breeder told me that when she still owned him, at 5, he was jumping reasonably large stuff]. He was retired at 17 then passed away at 18, but his conformation was kind of scary. Over at the knee, upright pasterns, long cannons, upright shoulder, extremely long back and loin, and a far less than ideal hind end. He could jump the moon and he LOVED it but conformationally he really wasn't built to last.


----------



## Incitatus32 (Jan 5, 2013)

Ours are started lightly at two because most of the ones I work with need jobs. Typically they are trained to lunge before their two year old year, then when they are two they are trained to long line, free lunge, and lightly ride and/or drive (like mounting/dismounting, walk/trot/maybe canter). Before that however they wear surcingles, and saddles when they hit one. Though I wait to start serious work until they are three or four. 

I've yet to see or have a vet tell me that the two year olds are lamed up because of how we start them so I think it's as much to do with the individual as it is the practice. My problem is when people take two year olds and push them into everything instead of doing things at a snails pace and being happy with what you get. Some two year olds take stuff in stride and are phenomenal at it, others aren't ready until their three or four year old years. Everything in riding is un-natural, that's why it's up to the rider/trainer to see when a horse is done and when it can continue on. So I guess to sum it all up I do start horses at two but I don't agree with pushing them to get them 'broke' to saddle quicker, I only expect them to give me what they can.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

bsms said:


> A quick search of the Internet says human males stop their bone growth around 18-25.
> 
> Now, how many guys wait until 20+ to play sports, climb trees, lift weights, jog, go backpacking, etc? How many societies wait until 25 before they allow males to do strenuous work? Hmmm?


Research something called Osgood - Schlatter Disease. Its most common in young people that were involved in extreme athletic activities, especially males
Some of the risks highlighted
Weber Training Stables - Riding Young

Everyone here that supports starting horses at 2 talk about working them carefully and considerately which isn't likely to have much of a negative effect but that's totally ignoring the fact that the many horses started young that do suffer as a result aren't managed with such a care - a young immature 14.2 - 15h horse that suddenly goes from being ridden lightly by a 120lb person for a an hour or so a day gets sold on (to make that fast profit) to having to carry a 200lb man plus a heavy western saddle for a whole day likely isn't going to do so well


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

A 2 yr old has the greatest learning capacity and willingness to cooperate. Many horses are started at 2 yr olds then turned out to grow for another year. They don't forget what they learned as a 2 yr old. Many TWH are started at 2 then not given serious training until 4, the exception being those with stars in their eyes and the need to win.


----------



## BlueSpark (Feb 22, 2012)

> people pay thousands of dollars on these horses there not going to dump all that money to ruin a horse..


 yes, yes they are. I know the racing industry fairly well. Even a poor-mediocre race horse, extensively raced at 2-3 can earn tens of thousands of dollars. A decent prospect can earn a lot more. The biggest races are for two and three year olds, and they absolutely will run the horse to death to make money. I have seen it many, many times. I know someone with a horse that was sold for a crazy sum as a yearling, had countless thousands in training and board, won lots of money at 2 and 3 and was raced until he broke completely down with a severe fracture, and had to be ambulanced off the field. The run them until they cant run any more, then they breed them or ship them off to whatever awaits them, often slaughter.

why? Money. The big money is won as a 2-4 year old. They start them at 1.5, so they can win at 2-3. and by start, I mean gallop. And this is other disciplines too, if you want money, you have to win. If you want an extremely marketable breeding operation, a stud with a mile high stud fee, and a reputation for winning foals in the disciplines where the most money and prestige is won on young horses, you have to follow the crowd. Until they stop putting big money and prestige on competitions for two year old reiners, wp, Tennessee walkers, thoroughbred race horses(etc, etc), people will start their 1.5-2 year olds hard.

I don't think lightly starting a two year old will hurt it. the key being LIGHTLY and correctly. Putting a few rides on a two year old wont make much of a difference. Forgetting that horse is two and riding it like its 10 will. I personally wont start a horse till 3-4. I find a 3-4 year old to be more mentally and physically ready. 

similarly, if I was looking for a partner doing a job where their physical strength, coordination and mental maturity could be the difference between success and me being seriously injured, I would rather hire the 20 year old guy than the 15 year old.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

rbarlo32 said:


> And I'm sure is a 15 year old was carrying some one on their back for athe same length of time as a horse they would have issues,because a human just running around is a good way to help prevent osteoporosis...


20% of a 16 year old's weight is around 35 lbs. That qualifies as a light day pack. In the case of my 16 year old daughter, 20% of her weight is about 24 lbs...which is probably less than her school book bag weighs. A 2 year old racehorse carrying 120 lbs is carrying about 10% of his weight.

At 18, my SIL in Iraq was a machine gunner. IIRC, he was carrying about 120 lbs on a 200 lb frame, except he lost 50 lbs on both deployments so he finished carrying 120 lbs on a 150 lbs frame. Yes, that damaged his shoulders and back - but that is at 80% of his body weight. I grant that we shouldn't allow 800 lb riders on a horse...

There is nothing magical about picking an age where all bones have stopped growing. Lots of 15 year olds have bucked hay for a summer, tossing 100 lb bales all day. I doubt many enjoyed it, but they didn't seem to suffer lasting damage.



jaydee said:


> Research something called Osgood - Schlatter Disease. Its most common in young people that were involved in extreme athletic activities, especially males...
> 
> ...but that's totally ignoring the fact that the many horses started young that do suffer as a result aren't managed with such a care - a young immature 14.2 - 15h horse that suddenly goes from being ridden lightly by a 120lb person for a an hour or so a day gets sold on (to make that fast profit) to having to carry a 200lb man plus a heavy western saddle for a whole day likely isn't going to do so well


[Note: Osgood Schlatters disease typically consist of pain at the tibial tuberosity or bony bit at the top of the shin....The disease is a very common cause of knee pain in children and young athletes usually between the ages of 10 and 15. It occurs due to a period of rapid growth, combined with a high level of sporting activity. Osgood-Schlatters Disease - Symptoms, Causes and Treatment ]

First, a two year old horse is physically more mature than a 12 year old human. It is not a period of rapid growth, and in fact the bones HAVE fused in the lower leg.

Second, if you do ANYTHING wrong, you get bad results. As I pointed out, if you ride with contact poorly, you create all sorts of problems. Does that mean we should ban English riding? And an English saddle distributes weight over a smaller area - does that make it cruel? 

Mia is tall for her weight and leggy. If I tried to push her to be competitive at reining or barrel racing, it would be obscene. But I'd bet her back could handle endurance racing if mine could. :-x Western curb bits work well with Mia. If I jerked the reins, rode with contact and never gave her relief, they would be brutal. Used properly, they were the single best decision I made about tack on her.

In like manner, you can ride a 2 year old in a way that trains them or in a way that destroys them. How much that differs from riding an 8 year old horse, I don't know. I am pretty confident that growth plates in the back are not the critical factor! :evil:


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

I think everyone trying to make others change their opinions (which is not going to happen), needs to learn the difference between 'subjective' and 'objective' information interjected into an argument. EVERYTHING presented as FACT by everyone is simply SUBJECTIVE information -- that means it is all just based on opinions and not facts. There is little if any information available that could be considered fact based -- much less anything I have read here.

Next -- all of the 'stories' presented to 'prove' a point are just just that -- STORIES, commonly called 'ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE' (defined as 'not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts or experiences rather than facts or research').

About the only FACT I have seen presented (and it cannot be quantified) is to say that bad training at any age is harmful while good training and preparation at any age is not harmful.

Something mentioned by some but pretty much ignored by most others is that the age of starting a horse is only one small part of what contributes to a horse's later soundness or lack thereof. I would guess it to be less than 10% of the whole picture.

Here is just a partial list of what contributes as much or more than the age that a horse is started, to its later soundness:

1) How well was the horse 'legged up' and gotten into good physical form before starting it into serious training or ridden hard?

2) How much exercise did the horse get prior to putting it into training? Soft 'couch potatoes' are much more prone to injury and take a LOT longer to get legged up and in condition for training and serious riding, even when they are started at 3 or 4 or older.

3) What kind of diet was the horse on before starting it into training? Obese, over-fed horses may grow out more quickly, but are usually much more difficult to keep sound when they are pushed very hard. I am sure a lot of that goes back to points 1 & 2. [Personally, give me the underdeveloped scrawny colt that has run out on 100 acres of rocks and hills over the well fed horse that has been stall raised or raised in a small area.] many 2 year olds that have been 'pushed' have DOD problems that are completely unrelated to work. A lot of high priced yearlings and 2 year olds are now x-rayed before purchase. Some big sales require x-rays because OCD lesions are so common. [Again, horses running out and not over-fed seldom have DOD problems.] Also, something that cannot be blamed on the age of starting a horse.

4) How heavy is the rider? Most trainers put small riders on their young horses -- at east until they are legged up good have some muscle tone. 

5) What are the horse's genetics for soundness? The offspring of horses that did not hold up for training are at much greater risk for becoming unsound than are those from good sound horses that were sound for many years. I cringe when I see horses that are crippled up early in their lives and then sent out to breed because they are 'well bred'. Cutting horse breeders used to be really into breeding their cripples. Many have figured out that that just gave them more cripples.

6) Is the horse structurally correct? Horses with crooked legs and structural problems like small round knees (instead of big flat knees) or tiny tied in hocks, off-set knees, long low pasterns, very small, light bone or hocks that are either too straight or too angled are not good prospects to stay sound when started at any age. This is also true of horses that weigh 1300# and stand on '0' or '00' feet. If horses that have conformation problems get crippled with hard use, the age they were started cannot be blamed.

7) Has the horse had good hoof care or run out where its feet 'self-trimmed' and did not get long -- which stresses joints, tendons and ligaments? Long 'over-grown' toes and under-run heels contribute to many lameness issues.

8) Has the horse had access to a good mineral while growing up? Most horses lack Calcium in their diets (unless they are eating alfalfa or another legume). We think this greatly contributes to soundness issues in young horses.

About anyone can take any set of facts and bend them around to fit their cause when there are a dozen or more variables. Common sense goes a long ways. Not over-riding a horse of any age helps a lot. Understanding the process of 'legging a horse up' is very necessary. Recognizing leg problems or muscle soreness early is also very important.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

You want fact you ask your vet next time you speak to them what age a horses spinal growth plates fuse they will tell you around six as that is fact. Riding for any length of time before this point can and most of the time does damage a horses neck or back in some way, some insignificant other damage causing permanent issues. This is fact not opinion. Also the growth plates of the legs should play as big of part as the growth plates of the spine due to the direction of the growth plates.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

rbarlo32 said:


> You want fact you ask your vet next time you speak to them what age a horses spinal growth plates fuse they will tell you around six as that is fact. Riding for any length of time before this point can and most of the time does damage a horses neck or back in some way, some insignificant other damage causing permanent issues. This is fact not opinion...


The first sentence references a fact. The second is pure opinion, and it is opinion that chooses to ignore the world many of us live in. 

I've seen no study providing any evidence that the spinal growth plates all need to fuse for a horse to be ridden without damage. Nor can I think of a good reason why it should. It certainly is not required for humans to work with heavy weights. That it is done successfully by millions (when done right) makes your premise unacceptable.


----------



## texasgal (Jul 25, 2008)

... and rbarlo32 is free to continue to back her ponies at six-years if she wishes. We don't mind.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

In fact yes I have just backed one at six and she is learning quicker then any I started in the past at 4 or 5 or any younger ones I long reined. She has only been ridden I think 4 times now and she is almost ready to been shown in walk and trot. This is a filly who if you told be last year she would be ridden I would have probably laughed at you. BSMS and I find riding at 2 due to then risks unacceptable


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

I have started client's horses at six. I'll be darned if any of my colts are going to wait that long. OP is welcome to start horses at whatever time she wishes. As am I and every other person. Works for me. I like my colts to still be colts when they're going through the baby horse stage.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

bsms said:


> 20% of a 16 year old's weight is around 35 lbs. That qualifies as a light day pack. In the case of my 16 year old daughter, 20% of her weight is about 24 lbs...which is probably less than her school book bag weighs. A 2 year old racehorse carrying 120 lbs is carrying about 10% of his weight.
> 
> At 18, my SIL in Iraq was a machine gunner. IIRC, he was carrying about 120 lbs on a 200 lb frame, except he lost 50 lbs on both deployments so he finished carrying 120 lbs on a 150 lbs frame. Yes, that damaged his shoulders and back - but that is at 80% of his body weight. I grant that we shouldn't allow 800 lb riders on a horse...
> 
> There is nothing magical about picking an age where all bones have stopped growing. Lots of 15 year olds have bucked hay for a summer, tossing 100 lb bales all day. I doubt many enjoyed it, but they didn't seem to suffer lasting damage.


Actually the long term problems from children carrying heavy back packs is something that specialists have long been raising concerns about
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...pain-for-children/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

I think Cherie's post said it all as far as starting a horse off at 2 is concerned - there are so many 'ifs' involved that as a general thing unless you can put a tick in all her boxes that make the horse a good case for starting early - you know its history and have done all the right prep work and then done all the training from that point on correctly its probably not a risk worth taking. I certainly wouldn't buy a horse that had been started that young unless I knew everything had been done 100% right up to that point.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

How is when a horses skeleton physically mature enough to be ridden anything to do with pride? No amount of 'success' stories can change that fact.
And again oh how I do hate repeating myself I NEVER once said anyone was evil, I dislike the practice of starting a horse at 2 I think it is wrong and I think there is too much of a chance of a horse getting hurt to be worth it never once did I say or even imply that anyone is evil. You want to call people that then go right ahead but don't go putting words into my mouth. To me it is too much of a risk and not worth it if you want to take that that risk well that's up to you I never said otherwise. And I did start this thread as a discussion as I have never understood the reasons for backing a horse at 2 and for the most part all I got was either money or impatience neither of which IMO us a good enough reason to take the risk and nor is just because the big names do it.


----------



## kimberlyrae1993 (Mar 20, 2013)

Everyone has an opinion wait to start your horse till its 6 and let us know how that goes..
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## texasgal (Jul 25, 2008)

rbarlo32 said:


> < respectfully snipped> To me it is too much of a risk and not worth it .... < /respectfully snipped >


Then don't do it. :wink:


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

Like I have said I have just started a 6 year old and she is going amazing she is learning and doing a lot better then any 4 or 5 year old I have started in the past and it is nothing to do with temperament because the others have hadbetter temperaments.


----------



## texasgal (Jul 25, 2008)

```
[CODE]
```
[/CODE]


rbarlo32 said:


> Like I have said I have just started a 6 year old and she is going amazing she is learning and doing a lot better then any 4 or 5 year old I have started in the past and it is nothing to do with temperament because the others have hadbetter temperaments.


Great! We have no problem with that. Your horse. Your plan.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Is there really any need for some of the snarky rather personal comments we're getting?
I'm not sure how they fit into a good discussion.


----------



## kimberlyrae1993 (Mar 20, 2013)

You do what you want start a horse at 6 that makes perfect sense then by the time you finally have her broke she will be out of her prime and run risks of having problems as well its a lose lose do what you want and we will for as we please no one is here to please anyone..
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

All she really has has left is to learn to canter on que which as she is going to be sold as a you g child's pony most likely a lead rein pony it really isn't all the necessary for her to learn that and at 6 she has hardly past her prime when she could easily keep working into her 20 as long as nothing tragic happen.


----------



## southernbound (May 17, 2014)

rbarlo32 said:


> All she really has has left is to learn to canter on que which as she is going to be sold as a you g child's pony most likely a lead rein pony it really isn't all the necessary for her to learn that and at 6 she has hardly past her prime when she could easily keep working into her 20 as long as nothing tragic happen.


Im fully supportive of you breaking your horse in a way thay makes you comfortable, but I personally cringe at the idea of a freshly broke horse being sold as a child's pony regardless of age. I personally wont by a 6 year old properly broken in at 2 for my kids but thats just me. Lots of ways to do things which is kind of the point of all this.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

Oh I'm not selling her at the minute and when I do I'll say that she is still newly back so they know to put a few more miles on her, plus I'm aiming her for lead rein classes so she would be being ridden and led at the same time because of her size she really is just for young children most of whom aren't riding off of the lead rein yet.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

Studies keep getting mentioned but one thing to think about when reading studies is who paid for the study and how it was conducted. Anyone with enough money can have a study conducted.
Then look at studies that have been published in the past concerning human health. Eggs are bad, oh wait, eggs are good for you. Alcohol is bad, well actually 2 beers a day for a male can be beneficial, one a day for a female is healthy. What is considered bad and good changes constantly, I can't keep up with it. 
So I base opinions on experience. 

rbarlo, it sounds like your six year old is a dandy, good for you, nothing like a born broke horse!  
If he was not ready at 2,3,4 or 5 then you did him a service by starting him at 6. But starting him at 6 didn't automatically make him a great horse. The horse is an _individual._
I keep stressing the individuality of the horse but it doesn't seem to be getting through. 
I have a 4 yr old that has less than 60 days on him, I have a 5 year old with less than 45 days and two year olds with more riding than those horses combined. Because I ride and train to what they can handle. My horses are an investment and I do care about them.


----------



## Incitatus32 (Jan 5, 2013)

COWCHICK77 said:


> Studies keep getting mentioned but one thing to think about when reading studies is who paid for the study and how it was conducted. Anyone with enough money can have a study conducted.
> Then look at studies that have been published in the past concerning human health. Eggs are bad, oh wait, eggs are good for you. Alcohol is bad, well actually 2 beers a day for a male can be beneficial, one a day for a female is healthy. What is considered bad and good changes constantly, I can't keep up with it.
> So I base opinions on experience.


I would also like to add that in the scientific community you do not have to publish what does NOT work, only what works for your hypothesis. So if I say that starting a horse at two will lame them up, do my samples and find that some or most of the horses I used for the study who were lamed up had prior genetic conditions I do NOT have to report that, thus skewing the results and validity of the test. Sad but true. :-(


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

COWCHICK77 said:


> Studies keep getting mentioned but one thing to think about when reading studies is who paid for the study and how it was conducted. Anyone with enough money can have a study conducted.
> Then look at studies that have been published in the past concerning human health. Eggs are bad, oh wait, eggs are good for you. Alcohol is bad, well actually 2 beers a day for a male can be beneficial, one a day for a female is healthy. What is considered bad and good changes constantly, I can't keep up with it.
> So I base opinions on experience.
> 
> ...


:clap: This. Oh, so very much, this.

I, like Cowchick, view my horses as lifelong investments. Some I keep, others I sell on, but no matter what, I want them to have successful and long careers so everything I do with them is geared toward that goal. All the horses I grew up on were started at 2 (some started heavily for the show pen), all those same horses were still going strong up into their mid to late 20s.

When I see signs from the individual horse that they aren't ready yet, I back off and give them time. However, if they _are _ready, there are a lot of things that a young mind can learn more quickly than an older mind who has developed their own opinion :wink:.


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

rbarlo32 said:


> *All she really has has left is to learn to canter on que *which as she is going to be sold as a you g child's pony most likely a lead rein pony it really isn't all the necessary for her to learn that and at 6 she has hardly past her prime when she could easily keep working into her 20 as long as nothing tragic happen.



Okay, I am cringing.

A broke horse isn't a broke horse at the walk/trot/canter/maybe a little leg.

You don't stop teaching them after they learn to canter...And if you haven't even cantered her yet, I can't believe you have put all the other buttons on necessary for her to be a broke horse.


----------



## Atomicodyssey (Apr 13, 2014)

Did not read all the replies, but there are two main reasons horses are started young. Impatience on the owners part, and anticipation for competition whether it's futurities or races. Yes, there are horses started early that will stay sound. Yes, there are horses started late that will become unsound. That being said, if you truly care about the well being of your horse you will take all measures and precaution to ensure they have the best quality of life. Much of it is genetics and conformation. Some horses are naturally strong and well conformed they can take an early beating, whether you should be doing it or not. Others will have issues all their life. If you have the abilities to take on a young horse you should also have the fortitude to do what is best by them, realizing they are a payment you may not be able to enjoy for awhile. No matter the genetics I believe in allowing a horse to mature both physically and mentally before regular riding. Allowing familiarization to tack, ground work, and conditioning is different.


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

I can't speak for big name trainers. We don't have any around here (at least not that I know of).

I can speak for everyday horse people. I think a lot of it comes down to not knowing better. I know if you have a horse that is over three-years-old and not started around here, people ask you what's wrong with the horse. There is an arab mare for sale at my barn that is six-years-old and hasn't been started. The owner has her posted on Craigslist. She finally took her down because she had too many people emailing her, asking her what was wrong with the horse that it wasn't started yet at six. Ignorance isn't an excuse, but it is a reason. 

I also think a lot of people look at the racing industry and think "Well, if they start their horses at 2, so can I." They don't think about, or don't care about, the lasting effects on a horse's body and mind. Just like some people don't give OTTBs enough time to decompress after being on the track before putting them straight into training and expecting them to perform like a similarly aged horse with more training.

Yes, I started my gelding at 2. As a 5yo, he has maybe a dozen total rides on him. He has cantered under saddle once, and that was on his fourth ride (my trainer friend just wanted to get a feel for his canter and only cantered him for the length of one long side of the arena). Most of his rides have been walk, with a little trot. He was 15hh and 1200lbs as a 2yo, and was mentally more mature than any of the other two-year-olds on the property. My BO started another 2yo at the same time he started mine. The other 2yo was a tiny (13hh) QH gelding who was physically and mentally immature. His owner (a 180lbs man) rode him hard on the trails from the get-go in big spurs and a twisted wire snaffle. I would be willing to get that that little gelding will be broken down LONG before my gelding is even ready to quit.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

kimberlyrae1993 said:


> If it was so so bad for the horse we would have stopped starring them at 2 years ago.. just saying.. almost all horses are started at 2.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Just to step in and support rb and what she is saying...she is talking from everything that she has been brought up with..this statement is interesting to me in the discussion, because if we are are talking about the history, you have to agree that there is a longer tradition of horse riding in the UK than there is on the West side of the Atlantic. Over those 1000's of years we came up with our own long held and long understood beliefs, which include the fact that horses should not be started, as in backed until 3, and not ridden until they are 4, of course all ground work is in place before that.

It is also a long held belief in the UK that 15% MAYBE 20% at a push is the very maximum that a horse can carry. Strange how I still believe that backing and riding at two is wrong, but I have an easier time re arranging the truths I used to know to allow myself to ride, albeit with a burden of guilt.

Oh, and my UK side is fine with horses working on the roads, standing on cement floors, being towed in little trailers behind cars. Our beliefs in what is right are largely set by our early experiences and teaching, the older we get the more difficult it is to re program that thinking.

I believe that I have read studies talking about the ages that grwoth plates close up, and it is way later than two, but no I can't link you to them, bed time for this old girl.

Just remember, just because you were brought up believing something, just because "we have always done it" it does not make it right or true. Also every horse matures at different ages, many breeds mature at different rates.

My conclusion, one horse MAY be ready at two, his pasture mate may not be physically or mentally ready until he is four. Blanket statements never apply to all.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

someone posted , way back, comparing the weight bareing percentages of young humans to young horses. that is not an apples to apples comparison. humans can carry a LOT more than horses, proportionate to their weight, becuase of their vertical alignment from standing upright on two legs. horses are really better "designed" to pull a load, than carry a load. While we humans are better 'designed' to carry a load, than pull it.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

She may not have cantered with a rider but she is great and transitions already so canter would not be a problem should I decided to do that with here and as I said I'm aiming her to be a lead rein/first ridden pony so cantering isn't a necessity, plus I never said she was completely backed yet nor did I say she doesn't still have a lot she could learn, but for what I am aiming her doe she doesn't really need to learn much more. I also broke my stallion to ride and drive when I got him I got him at ten he went, looked and did really well and far from past his prime at that point.


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

I think this might be a cultural thing, in the UK in the domestic horse community almost "no-one" (although, of course some people might) starts a horse at two. It just is very frowned upon. I would never do it and will happily wait until 4 years old if the horse is a slow developer or even longer, there is no hurry and no need to back something that most people over here regard as a baby horse that has a lot of growing to do. If this thread was on a UK forum the answers would be completely reversed in terms of support - so I'd just put it down to different ways of doing things, as long as horses are loved and cared for it really probably makes very little difference in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## blue eyed pony (Jun 20, 2011)

Canter is unnecessary for a leadline/first ridden pony?

So... considering canter is where most breakers will buck the most and the hardest [even my girl put in a few crow hops and she was totally easy], you would put your BEGINNER child on a pony that had never been cantered under saddle?

Tell me, what happens if said pony were to spook forward for a few strides? What about when your child wants to learn to canter? Maybe nothing. But maybe the pony panics and starts bucking like a rodeo bronc and your child ends up with a broken neck.

I will grant that CAN happen with a broke horse too, but it's far less likely.

Tell me again that a first ridden/leadline pony doesn't need to know how it feels to canter with a rider.


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

Horses / ponies I have backed have never had any issues with canter? Canter is unusal in a lead rein class, but I too would not put a novice child on a pony until it had been well used to all paces.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

When did I say she wasn't going to learn canter? In fact I said the opposite that she has still got that to learn.


----------



## blue eyed pony (Jun 20, 2011)

Clava said:


> Horses / ponies I have backed have never had any issues with canter? Canter is unusal in a lead rein class, but I too would not put a novice child on a pony until it had been well used to all paces.


Neither did mine. She crowhopped a few times because she was off balance but never had an issue. However... I am an experienced enough rider to be able to stay on through that. Could you honestly say a complete beginner who had never cantered before would be able to stay on if that happened? Could most breakers handle a rider flopping around/hanging off their side? I don't use a dummy first, I just work my own way up to getting on when the horse is ready for me. So my breakers first have a balanced weight up there that doesn't flop about. Then I get them used to flopping about and hanging off the sides once they're comfortable with a balanced weight. Never had one seriously buck with that approach. Ever. Not even the first few times with the saddle on.



rbarlo32 said:


> When did I say she wasn't going to learn canter? In fact I said the opposite that she has still got that to learn.


You said it wasn't necessary for her to know. That implies you not intending to bother.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

I said I was aiming her for lead rein and first ridden classes which don't require canter however before that I said she is pretty much finished bar learning to canter therefore saying she will learn to canter.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

blue eyed pony said:


> Canter is unnecessary for a leadline/first ridden pony?


Absolutely! big market for walk trot lead line ponies, if you can get one that will never break, Yeah for that. 

Brits to the front, how many stables/private homes do you know who have a small grey/white pony who is lead rein only, walks all day, will trot when asked, but it would take a small bomb to get it to break stride. You will happily lead it through a three ring circus knowing that the biggest problem you will have is that he will try and mug the pocorn vendor for his wares. :lol:


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

Golden Horse said:


> Absolutely! big market for walk trot lead line ponies, if you can get one that will never break, Yeah for that.
> 
> Brits to the front, how many stables/private homes do you know who have a small grey/white pony who is lead rein only, walks all day, will trot when asked, but it would take a small bomb to get it to break stride. You will happily lead it through a three ring circus knowing that the biggest problem you will have is that he will try and mug the pocorn vendor for his wares. :lol:


You mean one of these :lol:


but he will canter on the lead (just as well as far as my small boys were concerned!) but off the lead he can be a little devil and a bit challenging but he will teach you everything you need to know about staying on!


----------



## MyQHBooger428 (Jan 14, 2012)

Clava said:


> You mean one of these :lol:
> 
> 
> but he will canter on the lead (just as well as far as my small boys were concerned!) but off the lead he can be a little devil and a bit challenging but he will teach you everything you need to know about staying on!


I don't have anything to say regarding the topic of this discussion but I HAD to say....
THAT PONY IS ADORABLE!!!! 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> someone posted , way back, comparing the weight bareing percentages of young humans to young horses. that is not an apples to apples comparison. humans can carry a LOT more than horses, proportionate to their weight, becuase of their vertical alignment from standing upright on two legs...


I'm the one who posted it. While I agree that humans are somewhat better at carrying loads, we also regularly do so (in the military, at least) at 50% of our body weight, and I've never heard of anyone suggest a 1200 lb horse could carry a couple 300 lb men. My SIL damaged his shoulders by carrying up to 80% of his body weight daily for most of the day. None here are arguing horses should carry 80% of their body weight.

The point was that we DO expect males around 15-18 years old to do very hard, demanding work. We don't wait for a human male to reach full physical maturity at 25. We don't wait for all the growth plates to fuse. And most males do heavy work, sports, weight lifting etc in their teens - while not fully mature - with no damage.

I think this concern for growth plates comes largely from Deb Bennett and her belief that horses need to have the SPINE fuse completely before riding. She asserts that, but doesn't offer any EVIDENCE that it is needed. Everyone agrees a two year old cannot work as hard as a 6 year old horse, but most are not asked to do so. Racing stresses the legs of a horse, but those plates fuse around 1-2 years, and largely finish by 3 years. What sign is there that race horses damage their BACKS by racing at 2 & 3? Where is the epidemic of race horses with swaybacks, or crippled by BACK injuries?

Why aren't quarter horses, which are often ridden at 2, famous for bad BACKS? One cannot blame injuries to the lower leg to riding prior to the SPINE fusing.

She writes (http://www.heartnsoularabians.com/uploads/Dr_Deb_Bennett.pdf ):"_Bottom line: you can sprain a horse's back (i.e., displace the vertebral growth plates) a lot more easily than you can sprain those located in the limbs. And here's another little fact: within the chain of vertebrae, the last to fully "close" are those at the base of the animal's neck (that's why the long-necked individual may go past 6 yrs. to achieve full maturity). So you also have to be careful - very careful - not to yank the neck around on your young horse, or get him in any situation where he strains his neck (i.e., better learn how to get a horse broke to tie before you ever tie him up, so that there will be no likelihood of him ever pulling back hard..._"​So if we are supposed to wait for the growth plates in the back and neck to fully mature, why is it that we see injuries to the legs and not the back and neck? Could it be that we really don't put that much stress on a horse's spine and neck, and put MORE stress on the horse's legs?

If someone tells me sport X damages the KNEES, then I expect to see KNEE injuries, not ELBOW injuries.

I think it is reasonable for those who attack a common practice to offer some evidence supporting their attack. Yet no studies have been offered, and the underlying argument is based on the horse's SPINE & NECK, which are not a set of bones known to have a high injury rate. Back MUSCLES, but not spinal injuries.



Clava said:


> I think this might be a cultural thing, in the UK in the domestic horse community almost "no-one" (although, of course some people might) starts a horse at two. It just is very frowned upon....so I'd just put it down to different ways of doing things, as long as horses are loved and cared for it really probably makes very little difference in the grand scheme of things.


I agree. A lot of western riders frown pretty hard when seeing how the reins are used with dressage horses or jumpers, yet the truth is that many of those horses seem to love what they do. To my eyes, this Internet picture looks harsh:








​
Where I live, most folks don't ride like that - and they consider not riding like that a GOOD thing! But before I attack it as cruel or stupid, I need to look at how many horses do it contentedly and without harm. I might need some EVIDENCE before I tell others their approach is wrong. Without evidence, I need to "_just put it down to different ways of doing things, as long as horses are loved and cared for it really probably makes very little difference in the grand scheme of things_"!


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Clava said:


> You mean one of these :lol:
> 
> 
> but he will canter on the lead (just as well as far as my small boys were concerned!) but off the lead he can be a little devil and a bit challenging but he will teach you everything you need to know about staying on!


That's the one! LOL yes I forgot to add the off the lead behaviour, best darn teacher a kiddie can ever have.:rofl:


----------



## southernbound (May 17, 2014)

Bsms pretty much hit the nail on the head. Id also like to point out (to someone else's point) that riding horses are generally used very differently than here. If you plan to jump, or do dressage, or many other english sports, who cares if your horse is 6 and unbroken? Thats great if you raise ponies too small to carry adults. But if your horses are yoir bread and butter, if you rely on them to do a job that can take 3 or 4 years to learn reliably (cows, reining, ranch work etc) and you start them at 6, you've lost half their prime before they're even good at their job. Most people cant do that. Its not about money ots about survival. Also someone mentioned 2 year olds retaining knowledge better. In my experience, I think thats true. We nirmally have ours broke late second year and then turned out until they're three and after 6 months they pick it up like you never stopped. Thats extremely useful and I have 20 year olds that jave never taken a lame step. I know thats anecdotal evidence but its better than no evidence at all which is what thw other side is offering


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Horses are bread and butter to people that breed them worldwide - the difference in the UK is that you can't compete on them until they're four and you can't use them in a riding school until they're four because veterinary science there has for many years supported the idea that they need to be given a chance to mature before being pushed too hard
I'm pretty sure that Australia and New Zealand don't allow horses under 3 to compete in English classes - not sure about western riding there
I can see that where owners/breeders have done everything possible to ensure the horse has no genetic weaknesses and is physically mature & fit enough to be ridden (a heavy layer of fat does not equal strength/maturity) and they are then ridden responsibly it likely doesn't pose a problem
It doesn't always work that way though does it?


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

southernbound said:


> Bsms pretty much hit the nail on the head. Id also like to point out (to someone else's point) that riding horses are generally used very differently than here. If you plan to jump, or do dressage, or many other english sports, who cares if your horse is 6 and unbroken? Thats great if you raise ponies too small to carry adults. But if your horses are yoir bread and butter, if you rely on them to do a job that can take 3 or 4 years to learn reliably (cows, reining, ranch work etc) and you start them at 6, you've lost half their prime before they're even good at their job. Most people cant do that. Its not about money ots about survival. Also someone mentioned 2 year olds retaining knowledge better. In my experience, I think thats true. We nirmally have ours broke late second year and then turned out until they're three and after 6 months they pick it up like you never stopped.


It doesn't matter what size they are if they are your bread and butter! Oh and in the UK, I would say that there are only two pony breeds that don't carry adults, (I'm not the expert so I will stand corrected if needed) Section A and B I see as kiddy ponies, but all the other British Breeds will carry a small/normal size adult, and a lot of them can carry a larger rider, if you don't mind hitching your stirrups well short!!

The 'bred for work' think is interesting, and to me is the big difference out here. Horses became largely animals for sport and leisure a long time ago in the UK, we don't have the vast distances to cover, and we have had a well established rail and road network for a long time, mechanised farming was also introduced earlier. Over here there are many working horses still, used in ranch work, so the culture is different, the horses are different.

As someone said earlier on we aren't going to change peoples minds in this thread, but it is good to hear different ideas.



southernbound said:


> Thats extremely useful and I have 20 year olds that jave never taken a lame step. I know thats anecdotal evidence but its better than no evidence at all which is what thw other side is offering


That is plain silly, I can give you all the anectdotal evidence you like about 30 year old ponies in the UK on their 3rd or 4th generation of kids, but it doesn't really help.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Interesting read An Article on Starting Young Horses

Again funny how I can agree with Dr Deb on this one, but totally argue that she is wring that no horse can carry more than 250 pounds...yes I know makes me a hypocrite!

I guess that there will be very little empirical data on this, who has the time and money to conduct research that could run for 40 years to test the best age to start a horse for his long term soundness? There are so many variables in his life that I can't imagine the complexity and size of study to make any sensible comparisons and conclusions. 

It is sometimes reassuring that there are still some areas in life that will be eternally debated, because there isn't one complete answer apart from 

"Well it depends......."


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

Golden Horse my ponies were getting taught to do some traditional work until some one broke my klibbers which are flaming expensive as they are all hand made, before my stallions lateral patella luxation his job was to carry hay to all the different fields and he took fence posted up and down the field and taking the tools. A proper muscled and fit shetland pony can technically carry half their weight not that I ever plan to test that and they can pull twice there weight which means when 2 work together they can pull as much as a shire horse this again I wont test but the are the strongest breed in comparison to size and they are the fasted breed in comparision to size and Cambridge university did a study into how thoroughbreds came about they have genetically proven as best they could that the original thoroughbred is an arab shetland cross getting their stamina from the arab and their speed from the shetland. There are also one of the cleverest breeds in the world, one of the toughest and imo can be very hard to train as I think they are the terriers of the pony world. I used to ride them myself back when I only weighed 11 stoneish but now I'd feel bad riding them so my sister backs them.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

rbarlo32 said:


> A proper muscled and fit shetland pony can technically carry half their weight not that I ever plan to test that


Oh I am familiar with fit Shetlands, I lived for a few years on the Orkney Islands, and the farm I worked on bred racing Shetlands, which we would use to round up the cows to keep them fit...those little beasts were NOT kiddies ponies in any sense of the word, but were such fun. At the time I was around that 11 stone (154 pounds) mark as well, and never felt under horsed


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

southernbound said:


> Bsms pretty much hit the nail on the head. Id also like to point out (to someone else's point) that riding horses are generally used very differently than here. If you plan to jump, or do dressage, or many other english sports, who cares if your horse is 6 and unbroken? Thats great if you raise ponies too small to carry adults. But if your horses are yoir bread and butter, if you rely on them to do a job that can take 3 or 4 years to learn reliably (cows, reining, ranch work etc) and you start them at 6, you've lost half their prime before they're even good at their job. Most people cant do that. Its not about money ots about survival. Also someone mentioned 2 year olds retaining knowledge better. In my experience, I think thats true. We nirmally have ours broke late second year and then turned out until they're three and after 6 months they pick it up like you never stopped. Thats extremely useful and I have 20 year olds that jave never taken a lame step. I know thats anecdotal evidence but its better than no evidence at all which is what thw other side is offering


 Surely it depends what your bread and butter is? if it is producing quality riding horses then backing them at 2 still isn't going to happen here. people want horses brought on slowly and "correctly" as it is often understood over here. many of our native breeds are also late developers such as the heavy horses and welsh, trying to ride a bum high gangly baby would really be a waste of time.


----------



## southernbound (May 17, 2014)

Oh of course not all horses there are ponies, I didn't mean that at all. I meant more along the lines of how common are ranch horses compared to sport horses really? Also im fully aware that horses there are sound into they're later years, obviously im not saying breaking a horse at 2 will help them stay sound, just that when properly done, I don't believe its harmful but again that's a huge cultural difference and no one will Change any minds


----------



## BlueSpark (Feb 22, 2012)

> What sign is there that race horses damage their BACKS by racing at 2 & 3?


 Well, there are three big strong thoroughbreds I know of that have only been raced or ridden by a very experienced, balanced rider, and all have sore backs. Both started at 2 and raced. two have arthritis, the other developed major compensation issues trying to protect her back. These are big, well bred, extremely well built horses that have never had much weight on them. The only conclusion I can draw is that starting them very young like that DOES do a number on their backs. Not all of them, but some, and with the way horses tend to hide pain until its severe, I really wouldn't be surprised if many more horses have back pain issues that manifest as head carriage issues, unexplained front end lameness or behavioral problems, like rushing, bucking or even a general bad attitude.

the fact is, no body is going to do a truly unbiased study of the affects of starting horses at various ages. It would have too many variables, take too many years and far too much money. All we can do is make educated decisions based on logic, the little evidence actually proven with fact and the anecdotal evidence we all collect. From my life experience thus far, it makes more sense to start at 3-4. Others will draw different conclusions. As long as people are thinking of the long term welfare of the animal, I don't really care what they do.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

Ah Golden Horse that bit wasn't aimed at you, just the peat flitting and that the likes, I might see if I can patch my kilbers and get my gelding working as their is plenty of peat dried that needs to come home.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

And I agree most grand national shetlands really aren't kids ponies and most have lines that have been known to have lets say less the stellar temperaments.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Golden Horse said:


> Interesting read An Article on Starting Young Horses
> 
> Again funny how I can agree with Dr Deb on this one, but totally argue that she is wring that no horse can carry more than 250 pounds...yes I know makes me a hypocrite!...


Or perhaps it means you have the discernment to appreciate folks can be right about one thing and wrong on another.

For my part, I think she is wrong on both. Why? Because so many horses are started at 2 and then ridden into their late 20s or 30s without problems. If someone like smrobs says her Dad has done so his entire life, then I have two options: call her a liar, or accept that it CAN be done. Lots of cowgirls can throw a pretty good punch, so I don't think I'll call her a liar!

On the flip side is what evidence? Does Deb Bennett ever offer any evidence that riding a horse before the neck vertebra fuse results in a sounder horse? No. She asserts it, but she doesn't go beyond bald assertion.

I cannot think of a mechanical explanation for how lack of fusing of growth plates in the spine or neck translates into horses going lame later in life. In my very limited experience, I've seen horses get sore back muscles just from a heavy person getting on them. Lilly came to us that way after a 300+ lb guy got on her to prove she could be ridden - an unbroke, slender 775 lb mare. She was sore for a month - sore muscles!

If someone can point out how western trained quarter horses suffer from uncommon rates of swayback or some other back damage, I'll listen. Until then, I think Dr Deb is blowing smoke up peoples butts.

And of course, anyone who disagrees is free to train their own horse their own way. Me? Mia was nearly 8 before she was ridden regularly and she may outlast me. I don't have a dog in the fight. :wink:


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Golden Horse said:


> Interesting read An Article on Starting Young Horses


full version http://www.equinestudies.org/ranger_2008/ranger_piece_2008_pdf1.pdf

But, my faith in an oft quoted article is now shaken..I see she quotes that 



> You see, the Thoroughbred was invented in the late 17th century by James II of England, who instigated the world's first performance testing for horses. The king's object was to induce his subjects to produce a horse that could carry speed over a distance of ground. To achieve this objective, he set forth the following rules and invited all the noblemen and horse breeders to bring any horse they thought could win under the following conditions:
> 
> The horses shall run four miles (over undulating terrain, on turf), and the winner shall be recorded.
> They shall then rub for half an hour.
> ...


80 stone would be 1120 pounds:shock:

8 stone = 112 pounds.

If there are mistakes in one place, then there could be elsewhere.:wink:


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

Maybe a typo or they are meaning the horse was to carry 80 stones which all together weigh 160 pounds?


----------



## ponyboy (Jul 24, 2008)

The answer to the OP's questions is money. The sooner a horse is started, the sooner it can start making money for the owner. There's no other reason.


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

LOL, I think we may just have to leave this at an "agree to disagree" stage. All of us know horses who are lamed early and horses who are still going strong into their senior years, regardless of what age they were started. So, each person will just have to be left on their own to decide when is right for them and their horse.



Golden Horse said:


> My conclusion, one horse MAY be ready at two, his pasture mate may not be physically or mentally ready until he is four. Blanket statements never apply to all.


I did want to touch on this though. Any decent trainer will judge whether the horse is ready or not. I had one person try to bring me a 3 year old who was obviously not ready for any sort of riding. He was gangly and uncoordinated and in the middle of a nasty growth spurt that left his butt about 3-4 inches taller than his withers. I politely told them that I wouldn't take him then but I would happily take him when he had physically matured more.

The horses in these pictures were both 2 years old when the pictures were taken. Due to differences in breeding and nutrition when they were very young, there is a _huge_ difference between their physical maturity.

This filly belonged to a customer. She was 15 hands and pushing 1100 pounds at the time. From the very first, she was very balanced and capable under a rider.









On the other hand, this filly is barely 14hh and weighs maybe 600 pounds. I would never imagine riding something this physically immature. The only reason she has a saddle on is because I wanted her to learn at a young age that it's not going to eat her (plus I wanted some pictures :wink. It was on there for about 15 minutes and I had her walk about 5 circles around me each way....then stand around for pictures LOL. She's looking at at least another year before she sees any type of ridden work, but only then if her body has matured enough to handle it. Mentally, she is ready now, as a 2 year old, but that's not good enough.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Smrobs you have shown exactly where the problem lies - there are people like you that have the knowledge to tell when a horse can or can't deal with being broke early and stick to your principles rather than push on to make a fast profit
No one is talking about banning anything or other such overly dramatic statements just maybe saying that breaking at 2 comes with a set of rules that decide if the horse is or isn't ready because there are a lot of people out there that really don't seem to care - and I'm saying that based on the disturbingly high numbers of very young broke horses I've seen in auctions around here (and at one time in the UK) that look nothing short of pathetic, underfed and in poor shape.


----------



## texasgal (Jul 25, 2008)

ponyboy said:


> The answer to the OP's questions is money. The sooner a horse is started, the sooner it can start making money for the owner. There's no other reason.


My horses make money for me? Wow... now if I can only find it... :lol:


----------



## GotaDunQH (Feb 13, 2011)

rbarlo32 said:


> There is a couple up here worked too hard too young that have gone lame and had to retire, like I said it isn't common place to work them too young but it happens. Could you just imagine how much longer these amazing horses you both are talking about could compete at the top level if they had just 2 more years to mature. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but I have yet to hear a good enough reason for not waiting a couple of years before starting them. Just because it is the done thing doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. And BTW just because they look sound and healthy from the outside doesn't mean their skeleton says the same thing.


I own an AQHA WP horse, started at 2, and retired at 17...sound, healthy, happy, never a lame step in his life. He's 19 and no signs of stopping. Starting a 2 yo is NOT a death sentence as long as commonsense is used.

It's not even about 2 YO futurities because those have been pretty much non- existent for a while except at the Congress and NSBA world show.


----------



## GotaDunQH (Feb 13, 2011)

ponyboy said:


> The answer to the OP's questions is money. The sooner a horse is started, the sooner it can start making money for the owner. There's no other reason.


Maybe for racehorses but not for show horses,


----------



## GotaDunQH (Feb 13, 2011)

texasgal said:


> Then don't do it. :wink:





Atomicodyssey said:


> Did not read all the replies, but there are two main reasons horses are started young. Impatience on the owners part, and anticipation for competition whether it's futurities or races. Yes, there are horses started early that will stay sound. Yes, there are horses started late that will become unsound. That being said, if you truly care about the well being of your horse you will take all measures and precaution to ensure they have the best quality of life. Much of it is genetics and conformation. Some horses are naturally strong and well conformed they can take an early beating, whether you should be doing it or not. Others will have issues all their life. If you have the abilities to take on a young horse you should also have the fortitude to do what is best by them, realizing they are a payment you may not be able to enjoy for awhile. No matter the genetics I believe in allowing a horse to mature both physically and mentally before regular riding. Allowing familiarization to tack, ground work, and conditioning is different.


Another mentioned of futurities. Where are all these futurities you guys have seen or been too? I show AQHA in the Northeast and Mid Atlantic and I have seen a furturity class at the shows in about 8 years. maturties....yes, futurities...nope.


----------



## .Delete. (Jan 7, 2008)

GotaDunQH said:


> Another mentioned of futurities. Where are all these futurities you guys have seen or been too? I show AQHA in the Northeast and Mid Atlantic and I have seen a furturity class at the shows in about 8 years. maturties....yes, futurities...nope.


I showed and trained primarily in the Ohio region, and the mideast. Futurities are huge. I mean the Larry Little Futurity in NC is a 2 week show. Maturities are around also, I've shown in a few. But futurities are where the $$ is at. Especially in the western discipline. I hear there is big big money in cutting and reining futurities.


----------



## GotaDunQH (Feb 13, 2011)

.Delete. said:


> I showed and trained primarily in the Ohio region, and the mideast. Futurities are huge. I mean the Larry Little Futurity in NC is a 2 week show. Maturities are around also, I've shown in a few. But futurities are where the $$ is at. Especially in the western discipline. I hear there is big big money in cutting and reining futurities.


Yep...futurities are still hugely popular with reiners and cutters, but not with the WP and HUS crowd, except at Congress as I mentioned before. NSBA has the Southern Belle for the youngsters.


----------



## GotaDunQH (Feb 13, 2011)

To add to that, the Little Futurities at the Tarheel are money classes added into the regular show schedule for 4 days, and include youth, non-pro, trail, WP and HUS classes....so they are different from a real futurity...for junior horsed, horse is nominated and shown for a number of days under different judges and an average is scored at the end for the placers with a percentage paid back to the top placers. Havent seen those in a long time.


----------



## .Delete. (Jan 7, 2008)

Even the Masters HUS isn't as big as the WP. Shame really, it's more impressive to me to see someone bounce around on a quirky minded maiden 2 year old in a tiny saddle lol!


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

Yes, futurities are big with the reining, cutting and reined cowhorse crowd. Also noticing more barrel horse futurities as well.

There has been a few people mentioning profit.
Let's do the math!
If I intended on taking a colt to the NRCHA Snaffle Bit Futurity in 2015, here are some things to consider...
Cost of prospect, anywhere from a couple grand to tens of thousands.
Cost of training, sought after cowhorse trainers average $1000 month.
Cost of vet, shoeing, tack, supplies, additional supplements other than what the trainer includes, etc.
Cost of entries, almost $1000 for the open. And that doesn't include cattle, office, video, RV hookups or stall fees(I think stalls are $200)
Trainer fees for hauling, show and day fees.
Fuel, food and motel rooms.
This is just the basics.

What you win.
If your trainer on your horse wins the open- $100,000 and he gets a percentage. Sure that is a chunk of money but it really isn't a money making deal after all the money you put into it and the odds of winning are slim. When you do the math there isn't a whole lot left, not exactly a money making deal.

If I was to, buy a colt do it all myself with a help of a trainer by taking the occasional lesson, pay for feed, vet, shoeing, supplies, entries, stalls, fees, fuel, food, motel or RV hook up to enter the Amateur Snaffle Bit, first place paid about $4,200 in 2013. 

With that said I really don't buy into the profit theory.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I don't buy into profit as a motive, but I might buy bragging rights and the hunger for victory. 

My Dad was a fierce competitor. My Mom finally refused to go bowling with him because he couldn't even BOWL for fun - it was always a competition.

I'm vastly more mellow than my Dad, but if my Dad took up reining, for example, he was the sort who would have ridden a horse into the ground to win a $10 prize. He was an excellent man in many ways, but there is a reason I hated competitive sports from an early age. Some folks are like that, male and female, and those are the ones who could ruin a 10 year old horse, too...


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

COWCHICK77 said:


> Yes, futurities are big with the reining, cutting and reined cowhorse crowd. Also noticing more barrel horse futurities as well.
> 
> There has been a few people mentioning profit.
> Let's do the math!
> ...


The profits are not made from showing the horse. The horses value increases but the big money is from breeding those winners. A proven show horse can command a good stud fee and the value of the foals increases. Starting a colt and showing him early then retiring him or her to the breeding shed is the goal. 
Also those collts from a promising sire or dam need to be shown as early as possible. The sooner you can prove your stallion passes on his abilities the sooner the mares start lining up for breeding. Since the first colts wont be shown for 3 years after the stallion or mare is bred and you need several foal crops to prove your stallion. Shalom


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

GotaDunQH said:


> I own an AQHA WP horse, started at 2, and retired at 17...sound, healthy, happy, never a lame step in his life. He's 19 and no signs of stopping. Starting a 2 yo is NOT a death sentence as long as commonsense is used.
> 
> It's not even about 2 YO futurities because those have been pretty much non- existent for a while except at the Congress and NSBA world show.


Why retired at 17? that is no age at all?


----------



## southernbound (May 17, 2014)

Clava said:


> Why retired at 17? that is no age at all?


(I'm just making an assumption on this particular case here) Many show horses retire in their late teens, not because they're unhealthy but because there are younger horses to show. From the sounds of it he's still an active riding horse, just not a Western Pleasure horse.


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

southernbound said:


> (I'm just making an assumption on this particular case here) Many show horses retire in their late teens, not because they're unhealthy but because there are younger horses to show. From the sounds of it he's still an active riding horse, just not a Western Pleasure horse.


 
Do you not have veteran classes?


----------



## southernbound (May 17, 2014)

I've personally never seen one at an AQHA show (bearing in mind this doesn't mean much, I do APHA far more often, though I've never seen one at an APHA either come to think of it....) Any QH people out there chime in? Sanctioned shows don't make it all the way out here as often as some places up north, so classes may be more limited here.


----------



## GotaDunQH (Feb 13, 2011)

.Delete. said:


> Even the Masters HUS isn't as big as the WP. Shame really, it's more impressive to me to see someone bounce around on a quirky minded maiden 2 year old in a tiny saddle lol!


LOL, I agree!


----------



## GotaDunQH (Feb 13, 2011)

Clava said:


> Why retired at 17? that is no age at all?


Because he paid his dues showing for 15 years, we met our goals by qualifying for the World, and I brought him home from my trainers so I could enjoy him everyday. He can still jog and lope with the best of them, but he earned his right to kick back and chill.

I have an 8 YO WP mare I'm leasing now with the option to buy.


----------



## GotaDunQH (Feb 13, 2011)

southernbound said:


> I've personally never seen one at an AQHA show (bearing in mind this doesn't mean much, I do APHA far more often, though I've never seen one at an APHA either come to think of it....) Any QH people out there chime in? Sanctioned shows don't make it all the way out here as often as some places up north, so classes may be more limited here.


Some of the bigger AQHA shows, like Tom Power and Reichert will have money pay back classes for junior, senior horses and non-pro riders. AQHA shows in the Northeast will offer pay back classes as well, but not just in WP and HUS, but in Trail, Showmanship, Reining etc. it's not so much the age of the horse anymore but the discipline and rider status (Amateur, Youth, and Open).


----------



## SlideStop (Dec 28, 2011)

COWCHICK77 said:


> Yes, futurities are big with the reining, cutting and reined cowhorse crowd. Also noticing more barrel horse futurities as well.
> 
> There has been a few people mentioning profit.
> Let's do the math!
> ...


It might not makes sense for the average Joe to go out and try to to buy a yearling to turn into a futurities, but for a trainer who's trying to make it big.. Yeah!! 

Don't forget to tack on all the fame and popularity out of this! He or she can get many of those expenses (transport, entry fees, possibly tack, etc) covered by sponsors. Then there will be the increased in clients between buying and training. Also, endorsement deals and an increase in the sale of any product the trainer might be selling (ie Stacy westfall and her halter). They maybe be able to increase they amount of money they ask for training or doing clinics.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## .Delete. (Jan 7, 2008)

GotaDunQH said:


> Because he paid his dues showing for 15 years, we met our goals by qualifying for the World, and I brought him home from my trainers so I could enjoy him everyday. He can still jog and lope with the best of them, but he earned his right to kick back and chill.
> 
> I have an 8 YO WP mare I'm leasing now with the option to buy.


SOME of the mid eastern AQHA shows offer payback. It's popular in the Ohio region. Only, there is very little payback. It's nothing to brag about at all. I think the main reason Ohio is big into it is because we have the Congress here. So we have this whole stigma that we are some "elite" AQHA region.


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

.Delete. said:


> SOME of the mid eastern AQHA shows offer payback. It's popular in the Ohio region. Only, there is very little payback. It's nothing to brag about at all. I think the main reason Ohio is big into it is because we have the Congress here. So we have this whole stigma that we are some "elite" AQHA region.


 Sorry to ask a slightly off topic question - but I have no idea what "payback" is ?


----------



## .Delete. (Jan 7, 2008)

Clava said:


> Sorry to ask a slightly off topic question - but I have no idea what "payback" is ?


It's where you win some of your entry fee money back. Basically a portion of the entry fees go into the "prize" money. Since you aren't winning anything that will cover your cost of showing there, they call it payback. :wink:


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

.Delete. said:


> It's where you win some of your entry fee money back. Basically a portion of the entry fees go into the "prize" money. Since you aren't winning anything that will cover your cost of showing there, they call it payback. :wink:


 
Thank you  So it is just the small prize money we get over here :lol:


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

Clava we don't even get price money up here and when we did it was £1 when it coasts hundreds to get everything needed for the show and I was just shoeing in hand, the royal highland show o think you get £160 price money but it would have cost us wells over £2000 to get our stallion their we were about to book the ferry and enter then the car ate all the money we saved up he had a huge chance of winning championand all. You don't tend to show in the UK for money as there is no money in it.


----------



## .Delete. (Jan 7, 2008)

rbarlo32 said:


> Clava we don't even get price money up here and when we did it was £1 when it coasts hundreds to get everything needed for the show and I was just shoeing in hand, the royal highland show o think you get £160 price money but it would have cost us wells over £2000 to get our stallion their we were about to book the ferry and enter then the car ate all the money we saved up he had a huge chance of winning championand all. You don't tend to show in the UK for money as there is no money in it.


It's no different here in the states. Unless you're high level, even then there is hardly any money unless you win


----------



## GotaDunQH (Feb 13, 2011)

.Delete. said:


> It's no different here in the states. Unless you're high level, even then there is hardly any money unless you win


 Agree. Sometimes there will be "added" money to those payback classes. I was at the Mass QHA show in May, and they had a $500 added non-pro WP class, had to show all days in it (2 times). They were begging to get entries....finally got 5 of them so they could run the class. I was amazed they were announcing they needed entries! And this wasn't a small show....there were 37 in my showmanship class. There doesn't seem to be a big interest in them.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I've noticed that prize money in showing/competing in general is a lot higher than in the UK, not sure how much of that is down to how far people have to travel to compete and the costs of staying at that place for several days or longer so people expect to at least cover some of those costs.
Sorry of topic.


----------



## .Delete. (Jan 7, 2008)

GotaDunQH said:


> Agree. Sometimes there will be "added" money to those payback classes. I was at the Mass QHA show in May, and they had a $500 added non-pro WP class, had to show all days in it (2 times). They were begging to get entries....finally got 5 of them so they could run the class. I was amazed they were announcing they needed entries! And this wasn't a small show....there were 37 in my showmanship class. There doesn't seem to be a big interest in them.


37 in a showmanship class is small to me, I can understand why they were begging for entries. In my experience I mostly traveled to shows that had 70-100 people for trail, SMS, etc. All the pattern classes are usually packed. However I've seen consistently 20-30 people per pleasure class. Usually 1-2 splits.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

dbarabians said:


> The profits are not made from showing the horse. The horses value increases but the big money is from breeding those winners. A proven show horse can command a good stud fee and the value of the foals increases. Starting a colt and showing him early then retiring him or her to the breeding shed is the goal.
> Also those collts from a promising sire or dam need to be shown as early as possible. The sooner you can prove your stallion passes on his abilities the sooner the mares start lining up for breeding. Since the first colts wont be shown for 3 years after the stallion or mare is bred and you need several foal crops to prove your stallion. Shalom


I agree with you that showing and campaigning along with LTE makes a stallion desirable to fetch the higher breeding fees. If you look at the million dollar sires in the NRCHA only a very small amount actually won the Snaffle Bit in their three year old year. Most of the them showed big in the derbies, super stakes, etc. AND passed on their talent to their offspring like you said. In my opinion it takes quite a bit of money and risk to get to that point where the foal crops are winning and proving that the talent is being passed on. I think it's a tough row to hoe to have a top quality stallion bringing the big breeding fees. I worked with a horse that has +$350,000 LTE in the NRCHA, AQHA, NRHA, won the World's Greatest and the Magnificent Seven, yet his breeding fee is only $2,500. I will never claim to be an expert on breeding but for all the years in training this horse has been, advertising, show fees, etc. I don't see it as being lucrative. Correct me if I am wrong.
However, if it was High Brow Cat at $22,500 a straw, your making money .




SlideStop said:


> It might not makes sense for the average Joe to go out and try to to buy a yearling to turn into a futurities, but for a trainer who's trying to make it big.. Yeah!!
> 
> Don't forget to tack on all the fame and popularity out of this! He or she can get many of those expenses (transport, entry fees, possibly tack, etc) covered by sponsors. Then there will be the increased in clients between buying and training. Also, endorsement deals and an increase in the sale of any product the trainer might be selling (ie Stacy westfall and her halter). They maybe be able to increase they amount of money they ask for training or doing clinics.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It does make sense! 
Last years Snaffle Bit is a perfect example. When we moved back to NV from TX we were supposed to winter some cattle on a ranch in the middle of nowhere. Looking at the NRCHA directory for a nearby trainer the closest one was a guy named Nick Dowers in Dyer. Nick who, where? (we ended up not going down there so I never rode with the guy)
But just a year later guess who wins the 2013 Snaffle Bit, Nick Dowers on his stallion Time For The Diamond. And now people have heard of him. That is getting your foot in the door for getting the higher end clients that have the money to send you several show prospects upping your chances for a winner.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

Delete the £160 is the top price money you will find anywhere for my breed and apart from the breed show is the biggest show for Shetlands it's a 4 days long and holds the record for the most visitors in the country as it is an agricultural show. This is for in hand as I have yet to show a shetland ridden as I don't know anyone small enough to ride at a show the biggest show for that is the horse of the year show but that is a mixed dartmoor, exmoor and shetland class so shetlands rarely win.


----------



## .Delete. (Jan 7, 2008)

rbarlo32 said:


> Delete the £160 is the top price money you will find anywhere for my breed and apart from the breed show is the biggest show for Shetlands it's a 4 days long and holds the record for the most visitors in the country as it is an agricultural show. This is for in hand as I have yet to show a shetland ridden as I don't know anyone small enough to ride at a show the biggest show for that is the horse of the year show but that is a mixed dartmoor, exmoor and shetland class so shetlands rarely win.


You're not speaking English to me :lol: I have no clue about breed or showing standards for ponies. I am an AQHA person to the fullest. We don't have to deal with people breaking out ponies like that. 90% of our pony shows are in-hand or driving here.


----------



## GotaDunQH (Feb 13, 2011)

.Delete. said:


> 37 in a showmanship class is small to me, I can understand why they were begging for entries. In my experience I mostly traveled to shows that had 70-100 people for trail, SMS, etc. All the pattern classes are usually packed. However I've seen consistently 20-30 people per pleasure class. Usually 1-2 splits.


Funny because this particular show is the only show Mass QHA puts on and it's always huge by our standards. two years ago I went to the VA QHA Spring show, the one that used to be called the East Coast Champ show. There were 14 in Nov Am SMS....that's it. The Amateur and Select even smaller. The only classes that were quite large with splits were the Youth classes. For one of the "big" AQHA shows....the VA QHA was small in comparison. But I've heard that show has gotten smaller every year.


----------



## rbarlo32 (Aug 9, 2010)

My grammar and spelling suck too which really doesn't help.


----------



## .Delete. (Jan 7, 2008)

GotaDunQH said:


> Funny because this particular show is the only show Mass QHA puts on and it's always huge by our standards. two years ago I went to the VA QHA Spring show, the one that used to be called the East Coast Champ show. There were 14 in Nov Am SMS....that's it. The Amateur and Select even smaller. The only classes that were quite large with splits were the Youth classes. For one of the "big" AQHA shows....the VA QHA was small in comparison. But I've heard that show has gotten smaller every year.


They all seem to be getting smaller except the congress :lol:


----------



## EstelleW (Aug 10, 2011)

Cow Chick 77, it is not some internet whatever..it's a fact that the vertibra in the spine are the last to close and dont do so on ANY horse before 5-6 years. If you have a GOOD Equine Vet where you are they can tell you this. I love how people who are doing wrong by thier animals alway reject out of hand FACTS with no knowledge of what they are talking about. Equine Vet Tech here.


----------



## SeemsLegit (Oct 26, 2012)

I didn't have the time to read all of the replies, but I want to chime in with my two cents. 

I'm getting a weanling delivered to me next month, and I fully plan to -- granted she is physically and mentally mature enough -- start her right around two years old. I think the key, as many others have stated, is _how_ these young horses are started. Their minds need to stay fresh, and they only need to be asked what they can _without a doubt_ handle. A challenge is fine, but overwhelming a youngster to the point of an explosion is not something anyone should be aiming for. 

I spend only the minimum of time that is needed, in the arena. From that point? No flat work, no repetitive drills. I go right out and onto trails once they have a decent foundation under-saddle (always with someone riding a reliable horse) in order to let said youngster experience the good things of riding, too. It keeps them happy, and exposes them to multiple "scary" things; regardless, they're still learning. Only when a young horse is ready are they moved back into the arena to work on other things.

Some horses can handle it physically, some can't; but, again as others have stated, if the animal is put together well and physically mature enough, there shouldn't be an issue. My step-father has thirty years on me as far as experience goes, and he's seen very few colts ridden into the ground despite being used for futurities, etc. 

So, in short.. 

Why start them so young? Because they can, _if given the right tools_, handle it.


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

I feel like it's banging your head against a wall, in this scenario. 

The pro-start club isn't going to budge, neither is the anti-start club. It basically comes down to tradition and personal experience with proven success from great horseman or facts from people who have done studies. I will probably never stop starting my horses at two unless there is some reason not to, such as injury or a bad mindset, and I do not feel that I need to justify myself to anyone who thinks otherwise. Clients can bring me horses, or they can find someone else. I don't care.


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

Also, I think everyone likes to cling to the "the joints aren't closed" arguments, but honestly, the stress on the joints in any animal species is high regardless or whether they are closed. Is there a study that says the consequences, how much weight, how much stress, how much work can be done? Should they be kept in stalls their whole lives in bubble wrap? Should we be massaging their knees every day for six years? Liniment on the spine til they are seven just in case? Should they be kept at a certain weight so they don't exceed any unnecessary fat weight on their joints? What about other horses, can they safely be in a pasture with others where they might..God forbid...Be horses? Be kicked, run into, roll on a the hard ground, run around...? 

I think people fail to take into consideration as well that a well balanced rider really isn't going to harm the horse. The weight is nothing; A good seat is everything. Running a horse down and stopping them with a good seat where you melt into it like a pillow isn't going to hurt a two year old. Running them down and bouncing in the saddle not only causes them to bounce through the stop as well, but hits their back and throws them on their front end. Putting on proper sliders and sitting nicely will make it easy for them to do that they can naturally exhibit on their own.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

SorrelHorse said:


> I think people fail to take into consideration as well that a well balanced rider really isn't going to harm the horse. The weight is nothing; A good seat is everything. Running a horse down and stopping them with a good seat where you melt into it like a pillow isn't going to hurt a two year old. Running them down and bouncing in the saddle not only causes them to bounce through the stop as well, but hits their back and throws them on their front end. Putting on proper sliders and sitting nicely will make it easy for them to do that they can naturally exhibit on their own.


WOW, your previous post, yes it is like banging your head against the wall, and having read the quoted part above, I really really want to do so.

Yes I have strong views on starting horses, it is my choice not to back mine until 3, then leave them be, then actually ride at 4. It is sad to think of a 2 year old running down a stop with any rider, and sliders on already:shock: Well no amount of justification will ever ever sway me to thinking that is a good idea. 

I get backing at 2, I don't agree, but I see why some do it, but what you are describing there is so far away from my personal comfort zone, that I would like to see it called abuse. 

Interesting reading http://www.equinestudies.org/ranger_2008/ranger_piece_2008_pdf1.pdf may have been linked before.


----------



## EstelleW (Aug 10, 2011)

Sorral Horse yes there is, read the paper on the link that Golden horse posted and before you do go to the end to see where the information came from so you dont poo poo what is written.


----------



## ponyboy (Jul 24, 2008)

GotaDunQH said:


> Maybe for racehorses but not for show horses,


Reining.


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

I have a lot of horses who were stopped at two. They are sound and never been injected or taken a lame step a day in their lives. I work for a man who is a triple A AQHA judge, NRCHA hall of fame, and all of his horses are sound. I know trainers who go to the congress and Worlds every year. I know professional trainers who have horses at the big shows during futurities who are broke as broke can be at two. If you are a good horseman, you have them stopping after 30 days riding, turning around a little, basic buttons, etc. For me, it takes a little longer, because I am NOT on the same level these people I am around are. I am here to learn. 

The biggest thing is that colts who are taught to stop, don't get stopped a lot. Once I got my set stopping this year, I maybe stopped them once or twice every other week. They stopped every time, solidly. They were two when I started them, three now, sound and guaranteed so. I had seven at the beginning of the year and now have only one left. The purpose of sliders is to take away the impact on their joints, which my farrier (Certified and president of the northwest farrier's assocation) will tell you. They are ridden on only the BEST ground, treated with the utmost high care, get all the warm up and cool down in the world, and I've never had a problem.

Please though, tell me how I'm so abusive...Just because there's some really ignorant and stupid people out there slamming their horses into the ground by yanking their faces and rolling them back without sliders in deep dirt so they not only throw out their young hocks but pull tendons, and get out in their neck because they were never taught to relax and use their body properly into the stop, doesn't mean I'm one of them. I don't appreciate being into that group.

Horseman do NOT ruin horses, because horseman don't start colts incorrectly. I don't care what age others start their babies; Mine are started at two and are happy and healthy. If you want to wait until three, four, five, etc then more power to you....Just don't group me and the wonderful horseman I ride with into the category of the ****ed.


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

For the record, my boyfriend likes to wait until his horses are older to start. That is fine, I don't mind. His main barrel horse was started at five and his colt now is four and just getting started. My main barrel horse was started at two and all my show horses have been started at two. If we can be together, train together, and ride together without arguing I don't see why the rest of the horse community can't?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

EstelleW said:


> Sorral Horse yes there is, read the paper on the link that Golden horse posted and before you do go to the end to see where the information came from so you dont poo poo what is written.


I've read it, and I'll poo-poo it because it is full of assertions rather than evidence. The areas that do not harden until 6 are areas that do not get much stress while riding. The back doesn't work the way Deb Bennett claims it does. 

There is simply no evidence anywhere that a horse's back is stressed by the weight being applied to the backbone. To the MUSCLES, but not to the backbone. IIRC, Deb Bennett is one of those experts who claim you should get a saddle that bridges so the back can flex up into the gap - and that never happens.

If anyone has evidence that horses have backbone injuries due to being ridden before 6, I'd love to see it. Bennett produces none. She worries about backs not rounding up, but no horse backbone works that way - they all SAG under a rider's weight. As long as that sag stays within certain limits, it does no harm. Remember - most of the weight the backbone is dealing with is the HORSE's weight - lungs and guts under the backbone.

I wouldn't put a 300 lb guy on a 2 year old, but that is not what people are discussing.


----------



## Change (Jul 19, 2014)

rbarlo32 said:


> 2 IMO is too young and like I said not waiting the couple of extra years is too great of a risk to be worth it.


Two examples - my sister broke one as a two year old. He was a reining horse and western pleasure horse and money earning barrel horse. He was blind, toothless and COMPLETELY physically sound when she put him down at 37.

2nd horse - a stud, broke to ride as a 3 y/o - bred, barreled, pulled-carriages. Went on long, long trail rides. He developed navicular and was retired in his late 20s. Lived happily with light trail rides until put down from a twisted gut at 35.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

EstelleW said:


> Cow Chick 77, it is not some internet whatever..it's a fact that the vertibra in the spine are the last to close and dont do so on ANY horse before 5-6 years. If you have a GOOD Equine Vet where you are they can tell you this. I love how people who are doing wrong by thier animals alway reject out of hand FACTS with no knowledge of what they are talking about. Equine Vet Tech here.


 Internet whatever?
Let me repost what I had wrote and what Incitatus posted. Something to think about when you read a study no matter the subject.
I ,like bsms, will poo-poo Deb Bennett for the same reasons.



COWCHICK77 said:


> Studies keep getting mentioned but one thing to think about when reading studies is who paid for the study and how it was conducted. Anyone with enough money can have a study conducted.





Incitatus32 said:


> I would also like to add that in the scientific community you do not have to publish what does NOT work, only what works for your hypothesis. So if I say that starting a horse at two will lame them up, do my samples and find that some or most of the horses I used for the study who were lamed up had prior genetic conditions I do NOT have to report that, thus skewing the results and validity of the test. Sad but true. :-(


 I agree with sorrel as well. No one is going to be swayed here and that's okay. But I do feel like beating my head on the wall because it has become about just the age rather than taking the whole horse and individual into consideration, there is more to a horse than just his age. 

So with that said, I will go on starting horses my way and EstelleW you can go about starting your horses the way you see fit.


----------



## Sahara (Jul 23, 2010)

bsms said:


> There is simply no evidence anywhere that a horse's back is stressed by the weight being applied to the backbone. To the MUSCLES, but not to the backbone. IIRC, Deb Bennett is one of those experts who claim you should get a saddle that bridges so the back can flex up into the gap - and that never happens.


The muscles are attached to the vertebral column. How can you stress one aspect but not the other? Please provide a link to the claim that "Deb Bennett claims you should get a saddle that bridges".

A book for those folks who need to clear up their thinking: Analysis of Vertebrate Structure by Milton Hildebrand and George Goslow.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

I hope Cherie doesn't mind me copying and pasting her post from another thread but I thought it was a great post and worth a read for those in this thread.

_

"I think soundness is influenced a lot less by work under a conscientious trainer than by genetics and a lot of other factors. I DO NOT agree with injecting horses (I assume hocks and/or stifles) prophylacticly. Not all horses need them even when they are ridden and shown hard for years. 

As an example, Apache Blue Boy is a roping horse we sold. He had had a year of cowhorse training and had a very hard stop. We knew he would make a better calf / heeling horse than he was going to do as a cowhorse and sold him to a man looking for a World class roping prospect. He was shown for 11 years, won over 2000 AQHA points and won 12 AQHA World Championships and Reserve World Championships in roping. He flexes his hocks deeply and buries his hocks in the dirt in every stop. He has NEVER been injected and is still 100% sound.

Another example is Topsail Rein Maker. Russel Dilday lives just a few miiles from me he has this very sound stallion with the following record.

Foaled in 1999 -----
2002 NRCHA World Championship Snaffle Bit Futurity, Limited Open Reserve Champion
2003 NRCHA Southwest Region Open Hackamore Champion
2004 NRCHA Derby Open, 3rd
2004 NRCHA World Championship Hackamore Top Ten
2004 AQHA Junior Working Cow Horse Qualifier
2004 AQHA Performance ROM
2005 NRCHA World Championship Open Hackamore Champion
2005 NRCHA Two Rein 3rd Nation, 6th World
2006 Worlds Richest Stock Horse 4th place
2006 NRCHA Bridle Spectacular Champion
2006 Spring Classic Bridle Spectacular Champion
2008 Worlds Greatest Horseman Champion
2011 Worlds Greatest Horseman Champion
2012 Worlds Greatest Horseman 3rd, Steer Stopping Champion
2013 Worlds Greatest Horseman 3rd
__*LTE: $371,521.90
*
This horse won the Worlds Greatest Horseman twice and was 3rd in it twice -- the last time last year at the age of 14. They finally retired him this year and he is still sound. He was in training (as you can see from his record) for 11 straight years. He was started before he turned 2__*. 

*This is why I put absolutely NO faith in all of the articles about how bad it is for horses to be started young. These writers and researchers completely ignore all of the horses that are started at 2 and remain sound and only hunt for 'facts' that support their pre-conceived hypothesis. 

I am sure there are MORE serious injuries sustained by lightly ridden horses as they are not kept legged up and are not in as good a shape. Lightly ridden horses can take one bad step and get a crippling or even life ending injury. I've had it happen far more than I have had in horses in hard training work that were headed toward futurities."

_


----------



## ponyboy (Jul 24, 2008)

texasgal said:


> My horses make money for me? Wow... now if I can only find it... :lol:


I hate to tell you, but people like you are not the ones who set trends in the horse industry - professionals are. :wink: The fewer years a young horse spends not working, the more money its owners save. If a competitor gets his horses competing by age 2 or 3, he saves money, and then everyone else has to do the same to stay in the game. That's what happened in racing and now it's happening in other sports.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Sahara said:


> The muscles are attached to the vertebral column. How can you stress one aspect but not the other? Please provide a link to the claim that "Deb Bennett claims you should get a saddle that bridges".
> 
> A book for those folks who need to clear up their thinking: Analysis of Vertebrate Structure by Milton Hildebrand and George Goslow.


Very simply. I can stress your muscle tissue with one finger poking you. It would not stress your back or shoulder or damage your bones, but it could sure make your muscles sore. A saddle with a too narrow channel can put a lot of pressure on muscles near the spine and be very uncomfortable to the horse without doing any damage to the spine. The same is true of a saddle that bridges, or is too narrow or too wide - the damage is to muscles, not to the backbone.

Deb Bennett is big on backs 'rounding up', and IIRC - I haven't read thru the posts on her forum in a long time - she advocates having a saddle that 'encourages' that rounding - which never happens. If my memory is off, I apologize. It has been several years since I read a few thousand of the posts on her forum.

In the Ranger article, she says damage to the back from early riding is "somewhat easier to produce than structural damage to his legs". She also says "the growth plates...of the vertebral chain are oriented parallel to weight placed on the horse's back. Bottom line: you can sprain a horse's back...a lot more easily than you can displace those located in the limbs".

Apart from running contrary to common experience, it tends to defy common sense. If you want to damage something, you apply pressure 90 deg out, not parallel. The growth plates in the backbone are where they will be least affected by too much weight. Further, the backbone is designed to keep motion within a particular range. Within that range, neither it nor the spinal cord receives any damage. I've seen no study anywhere that indicates that range is exceeded by riding them younger than 6. If it were, then we would see a flood of crippling back injuries in Quarter Horses started at 2 - but we do not.

Humans are not fully mature at 15, yet we do not damage ourselves by playing football at 12 or 15, or weight lifting at 15, or running at 15. At 18, still before all the growth plates have hardened, we send young men into combat carrying very heavy loads daily. Those loads sometimes near the weight of the men carrying them, and that does damage the body. But again, no one is talking about loading up a 2 year old the way you might a 6 year old.

This quote from Deb Bennett illustrates why you should listen to her with caution:

"What those saddles are, began as a modification to the very design Dave is advocating -- in other words, in the original old design, the caballero or cavalier was not FORCED back against the cantle either by the ramp of the seat or by having the stirrup leathers hung far to the front. The modification started to become common after the end of WWII and with the rise of the modern horse-showing mentality; it was to steepen the ramp of the seat and to put the stirrup leathers farther forward, *so as to permit the "western" rider to ride in a "half seat" or "two point" position -- very similar to the hunter/jumper rider -- for the purpose of barrel racing* and other games competition which were never really part of old cattle-handling practice. *This ramped saddle design works OK if the rider is going to spend MOST of the time during their riding hour standing up in the stirrups*, because doing that -- lo and behold -- moves the rider's pelvis forward so far that it comes over the forward position of her feet so that WHEN THE RIDER STANDS then their feet are indeed under their butt!"

Western Saddle Design for Women's Fit - Questions and discussions for the ESI Q and A Forum - ESI Q and A Forum - ESI Q and A Forums

For giggles, here is a picture of a cowboy from the early 1900s, working the real range, with his butt against the cantle - and cantles then sometimes were as tall as 9 inches:










That makes about as much sense as when she claimed VS Littauer taught people to grip with their knees, which is the opposite of what he taught.

The Ranger article is made to look knowledgeable by its discussion of growth plates, but it never deals with the issue of providing evidence that backbones are damaged by riding early, or that there is any permanent damage caused to the back. I met a number of retired western show horses when I was taking lessons - that is what the instructor liked to use for lesson horses - and they were in their 20s with no back problems. Nor have I met a large percentage of western riders complaining about their horse's back injuries.

Cherie's post provides a good real world example of why so many reject the idea that some riding early harms the back. If it were true, then horses in Arizona would be much likelier to have back injuries than horses in England. It would be simple to show increased injury rates by looking at a population of horses competing at 2 vs a population that did not start training until 5. I have yet to see anyone provide that evidence.


----------



## BlueSpark (Feb 22, 2012)

I'm suspecting more and more that back injuries are a bigger problem than people think. A couple of friends have older thoroughbreds. Both from a young age were cinchy (though always cinched up nicely, good cinches, no ulcers) and very sensitive over their backs. As they've got older its gotten more pronounced. They are still rideable, but sometimes take quite a bit of warming up before they relax and stretch out. This is despite chiro and vet treatments.
Another mare on the farm is fantastically well built, close to ideal. started at 2, her first year was quite successful. After that she started running very half hearted. After a while of hoping she would pick up, with multiple vet and chiro visits, they finally felt her back was sore, but that the treatments had fixed it. Then she started showing very slightly lame, but they couldn't pin point it. She was retired. After chiro and acupuncture appointments and much time off, she still wasn't right. She was bred and ended up slipping the foal late in the pregnancy(not related to the back issue of course) so this spring she was started back under saddle. she had major issues with rushing around hollow backed. She saw a chiro, massage therapist, vet, professional saddle fitter. Finally the problem seemed solved, but now she reacted to being ridden by rushing and hollowing her back. She was sent for retraining and is finally back to normal, but her back will need maintenance and will likely be arthritic. She is a big solid mare with a short back.

I do think starting a horse really hard, really young, especially when they are not nearly physically mature, causes problems. 

I also think that people like Cherie(as one example), who have more knowledge and experience than I will likely ever be able to attain, have very valuable opinions worth considering. The more I listen to really experienced horse people, the more I realize that the big picture really is more important than just one factor.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I don't doubt there are people who overdo things and screw up a very young horse. Our first horse was a slender little 14.2 Arabian mare, perhaps 775 tops. She was 6 and unbroke. When my wife went to look at her, the well over 300 lb husband got on her to show her potential....with saddle, I'd guess he went over 350 easy.

My wife took her. She spent the first couple of months at our place chilling out and getting over her sore back. She was a nice, willing horse, but no horse needs to have close to half its body weight slung on its back - regardless of age!

A few months later, this was Lilly getting a lesson with my youngest, who then weighed about 80 lbs...imagine 350 lbs on a horse like her:


----------



## Sahara (Jul 23, 2010)

She is cute, BSMS. Do you still have her?


----------



## Sahara (Jul 23, 2010)

bsms said:


> 'encourages' that rounding - which never happens.


While the thoracic spine is almost a rigid column, there is an area that can be flexed and that is found at the last thoracic and first lumbar vertebra, between the first three lumbar bones and at the lumbosacral joint. When someone refers to a horse 'rounding up' it is referring to the ENTIRE spinal column of which there is quite a bit of flexibility in the cervical vertebrae. So you have three things going on:

1) the loins coil 
2) the area of the spine under the saddle raises
3) the base of the neck raises

All of these things together describe a light horse in self carriage. Some people call it collection. Some people call it rounding up, some call it a balanced horse. The point is that the spine is not a completely inflexible rod. And a horse can round up. 

Since you like studies:
http://www.iceep.org/pdf/iceep2/_1129105821_001.pdf


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

I've read some of the latest replies and I just want to say this. 

I bought my QH horse Red when he was 6 years old. Here is the day I brought him home and took him out for a ride:










When I bought him, he was literally a greenbroke 6-year-old. (and fat) Had been ridden here and there, but not consistently and VERY easily. 

The first year I had him was just lots of basics. Learning to give to the bit, learn leg cues, move along on a relaxed rein, etc. I patterned him on the barrels, but that's about it. He got the entire winter off. 

The next year we started going a bit more. Developed a front end lameness problem around June. Then developed a catching right stifle in the fall. 

Then this year, I discover that his hocks are fusing and for how advanced the changes are, he has had the changes since birth. 

Red has these problems because he was born with them. He didn't have his legs worked off when he was a colt. He sat around and got fat until I got him when he was 6, started riding him every day, and then discovered all his health issues. 



My point being: What if he had been started as a 2-year-old? And put into a work program early in life? Would you then blame the hard work for his health problems?

How do you know that a horse develops problems because they already had them ..... or because they were worked too hard too soon? *You don't. *You can't possibly know.


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

rbarlo32 said:


> A horse started at 2 is more likely to become unsound then a horse started a 6.


I saw one article posted by GoldenHorse (which scientifically proves nothing .... it's just some vet's opinion), but is there any scientific proof that this statement is true?

I apologize if I missed it, but I scanned through the posts and didn't see any links to any hard evidence.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Sahara said:


> ...When someone refers to a horse 'rounding up' it is referring to the ENTIRE spinal column of which there is quite a bit of flexibility in the cervical vertebrae. So you have three things going on:
> 
> 1) the loins coil
> 2) the area of the spine under the saddle raises
> ...


Under weight, the horse's back sags. It goes down, not up. A trained dressage horse's back goes down less than a typical horse's back, but it does not round UP. The website that has links for the studies is down now, but I'd trust Hillary Clayton over Deb Bennett any day.

Your study involves carcasses, not the backbone of a horse being ridden. What you can do with the spine of a dead horse has no relevance to how a horse's back works during riding.

"One may think scientific measurements are wrong since, as a rider, one feels a large amount of motion. This was exactly my thought when I read Leo Jeffcott’s study, “Thus, the total range of movement in the dorso-ventral direction of the equine back was only 53.1mm under these experimental conditions” (Natural Rigidity of the Horse’s Backbone, 1980.) Fifty-three, point one millimeters is a little less than two and a quarter inches. The truth is that the rider is seated where the forces generated by the hind and front legs are having the greatest effect on the horse’s vertebral column. The large amplitude of movement perceived by the rider is not the motion of the horse’s vertebral column, but rather the sum of the horse body’s movement...The situation is therefore a rider’s vertebral column submitted to large amplitude of movements and a horse’s vertebral column limited to a minuscule range of motion."

Jean Luc Cornille discoveries of the horses spine and the influence on traning horses.

"_Reasons for performing study_: Although the saddle is seen as one of the biggest causes of back pain, and weightbearing is seen as an important aetiological factor in ‘kissing spine’ syndrome (KSS), the effects of a saddle and weight on the back movements of the horse have never been studied.
_Objective_: To determine the effects of pressure on the back, exerted by tack and weight, on movements of the horse.

_Hypothesis_: Weight has an extending effect on the horse's back and, as a compensatory mechanism to this extension, an alteration in pro- and retraction angles was expected. A similar but smaller effect was expected from a saddle only and a lungeing girth.

_Methods_: Data were captured during treadmill locomotion at walk, trot and canter under 4 conditions: unloaded; with lungeing girth; saddle only; and saddle with 75 kg of weight. Data were expressed as maximal extension, maximal flexion angles, range of motion of L3 and L5 and maximal pro- and retraction angles of the limbs.

_Results_: At walk and trot, there was a significant influence on back kinematics in the ‘saddle with weight’ situation, but not in the other conditions. *Overall extension of the back increased, but the range of movement remained the same.* Limb kinematics changed in the sense that forelimb retraction increased. At canter, both the ‘saddle with weight’ and ‘saddle only’ conditions had a significant extending effect on the back, but there was no effect on limb kinematics.

_Conclusions and potential relevance_: *Weight and a saddle induce an 
overall extension of the back. This may contribute to soft tissue injuries and the KSS*. The data from this study may help in understanding the reaction of the equine back to the challenges imposed by man when using the animal for riding."

Effects of girth, saddle and weight on movements of the horse - COCQ - 2010 - Equine Veterinary Journal - Wiley Online Library

The relevance to this thread is that the spine itself seems to stay within an acceptable range of motion at normal rider weights. It can lift the rider, but it isn't bending upwards into the rider. It sags, but as long as the sag stays within a narrow range, the horse will not be injured. Muscle tissue damage is more likely than spinal damage.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

beau159 said:


> I saw one article posted by GoldenHorse (which scientifically proves nothing .... it's just some vet's opinion), but is there any scientific proof that this statement is true?
> 
> I apologize if I missed it, but I scanned through the posts and didn't see any links to any hard evidence.


You wont find many links of hard undisputed scientific evidence of this, or if a 200, 300 or 400 pound rider on any horse causes damage. 

The logistics in these studies would be huge, having a significant number of horses of similar type, cared for in exact same way, but one lot started early, one late, or one ridden by light people, one ridden by heavy, then this would have to be studied over many years to get a significant result.

I do have to laugh at the "It's only one vets opinion" Like everything else to do with horses, the often shouted phrase "get a vet" then when that vet doesn't agree with the prevalent thought on the board the shout is "Get another vet the first one is wrong"

There is enough evidence out there to convince me that riding a 2 year old hard is a bad idea, so I choose myself not to do it. If you are happy with it fine, but as ever no one is changing sides in this debate.

The one 'person' who has a really legitimate view is the horse, and he isn't invited to the party.


----------



## Sahara (Jul 23, 2010)

How exactly does the spine "lift the rider"?


----------



## Sahara (Jul 23, 2010)

You seem to have changed your tune, bsms. Recently you posted this:
And the point was no contact. And there is a difference between "hollow", "normal", and "rounded" backs. Again, it is a continuum. And frankly, for the reasons above, I reject the goal of "rounded". However, the alternative to rounded is not hollow. That is a false dilemma. Mia has made me something of an expert on what a hollow back feels like. We've spent years getting past it, although she will still do it when nervous.

But there is a happy medium, between rounded and hollow, which is normal for a horse. Rounding the back requires special effort, one that is unnatural to the horse. It is not a universal goal of riding, although "not hollow" probably is. A horse that is rounding its back is wasting its energy on a trail, and I do not value wasting energy.

_____________
What is going on in these two pictures? I hope you don't mind if we discuss one of yours since you so ardently share them in all of your posts. Both horses are cantering. One is "rounded" and one is not. Can you tell the difference?


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Another thought on this one, well probably mentioned already, but graphically illustrated last night.

I was watching the barns young warmblood working in the arena last night, also in there 2 QH's, and we were discussing how much the young one has come on after a rest, at last he seems to know where his legs are, and even managed the trot poles without getting in a mess. This youngster is 6 years old, and yes still a baby in all sorts of ways. One of the QH's in the ring is also 6, but he is a mature, broke finished horse. You simply could not have the warmblood where that QH is, he has lacked the mind and the coordination until now.


----------



## ArabLuver (Aug 27, 2014)

I don't care to go into all of the scientific stuff, but I will give my opinion.

I prefer to start them at 2, but take it very slowly. It doesn't hurt them to be taught basic stuff at a leisurely pace. Obviously the harder you push them, the greater the chance of having a burnt out horse later.

Do I go out and ride the 2 year old? Yes. Do I ride at a steady gallop for an hour each time I go and ride? HELL NO! I teach them basics, nothing more. Plenty of time for more advanced stuff later.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

Golden Horse said:


> Another thought on this one, well probably mentioned already, but graphically illustrated last night.
> 
> I was watching the barns young warmblood working in the arena last night, also in there 2 QH's, and we were discussing how much the young one has come on after a rest, at last he seems to know where his legs are, and even managed the trot poles without getting in a mess. This youngster is 6 years old, and yes still a baby in all sorts of ways. One of the QH's in the ring is also 6, but he is a mature, broke finished horse. You simply could not have the warmblood where that QH is, he has lacked the mind and the coordination until now.


 
Completely agree, that is why you have to look at the horse as the individual and take all factors into consideration not just an age number.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Golden Horse said:


> You wont find many links of hard undisputed scientific evidence of this, or if a 200, 300 or 400 pound rider on any horse causes damage.
> 
> The logistics in these studies would be huge, having a significant number of horses of similar type, cared for in exact same way, but one lot started early, one late, or one ridden by light people, one ridden by heavy, then this would have to be studied over many years to get a significant result.
> 
> ...


Everything goldenhorse posted I agree with. I couldnt like it more than once so I reposted it. Shalom


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

ArabLuver said:


> I don't care to go into all of the scientific stuff, but I will give my opinion.
> 
> I prefer to start them at 2, but take it very slowly. It doesn't hurt them to be taught basic stuff at a leisurely pace. Obviously the harder you push them, the greater the chance of having a burnt out horse later.
> 
> Do I go out and ride the 2 year old? Yes. Do I ride at a steady gallop for an hour each time I go and ride? HELL NO! I teach them basics, nothing more. Plenty of time for more advanced stuff later.


Arabluver I have to disagree. Arabians mature much slower than most breeds. I have seen only one or two in the decades that I have owned them that I might consider starting as late two year olds. In fact I have seen more arabians that at three I would hesitate to back.
I have seen numerous stock horses that at 2 might be physically able to handle a rider.
To each his own. Shalom


----------

