From: dmhowe01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: rec.equestrian
Subject: Re: Okay: 3rd time's a charm...
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:20:32 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

> 
> The horse certainly doesn't care.  The limiting factor is just how tough 
> your ass is.
> 
>>	2)  Aside from prolonged steep hills, are there any times when NOT
>>	    having a saddle would prove limiting or DANGEROUS?
> 
> Getting on, getting off, carrying your lunch, stowing your coat, and
> jousting come to mind.
> 

Amen!

> Why this fixation with riding bareback?  Why do you want to artificailly
> limit yourself?  Besides totally screwing up your seat, you can't begin
> to approach the things you can do in a saddle.  How dull.
> 

Let's see...  If you're a good rider, it doesn't limit you that much.  It is
only the roughest of the riding Smokey and I do that I wouldn't or haven't done
bareback.  Up and down severe hills, through creeks and woods, jumping logs,
etc.  A bareback ride for me is only marginally scaled down, if at all!
 As for seat, the most noticeable improvements in my seat have always come from
riding bareback for a while.  You have to develop a good strong seat to keep
from going right off over the rear when your horse decides momentum is the best
way to get up that huge hill over there...  I was taught to ride by an
instructor who started all her students bareback/without stirrups (depending on
the ambient temperature  :)  ).  Because I rode for two years before I started
to use stirrups, I can continue to ride (even over fences) if I lose a stirrup,
where I have seen many people who have to stop dead and reclaim the support.  
 Sentimentally speaking, bareback gets you closer to your horse.  This is
vaguely silly-sounding, but anyone who enjoys bareback riding will understand.
  Basically, riding bareback allows you to build leg muscles and balance
without depending on stirrups for position or support, gain a little shared
warmth on those colder rides, and provides a more relaxed riding atmosphere for
both horse and rider which can be a happy regular experience or a welcome break
from regular training workouts.
 As always, the only truly limiting factors are the rider's ability, the
horse's attitude/responsiveness/etc., and their mutual compatibility and
relationship.



>>    On Owning:
>>	1)  Is $250 per month a good target figure for room and board for a
>>	    horse given decent pasturage, good care, etc. in Central New
>>	    Jersey area?
>>	2)  Is $2,500 a good target figure for an 8-10yo unregistered,
>>	    non-show horse for the "experienced beginner?"
> 
> $2500 will buy you a pretty nice horse if you know what your looking for.
> An unregistered horse is just a mutt.  They can have great sentimental
> value to their current owners but unless they exhibit some sort of
> spectaculr performance or training, they're pretty much an economic
> disaster.  Don't ever pay more for a horse than what you figure you can
> sell it for in a hostile market.  Don't ever buy a horse with the mindset
> that you are somehow adopting a new family member that is going to live
> out its days with you.  Most people outgrow most horses a couple of years
> or so.  You will too.  Conversely, nothing will sour you faster than 
> buying a horse that's too hot for you.  Like any other sporting equipment,
> you usually move up is quality and capability as your skills grow.
 
While I agree that $2500 is a lot to pay for an unregistered horse, isn't this
just a bit extreme?  I understand that economics play a role in anything you do
with horses, but there is a huge amount of other stuff to consider:  enjoyment,
satisfaction, etc.!  I own one of those "mutts" and would not trade him for
anything.  I am in college and with scholarships and financial aid I could live
quite comfortably; instead I use most of what is left from my upkeep to pay for
Smokey's.  Economically dumb, I admit, but I would not give him up to have more
money!  The enjoyment, companionship and satisfaction that he shares with me
are worth much more than I pay for them!  
 Don't get me wrong, careful consideration is essential for any horse-buying
situation, but a reasonable dose of sentimentality can't hurt.  My folks were
very careful getting my first horse, having my instructor check it out to for
suitability, and he was a complete and total "economic disaster", and he was
even registered!  Smokey on the other hand is your basic backyard plug, but you
couldn't trade me a world class champion for him, I'd lose out on the deal.

> 
> Cold as this sounds, figure that you're going to screw up the first
> couple of horses that you own.  If you do anything with them besides
> feed them this is inevitable.  For a first horse, get yourself a tough
> veteran in its teens.  You probably won't be able to make too much of a
> mess out of it.
> 
> Terry

This is a good practical point, and a not-so-young horse is usually a better
choice for a first horse, I agree...  However, I have to ask you:  have you
just had some really terrible experiences with your horses?  Not trying to
criticize, but you sound like something has really soured you to the whole
activity of buying horses....


 I'll shut up now, some of these things just needed to be said, for my own
benefit if no one else's....  :+)

Deena Howe &
Smokey (my favorite mutt, next to Blackie, the canine one)
Posted-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 16:34:29 CST
Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 16:38:37 CST
From: Pam Ohno Dagoberg <pamod@cfsmo.honeywell.com>
Subject: Snowballing
To: rec.equestrian, edu@hp370d.CFSMO.Honeywell.COM
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 16:34:29 CST
Mail-Station: MN51-1335
Phone: 785-4359 (vm - 8549)
Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]