Advice please - should I have my horse PTS?

I have a 16.3 that is retired through unsoundness. I am in a position to be able to keep him for the moment and he likes being retired. However, I will have him pts when his lameness gets worse. No one wants a big horse as a companion, they want cheap hardy ponies in my experience. Please dont consider trying to sell him as unscrupulous people are many and he could have a very miserable existence. I think you should have him pts, you say he is such a burden and this will make you resent him eventually I think. I have had a horse put down previously and he really didnt know what was going on, I felt terrible for weeks, but he was out of his pain.
 
Call the ILPH (or WHW as they are now called) they will take on horses with issues as described.

ETA: An officer would come out and assess your horse and if they think the horse should be PTS they will say so and no be willing to take the horse on. I know this from experience as my friend went through the process. Her horse had arthritus in his hips, he was 9 and unable to be ridden. Officer arrives after talking with the vet and basically said the most humane thing to do was PTS now before he was in alot of pain.
 
Last edited:
touchstone said:
I think those organisations are probably full, in my opinion if you are unable to care for him and can't find a loaner for him then the kindest thing is to pts.
Click to expand...

Well from actual experience I can assure you they are not. My horse went to the ILPH as he was not safe to sell on and would have ended up in the wrong hands. As I said in my previous post they considered my friends horse also but decided he should be PTS as they could not provide a future for him.
 
But then you've got to ask the question is it really fair to burden sanctuaries with a horse just because it is unrideable? Sanctuaries are there to help out ill treated animals and those at risk, and I think that if you can afford to keep the horse then it shouldn't be foisted onto a charity because you want another one. If we all did that then there would be no places for those in genuine need.
 
I interviewed a few people who run sanctuaries (not naming names), and one recurrent theme was the problem of people wanting them to take over care of horses like this, I'm afraid. They thought you should either PTS or arrange a retirement, instead of handing over responsibility.
May not be true of all rescues, but this was one major one, and another smaller but long established place.
 
Munchkin said:
There may be a perfectly suitable horse coming out of racing that's facing the bullet, but you couldn't offer it a good home because you're keeping something that costs you a fortune and can do nothing with.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. If you can't afford to retire him, he has a back problem and is unsound,so presumably in pain, basically can do very little of anything then nobody else can be expected to keep him either, so pts.
 
This is a very emotive topic and everyone has their own view but personally, I would have the horse PTS.

I have made this terrible decision a couple of times before. The first time was my old schoolmaster who had tendon trouble. We got him sound and fit again but the problem reoccured and the prognosis was poor. He was not the kind of horse that would live out or be a companion or hack, so that made the decision a little easier.

The other horse was a youngerster who I had had from a weanling and had professionally backed. Again, he had lameness issues which mean that he was unlikely to ever come sound again. When he was just 5 years old, I made the heartbreaking decision to have him PTS. I could not face selling him as a companion because I know that he would have ended up with unscrupulous dealers who would have drugged him up and sold him to unsuspecting buyers.

I don't regret having either PTS - although the could have been retired and kept as pets, I want to compete and ride and considering the time and expense of keeping a horse I can only afford one at a time. Therefore, if I had kept either of them I would have made the decision not to ride for the next ten years or so, at least.

I think you are right to investigate every option so you are 100% sure you are making the right decision.
 
Hi

I completely sympathise with your situation. I had a 17hh TB who was sound when not ridden but had back problems that made him dangerous under saddle. He was only 6. We tried for a year to bring him back into work with no success. He was a difficult horse when not being occupied and i had just spent 2yrs nursing my other horse. I spent a fortune and 2 years not being able to ride. I decided to have him PTS. There were many who criticised my decision, but I felt it was kinder to him - he felt no fear and no longer felt any pain. I couldn't guarantee his future as I wanted to be able to ride again and he was not suitable as a companion or riding horse.

Make YOUR decision and feel no guilt, there are worse things for a horse than being pts, and your happiness IS important and YOU are worth considering in this decision.

If you need someone to talk to here, I am here.

T x
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top