A rebuttal to the well-meaning yet clearly ignorant person below me: sure it costs a lot to feed older horses Senior feed and to get their teeth done routinely. Here's an idea, though: if you can't afford to keep care of an animal properly, then don't have the animal at all. Would you adopt a baby if you knew you couldn't afford baby food and pediatrician visits? I sure hope not. As for feet getting worn down quickly because the horses are out on the trail, it is quite the contrary. I have never, EVER seen a horse there (not even Peter's own ""personal"" horses) with properly trimmed feet. The horses' feet are VERY overgrown and long. They are flaking and splitting because they are too long, not because the hooves are getting ""worn"". You don't have to tell me how things are done there - I know, I used to work there. I spent countless hours there attempting to take decent care of the horses (without success, since they lack the proper equipment to do that. You know, quality hay, wormer, grooming boxes that contain more than just shedding blades, etc.) I would NOT talk about Sparks in this way if I hadn't been there myself, seeing all there is to see ""behind the scenes"".\r
\r
Sparks stays in business for one reason only: because people are too ignorant to know that the appearances of the horses ARE NOT NORMAL. Is it hard to keep some horses at a good weight? Sure. Does that mean you should throw your hands up and say ""Oh well, I guess he's just destined to have poking-out hips and a visible spine""? ABSOLUTELY NOT. If Peter Sparks can't afford to take good care of his animals, then he ought not to have so many. That's pretty basic common sense, unless of course you are greedy and want to make sure you have as many horses as possible in order to make the most money possible.\r
Pros: The lame horses can still put a little weight on their bad leg...
Cons: Everything
more