I would have to guess that a much higher percent of ridable horses are owned. Mainly because I see so many ads for companion only horses that nobody seems to want. And I am guessing they end up in less than desirable situations. In my experience people tend to justify having a horse if they can ride it and it's harder to deal with the expense of a big "pet" that can't really be used. In fact I was asked about that a number of times when my arab couldn't be ridden anymore--"why do you keep a horse you can't ride?" Sad but true.

 

Here... I would say about 60% of horses owned are ridable. Almost everyone has colts and riding horses here. Some people like the person that sold me my horses-he has over 30 horses that are ridable as far as I know, and almost everybody has lots of young horses or green horses too.

 

I don't know of any way to even guess at this. I would think most people who have sound, trained, good-minded horses would either ride them or sell them to someone who wants to ride them. Maybe not. My horse fits that bill, but if I became unable to ride, I wouldn't sell him. He'd live his life as a spoiled pasture pet. He's not just a recreational vehicle for me to ride around on. He's my boy. I'm glad I get to ride him, but his worth to me has little to do with the fact that I can ride him.

I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority though. By a lot. And I'd say most horses that aren't ridden are either retired due to age or physical issues, or they have never had the training or required mindset to be good riding horses.

 

If they aren't rideable, sit for sale too long or are sold repeatedly due to not being rideable they eventually end up at auctoon then in the tug your heartstrings kill pen ads to be sold again. I'd say that percentage is high.

 

I don't think there are many horses that are actually not rideable. Some may have limitations, may not be able to do everything, but almost every horse is "rideable" in theory. And I don't mean just once, lol. I mean that most horses, if healthy and retrained/rehabbed could probably be ridden some.

How many horses are not ridden is a whole different question. That number would be much higher. People who buy a well-trained horse but don't keep up with riding, people who get over the initial excitement and stick a horse in a pasture then find when they get around to wanting to ride months later just can't control the horse, people who have horses with health issues that don't get addressed - that number would be much higher. Even a senior horse can still be ridden in most cases even if it's just walking with a lightweight rider. They make the best lesson horses for this reason. But you do have to keep up with daily handling, regular riding, stay on top of all their health issues - which is a lot for these older horses.

 

"Not ride-able", that's a huge grey area. While there are horses that are owned, and not ridden, they may be preforming another function. Such as broodmares. I've owned a lot of mares that I never even considered riding. Their conformation was given STRONG consideration, as well as how they learned with things I did do with them. They had to have the mind, the breeding, the conformation and the pedigree to be considered a broodmare. I've bought a few mares over the years that while the previous owner did ride and them, I never considered that, I was looking for broodmares. They were worth far more to me as a broodmare. My interest in them was as a broodmare, first and foremost.

So does that fit in with what you are thinking of when "not ride-able"? All my mares would have been ride-able had that been what I wanted.

I guess it all depends on where your interest lays.

Breed the best, sell the rest.

 

guess I'd also exclude horses that are too young to be ridden

Horses too old to be ridden should also be excluded.

 

I thought about that, but then I thought, is a horse ever really too old to be ridden? It might not physically be able to be ridden due to old age, but OTOH there are lots of old horses that are able to be ridden. So I think that my requirement that "the horse is physically sound enough" would exclude horses that are old but not physically able to be ridden, without excluding horses that are old but they can still be ridden.

 

I've been thinking about this for a while, and a recent thread had me wondering some more. What percentage of owned horses (meaning not wild horses) would you guess are rideable vs not rideable? I guess I'd also exclude horses that are too young to be ridden.

By rideable I mean

1. the horse is physically sound enough to do whatever kind of riding is asked of it (even if that's just walking around for 15 minutes once a week or whatever),
2. understands enough cues to be competent at that job (could even be that the horse only knows how to follow another horse on a trail, but that's good enough for the owner), and
3. can mentally handle the job and doesn't act up very often (e.g. doesn't try to buck you off every time you get on).

I would say 60%.
There are so many horses that sit around and do nothing even though they could be conditioned to ride. Or have minor issues that could be resolved with a little more money to make the horse rideable.
There are also many senior horses.
In my unprofessional opinion many horses that are supposedly "trained" aren't really that safe to ride. Or people ride them without realizing how much more work the horse needs.
My horse might fall under 2 or maybe 3. He definitely gets work and will get more of it in the summer. but I would most definitely not take him on trails and I likely wouldn't get bucked off riding but I definitely think I would not be all the way in control...

 

I'm on at a barn with 70 horses - of those between 5-10 are usually unrideable- either retired or too young to do anything with yet. Of the remaining 60+ horses; about 40 get rode everyday (not all by me! Whew!) And the rest get rode between 1x a week and 3x a week.

I don't know how that stat fits with the world. But it's the facts at a working/training/breeding facility

 

I have a yearling and 2 yr old that aren't rideable yet. I also have a older mare that is rideable but she's very limited. I rehomed one that was not safe to ride because he was losing vision.

 

By rideable I mean

1. the horse is physically sound enough to do whatever kind of riding is asked of it (even if that's just walking around for 15 minutes once a week or whatever),
2. understands enough cues to be competent at that job (could even be that the horse only knows how to follow another horse on a trail, but that's good enough for the owner), and
3. can mentally handle the job and doesn't act up very often (e.g. doesn't try to buck you off every time you get on).

In my opinion, number 2 and 3 on your list don't count because those are things that can be TRAINED and can be fixed most of the time. It's pretty rare to have a "cray-cray" horse that is untrainable.

So ... maybe you should change your question to "untrainable"??

 

A follow up to the original question is rideable by whom? Can a horse be considered unrideable if the owner is overhorsed or too inexperienced to ride them?

For example, at my last three boarding stables there have been multiple horses that I or another experienced rider could get on and ride, but their owners felt nervous or intimidated and did not ride them.

At my current barn, the only truly unrideable horse is my gelding, retired for joint issues. The other 10 horses are rideable, but only three have actually have been ridden in the past two years. One is mine, one is a friend's, and one horse I rode several times due to her owner being afraid to ride her.

I think the #2 criteria should apply to any horse past the first several rides. It's not difficult to teach a horse basic cues.

With #3, I don't think you could call a horse unrideable just because they were in a job they couldn't handle mentally. A horse might be terrified of cows but make a great dressage horse.

Unfortunately (for their humans) I think there are a ton of horses out there who are normal horses, and act up briefly once in a while. But the owners have not had good teaching on how to handle behaviours that happen when a horse slips out of a coma. Or they only feel comfortable at slow paces. So a lot of horses don't get ridden.

 

I also wonder what the definition of "riding" is. Are the bucking horses in rodeos "rideable"? They're "ridden" a lot by bronc riders. Race horses are rideable by experienced exercise riders and jockeys, but the average amateur pleasure rider probably couldn't "ride" that horse. What about horses that are only ridden at the walk due to physical limitations that make anything above that too stressful but the walking is good for them (arthritis, etc)? What about the copious amount of horses that are technically lame and maybe shouldn't be ridden, but are patched up with injections and NSAIDs and supplements and therapies galore and are still ridden?

My gelding's pasture mate is a 12-year-old OTTB who is as pretty and athletic as they come. She had a pretty decent race career and then passed through a couple of trainers to restart her as a hunter or eventing prospect. One of these people was hard on the mare, flipped her over, and she sustained some damage to her withers and back. She was still "rideable" enough that she did low-level dressage and combined training. She was in obvious pain (based on the expression she made when just the saddle pad was put on her back) and wasn't working to her full potential due to the injury, but she still tried and COULD be ridden. Her owner, once digging into the cause of her issue and discovering the old injury, decided to retire her from being ridden. She got another horse to fulfill her plans for competing and the mare with the back issues lives the life of leisure with my gelding (who lives the live of semi-leisure...gets ridden a couple times a week pretty lightly).

So...would this mare be considered "rideable"? Technically she is. She's broke to ride. She's been ridden successfully. She CAN be ridden. Possibly with a lot of money and time and work, she could be ridden without pain (or at least a lot less pain).But it's in her best interest not to ride her. Or at least that's her owner's opinion. So, where does a horse like her fall in this question? And I think there are probably a LOT of horses that are like this...CAN be ridden but SHOULDN'T be ridden.

It's really subject to the humans to decide what horse is "rideable" and isn't. So, it's kind of an impossible question to answer, IMO.

 

I guess a lot of it IS subjective.

Of my own four horses, two are definitely rideable and in fact Pony NEEDS to be ridden for his own health, otherwise he'll swell up like a giant tick with blubber.

Moonshine I would say is unrideable. I say this even though the vet said that we could probably ride her a little at the walk with a light person on her. But her injury was so severe that I am not willing to do that. If she goes back to being that bad, there is nothing left to do for her and she'll have to be PTS.

Teddy is a lot more complicated. I stopped riding him after he started having just a sort of vague offness when ridden. I had out farriers, the lameness vet, the bodyworker, and the saddle fitter, and ultimately I think the problem was that physically he was extremely asymmetrical, and he would need a lot of really correct and mindful riding to get past that asymmetry. I didn't think I was the person to do that, so I just retired him. So I guess I'd say he's still rideable, or at least he was when I retired him, but to me it wasn't fair to ride him if I couldn't ride him in a way that was going to help him. So I guess you could say he was a horse that his owner couldn't ride. Not a horse that wasn't rideable.

 

I've been thinking about this for a while, and a recent thread had me wondering some more. What percentage of owned horses (meaning not wild horses) would you guess are rideable vs not rideable? I guess I'd also exclude horses that are too young to be ridden.

By rideable I mean

1. the horse is physically sound enough to do whatever kind of riding is asked of it (even if that's just walking around for 15 minutes once a week or whatever),
2. understands enough cues to be competent at that job (could even be that the horse only knows how to follow another horse on a trail, but that's good enough for the owner), and
3. can mentally handle the job and doesn't act up very often (e.g. doesn't try to buck you off every time you get on).

I own 3 horses and all of them are ridable and are ridden a few times a week. I am 80 but I still ride them especially one of them. I board a horse who is 20 and knows nothing and can not be ridden having never been trained. If his owner gets tired of feeding him, he will not come to a good end. I know of a lot of horses that other people have who have not been ridden in years. I don't get that,

 

I would guess it is higher than many perceive it to be simply because of how many subtle lameness go under the radar (or ignored) in my experience. There are great owners that listen to their horses, but the truth is that many don't want to think a riding issue or NQR could be a lameness issue and will not have it investigated due to the expense. Many are also doing lower level work that doesn't manifest the issue in quite the same way. It's perfectly fine to ride a horse with some issues that has been cleared by the vet for some reason or to be careful until an issue is more presentable, quite another with owners who refuse to have the vet investigate and push the horse (I've seen this more than once, unfortunately). I have done lots of catch riding and have put training on people's horses (my own is retired due to a genetic disorder) and I'm going to say the majority have at least a subtle issue that pops up when I start asking the horse to engage in more dressage work. I recognize it because I have experienced it in my own horse and have ridden other horses with diagnosed issues that has helped me start to have a feel for it. When it becomes more persistent, it is a flag for me that something is wrong; however, I can see how many may think it is just the horse "stiff" or misbehaving in those early stages. It's really sad how many owners get upset at me for pointing these things out though when it comes from concern and care. The ones that I did end up walking away from had found the issues later, when they became worse in physical manifestation (one horse even reared another rider off).I always wish myself wrong as there are many scenarios I haven't yet encountered, but I haven't been yet.

SO horses that SHOULDN'T be doing the work they are asked for... higher than perceived. Horses that are very obviously crippled at the walk ... lower. Not sure of the number, but I'd guess at least 15%.

 

Given your definition, I would say most. Those that are too young are a given. Those that are old and retired were probably were ridden at one time. My mare is retired, I could get on her and ride her on flat, clear ground, but it would not be in our best interest, she is lounged every other day or so. She is blind so not even good to be out in the sun or in with other horses. Sadly, most horses that are no longer ridden are euthanized, it is too expensive to keep pasture pets.