Haven't visited this newsgroup in a while, but I have a good reason for
checking out the "fat butt" stories.
I'm a little disturbed by some of the suggestions that excess weight on the
part of the rider may be harmful to the horse. I find this offensive.
I have a saddle-broke Clydesdale and two saddle-broke standardbreds. The
Clyde, obviously is heavy and strong, and is not troubled by the fact that
although my drivers' license puts me at 180, my real weight is likely nearer
300. The standardbreds are another matter, and I bring them and their
history up because I just find weight limits so discriminatory and
unneccesary. One of the STBs, Sylvester, came to me off a meat truck. His
feet and legs were so bad that he could barely carry his own weight while
racing. With corrective shoeing and a bit of rest, he now carries me just
about anywhere I want to go, for as long as I want to go there, and has no
problems. The other STB is a mare, much lighter and more delicate than
Sylvester, and her problems were much like his, although even more severe.
When she came off the track, she couldn't hold a 100-pound rider without
falling, let alone me. Again, with corrective shoeing, she's more than
enough horse to carry me.
If there's a problem with a horse holding a heavy person, look to the care
the horse has had. It's probably going to have trouble with a light person
as well. I think a sound horse of almost any size can hold a rider of almost
any size. If I can bring back a horse that can't hold any rider, and have it
hold me, then I have to say that trail ride providers who place weight
limits likely have less of a problem with the condition of the rider than
they have with the condition of their horses and with their own attitudes
toward fat people.
Us "big folks" have enough trouble without arbitrary and discriminatory
weight limits. People, lighten up! God knows we're trying to.