On 5/16/07, Robyn Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > No one will ever convince me that a treed saddle is better for a > horse's back than a treeless. There is a lot of truth to the theory > that a treed saddle might fit a horse perfectly--until he moves.
there are some cases where a treeless is bad. Like my jaspar has a prominent spine even when very fat. It sticks up, knobby all the way, and when rubbed, he gets a fistula. He had a bad one from a poor saddle pad and a tucker saddle and it became chronic, and a treeless aggravates it. (I ditched the Tucker). Perhaps before he ever got the fistula if I had him in a treeless with proper shims it wouldnt have happened. But as it is it is such that he can only be ridden in a saddle with absolute spine clearance, and what works best for him actually is my orthoflex because with the panels and booties theres nothing on his spine whatsoever, not even a saddle pad. Horses with real real prominent withers also, you can't put a wide tree or treeless where it will sit down and rub right on the withers. Fistulous withers and spine is a very serious life threatening chronic situation. I think Liz said it best when she said you really shouldnt mix and match. You should either have a treed saddle that fits or a treeless that is completely flexible with a good saddle pad that will have shims or whatever to protect the spine. I sent my orthoflex back and had the new special short, extra flexible panels put on, and they ground off some of the back of the saddle which allows even more flex and fit for a shorter backed horse and so far it works good for two of my horses. I think we always need to NEVER forget that no one saddle fits every horse and you have to have an open mind always with each horse and their individual problems. Like Tivar, I really much prefer a treed saddle, my orthoflex, a Tucker even for ME but for my horses each one has to have what he needs and Tivar MUST have a treeless. Janice -- yipie tie yie yo
