The barefoot debate

Some say barefoot is natural, others argue that modern competition horses are purpose-bred and need shoes. Polly Bryan consults the experts

- Polly Bryan

THERE are few more heated debates in the equestrian world than that of whether horses can and should go without shoes, especially when discussing the pros and cons of competition horses. While many proponents of keeping a horse “barefoot” argue that shoes hinder a horse’s natural movement, inhibiting blood circulation, those at the opposite end of the spectrum feel that shoes play an essential role in keeping competition horses sound and performing at their best.

The answer arguably lies somewhere in between and will depend on each horse.

“When it comes to whether or not to shoe a horse, one size most definitely does not fi tall, and it has to be based on a scientific appraisal of that particular horse,” says Richard Stephenson MRCVS, who is also a veterinary examiner for the Worshipful Company of Farriers (WCF) and former chairman of the WCF examinations board.

He maintains that going barefoot is the right thing to do with certain horses, but not because it is a “natural” approach.

“It’s important to recognize that the typical competition horse you see before you today is not a natural animal. Horses have been highly bred and selected to perform jobs that are not natural. Some horses can do well without shoes on, but it’s not a valid argument that barefoot is better because it’s natural.

“Similarly, many think that having horses shod is almost compulsory, but not all horses need shoes. You need to consider many things including the horse’s conformation, its job, the surface – even things like the weight of the rider will have some relevance to whether it can work successfully without shoes.”