A question for you all regarding equine rescue centres

LauraBR

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 December 2004
Messages
14,187
Location
Leicestershire
Visit site
I have read many threads on here over the years (several of them fairly recently) which have got me pondering- what consistutes potential rescue centre horse material?

For example... say an owner is genuinely no longer able to keep their unrideable but otherwise healthy and happy horse (who for one reason or another is not suitable as a companion) for financial reasons... the view of many HHO folk seems to usually be that the owner should make the responsible choice and PTS rather than burden already full to the brim rescue centres.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I do wonder- if a horse who is going to lose his life through no fault of his own does not 'qualify' in the minds of many because said horse has an owner 'responsible enough' to PTS rather than pass the 'problem' on... then what DOES constitute a proper rescue centre case?

Obviously if we lived in a perfect world rescue centres would welcome every horse in need with open arms but this is the real world and clearly they must prioritise and work within their means. Each rescue centre has it's own criteria I expect dependant on space and funding and all kinds of other circustances but I'm just curious as to what the good people of HHO would consider as the line between rescue case/not rescue case?

What would consitute a proper rescue case worth contacting a rescue centre about possible homing with them in your eyes?
 

Skhosu

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 May 2006
Messages
8,193
Visit site
Ones that people dump sadly, I think any potential PTS case is worth contacting them about.
Sad to say, a horse tied to their gates will get the attention regardless of back issues (it will likely be kept forever/loaned as a companion AFAIK-if the rescue centres can do this why cant your average owner??) but a phone call won't..
 

ladyt25

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 November 2007
Messages
7,792
Location
Leeds
Visit site
Personally when i take on a horse I intend to keep it til the time comes basically and i feel that is my responsibility as a horse owner (as I would be the same with my dog/cat etc). Obviously people do sell on horses more than cats or dogs, but if for some reason my horse became permanently lame or ill such as it could not be ridden then i would just let it live out its days.

Now, we are lucky as we have our own land so do not have to pay livery. I do understand people who have to pay livery etc may not be able to afford to keep a 'broken' horse and be able to buy a new one they can ride. However, part of me thinks this is somethin g that person should have considered and budgeted for in the first place. i don't believe in passing on a problem to someone else.

I think if say the owner of of a horse has died/been injured/become ill so can no longer care for the horse then that could constitute a rescue case if the owner did not wasn't to sell the horse. Also horses that are subject to cruelty cases (although i would think they are actually a minority of the ones in there).

I don't actually know for what reasons horses do end up in rescue cases and it does sadden me when people decide the horse is of no 'use' and it wouldn't be a suitable companion (where do they get that idea from??!) so elect to have it put to sleep instead. I think every animal deserves to life out it's life so, unless it's in severe pain or is suffering behavioural/ mental problem that make it dangerous to itself and others I think let the horse be a horse.

It amazes me sometimes how arrogant people can be about the care of their horse. I know of someone who had their horse put down because they didn't want it anymore but didn't feel anyone else could look after it as well as them - what kind of warped mindset is that!!?

Ideally no horse should end up in a rescue centre and I think many of them end up there because their owners have not got the finances to keep them.
 

xnaughtybutnicex

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 July 2008
Messages
2,320
Visit site
We weren't sure if my horse was going to become sound and if she didn't we would have put her out at grass. If someone can't afford to look after the horse anymore and can't give it all the care needed I think centres should take them before they end up with overgrown feet and underweight.
 

scotsmare

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 May 2008
Messages
9,332
Location
Scotland
www.creativewritingforaliving.co.uk
A nice idea in theory but having been told in no uncertain terms by the then ILPH that if I was unable to look after my lame loan horse (the owner told me to get rid as she didn't want it) then I should have it PTS. Apparently the fact that she did not have sufficient remedial needs meant they were not interested.
 

Happy Horse

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 July 2001
Messages
5,784
Location
Sussex
community.webshots.com
I think often rescue centers are seen as the cheap alternative for horses which need specialist veterinary or psychological attention that the owner can't give. While they will take on horses which have been abandoned and do what they can for them they can't commit to a lifetime of veterinary care or risk to their staff any more than an owner can so the outcome is likely to be the same.
 

xnaughtybutnicex

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 July 2008
Messages
2,320
Visit site
What about somewhere like redwings though SM?? They don't loan their horses out to be ridden. ILPH try to loan out as many horses as possible so are looking for ones that will hopefully be able to be ridden eventually.
 

LauraBR

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 December 2004
Messages
14,187
Location
Leicestershire
Visit site
[ QUOTE ]
A nice idea in theory but having been told in no uncertain terms by the then ILPH that if I was unable to look after my lame loan horse (the owner told me to get rid as she didn't want it) then I should have it PTS. Apparently the fact that she did not have sufficient remedial needs meant they were not interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did they elaborate re what kind of remedial needs the horse would need to have??
confused.gif
 

LauraBR

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 December 2004
Messages
14,187
Location
Leicestershire
Visit site
[ QUOTE ]
however, part of me thinks this is somethin g that person should have considered and budgeted for in the first place. i don't believe in passing on a problem to someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I share this view, although I think I would lump 'unexpected job loss' in with the ill/died exclusions perhaps... and I sadly think that more people are going to find themselves stuck with horses they can neither sell or afford to keep as the financial situation deepens.
frown.gif
 

scotsmare

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 May 2008
Messages
9,332
Location
Scotland
www.creativewritingforaliving.co.uk
Back in August when I was trying sort out somewhere safe for the lame loan horse to go, I was told by the ILPH they had a massive waiting list of approx 6 - 7 months long and that they were only taking in those with remedial needs - they weren't (and still aren't) taking in horses that can't be kept for financial reasons / dead aunties and the like.

The lame loan horse had previously done a suspensory, needed some remedial shoeing to sort out low heels (which had been started) and probably had about 6 - 8 months of treatment to go before she would have been ok as a hack - hence why the ILPH seemed like a good idea as she could have gone on to a monitored home who wouldn't (or shouldn't) be able to thrash her.
 

LauraBR

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 December 2004
Messages
14,187
Location
Leicestershire
Visit site
[ QUOTE ]
I was told by the ILPH they had a massive waiting list of approx 6 - 7 months long and that they were only taking in those with remedial needs - they weren't (and still aren't) taking in horses that can't be kept for financial reasons / dead aunties and the like.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because those kinds of horses could be sold?
 

Shannagolden

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 January 2008
Messages
237
Visit site
TBH I would prioritize the young sound but neglected/unhandled ones. At least they could go on and have useful lives. It's very sad if an old or lame but otherwise healthy horse has to be pts but there are so many horses around.. I think its sad that alot of youngsters find their way to the meat yard before they ever had a chance. If charitys and the nation as a whole were less sentimental there would perhaps be less young/sound or otherwise potentially useful horses getting passed from sale to sale and back again.
 

Maesfen

Extremely Old Nag!
Joined
20 June 2005
Messages
16,720
Location
Wynnstay - the Best!
photobucket.com
[ QUOTE ]
TBH I would prioritize the young sound but neglected/unhandled ones. At least they could go on and have useful lives. It's very sad if an old or lame but otherwise healthy horse has to be pts but there are so many horses around.. I think its sad that alot of youngsters find their way to the meat yard before they ever had a chance. If charitys and the nation as a whole were less sentimental there would perhaps be less young/sound or otherwise potentially useful horses getting passed from sale to sale and back again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree with this I think but it's hard to know exactly where to draw the line.

Simply for someone who can't afford to keep a horse any longer then they have a duty to do something about it themselves, that is not what the charities are there for IMO. If that means loaning, selling or putting down if neither of those options are viable, so be it, but they should face up to their responsibilities, not pass the buck.
Welfare charities do not have bottomless buckets, they should not be expected to clear up the mess from perfectly capable owners who can't face up to their own responsibilities.
 
Top