It has been well said in a work entitled ‘The Rights of an Animal:’ ’In the history of thought, that which is to-day’s laughing-stock becomes tomorrow’s doubt, the wisdom of the third day, and the child’s lesson of the fourth.’
To return to the hunter: his foot is constructed upon a principle which prevents it from picking up and retaining dirt; but shoeing does away with its architecture and mechanism. Unshod hunters would be free of the drawback of carrying about the weight of iron and dirt. When they put their feet down in ploughed land, expansion would cause them to make a big opening, and as, on withdrawal, the foot would become smaller by contraction, it would slip out without ‘sucking,’ whilst there would be nothing on the bottom of it that could pull out dirt with it, as the shoe does—always excepting the Charlier.
Youatt says: ‘An ounce or two in the weight of the shoe will tell sadly before the end of a hard day’s work;’ and an old proverb says: ‘An ounce on the heel tells more than a pound on the back.’ If people would reflect that this extra weight has to be swung at the end of a lever which is not of the first order, they would understand how ounces represent pounds. The leverages in the horse’s leg are largely of the second and third orders. Therefore, the shod hunter is more heavily handicapped than any other horse, except the steeplechaser. Add to this, the absence of disease and pain which must detract from weight-carrying power, and we should find the thirteen stone hunter of the present day
