I agree totally. And over the years have noticed that low back horses
are often brilliant performers. In fact the same applies in
Thoroughbreds - quite a number I have seen have been low backed but my
word what wonderful horses they are to ride. Though it doesn't look
nice, it feels great!!! Certainly low backs are not a good advert
for our breed in this world of image over everything, but does it
bother the horses?!?!? Are they in difficulty with having a low back
- none I have encountered in other breeds seem to be bothered at all.
On Dec 18, 12:51 am, Pat Johnson aka magic <patjohnsonma...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> What are people supposed to do with them? If a horse is low backed
> but still useable I see no reason why they shouldn't be shown. Yes, I
> agree that we shouldn't breed for them but I am not going to put one
> down or send it to slaughter just because it happens to be born with a
> low back. There are some very nice horses that have low backs but
> there are also a lot with other faults as well. I would rather have a
> great low backed horse than a crappy horse with a straight back. A
> ribbon isn't the only reason people show and severly penalized is
> different in everyone's mind.
> On Dec 10, 3:29 pm, the whip <joseph.woep...@fnrm.com> wrote:
> > I personnally feel as a breeder and exhibitor that low back horses are
> > distasteful. But, I understand that they are out there. With, the ASHA
> > allowing for a 25% count off in judgeing; WHY ARE THEY STILL BEING
> > SHOWN knowing their is such a sever penalty from the get go.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
