Melyni wrote:

And who said that you had to have them one at a time? See that's a classic example of how lack of experience limits your understanding of how the horse world operates or how people and horses interract.
      It isn't necessary to own each one, you just have to be the person taking care of them to get the experience. My current barn houses 56 horses, I have run barns with up to 70 at at time. Lesson barns, boarding barns, college programs, competition barns, etc. etc.  And had to deal with a lot of different horse situations in all of that.
   My oldest horse is in her 20's and she's been with me since she was 3 yrs old. 
   When you have more experience and training you will see how things really are.  And hopefully you'll be a lot less critical of others since you will by then have a clue as to  what is important and what isn't.
MW

I have absolutely no desire to do any of things you do. Different strokes and all that. I also have absolutely no desire to run a breeding program, or compete at high levels. I am more than happy with my two, and will never have more than 2 personal ones at once. And where exactly was I being critical? I don't think I even posted a critque of the horse in the OP. All I did was ask FTF why owning just one horse was bad as that is how her post came across to me. Right now I am certainly capable of deciding what is important and what isn't when when picking a mount for my personal needs. And since I probably won't have to do that again for a good long time, there is plenty of time to get even better. 

I get what you guys are saying re: lack of experience due to exposure due to the numbers of it all, but I don't think that not doing any of the above ^ is a bad thing. The tone of the some of the posts here is slightly condescending, as if running large barns and having a bunch of horses is the best way to do things. I (and lots of other people) disagree.




a box of rain will ease the pain, and love will see you through...