controversial?

Very sad post.

Personally I don't agree with L taking on a horse for one season of use as a companion and then having it shot. But then I choose not to eat meat for the same reasons. Really this is no different, animal is used and its life is not considered something of value to be preserved. In fact this horse has probably had a much better life than what is on most plates.

There can't be that many breeders of pacers around can there? (Or at least I certainly don't see many around...) If the old owner doesn't take on the job of care and possibly re-homing the liveries could perhaps try contacting her breeder?

I know when my old share horse was up for sale his old owners and breeders were interested (at least in making sure he found a good home).

Wishing the mare a good outcome and if not at least a good end. Possibly the liveries could have a whip-round for the difference between having her go to the abattoir (assuming that is what L has lined up) and having her PTS/removed from her own home if no new home can be found.
 
On the surface this sounds like a nice idea Tickles but in reality I can see this turning into a real mess. the liveries shouldnt have got involved in the first place and to now try and bring the old owner or breeder into the situation as well is only going to cause more bad feeling and complicate things even more. Everyone apart from L needs to step back from this because in the end the mre IS going to end up suffering....she is on the slippery slope to being passed from place to place already.
 
Having just received a leaflet from Redwings about ponies they have rescued in appalling condition and are having to pay for expensive vetinary treatment, there is no way horse charities can take on horses for rehoming that are not desperate welfare cases. The liveries should put their money where their mouths are
 
alma said:
Having just received a leaflet from Redwings about ponies they have rescued in appalling condition and are having to pay for expensive vetinary treatment, there is no way horse charities can take on horses for rehoming that are not desperate welfare cases. The liveries should put their money where their mouths are
Click to expand...

Absolutely!

Livery yards can be horrible places, and it isn't nice having people snipe at you, but I feel that L should have had the mare PTS to avoid exactly this type of situation.
However, now the liveries have butted in, they need to back up their actions and do the right thing for the mare, or back the hell off and let L have the deed done herself.

It really gets on my nerves when the fluffies step in and interfere, yet expect others to pick up the financial burden:mad:
 
I agree with you Tickles, it is sad that someone would take on a horse for a short time and when it is no longer of any use just have it shot.

She should not take on a horse like this as a companion unless she was happy that she would be able to keep it long term as it is simply not fair on the horse. She must have known when she took it on that it might be difficult to re-home so if she thought that there was a possibility that her circumstances would change in the near future she should have got a more suitable companion that she could easily rehome and left this mare with her original owner.

I am currently in a similar situation to her old owner, have been approached to take back a horse I sold that has gone lame and that are thinking of re-homing it as a companion (it's 17hh so have told them not a good idea!) currently working with them to try and get the issue sorted with farriers etc but if it comes down to it I would take him back even though I have no space to save him being passed around or PTS.

I don't blame you for staying out of it but don't agree with her being shot either.
 
Lynsey&Smartie said:
I agree with you Tickles, it is sad that someone would take on a horse for a short time and when it is no longer of any use just have it shot.

She should not take on a horse like this as a companion unless she was happy that she would be able to keep it long term as it is simply not fair on the horse. She must have known when she took it on that it might be difficult to re-home so if she thought that there was a possibility that her circumstances would change in the near future she should have got a more suitable companion that she could easily rehome and left this mare with her original owner.

I am currently in a similar situation to her old owner, have been approached to take back a horse I sold that has gone lame and that are thinking of re-homing it as a companion (it's 17hh so have told them not a good idea!) currently working with them to try and get the issue sorted with farriers etc but if it comes down to it I would take him back even though I have no space to save him being passed around or PTS.

I don't blame you for staying out of it but don't agree with her being shot either.
Click to expand...

So, tell me, what is the alternative for this mare?
Go from sale to sale, neglected, unwanted, simply a burden that no one wants all because a few people can't stomach the thought of someone growing a pair and having the mare shot?!
 
I agree with you Tickles, it is sad that someone would take on a horse for a short time and when it is no longer of any use just have it shot.
Click to expand...

Why not look at it conversly??

She has (presumably) given this horse a very good life for the past several months - who knows, perhaps better than previously or potentially had someone else had it.

And as for long term. Well situations change - don't they???

I don't see that this girl has anything to reproach herself for - other than not being quite savvy enough to keep the destruction to herself......
 
It is sad, but then we don't know the full picture. Maybe this L had planned to have her for far longer, maybe her circumstances have changed to force this move, maybe she can now only afford one horse not two. None of us know what is around the next corner after all.
 
I have recently had a horse shot at home. He could be termed healthy, and was fine with calm, consistent and firm handling. However he had health issues, cost a fortune to keep, was unlikely to ever be able to be ridden again due to injury, and in the wrong hands his behaviour could become dangerous. We could not envisage him having a secure future, unless we could commit to keeping him forever. We couldn't. So we had him shot 6 weeks ago.

I do not regret it at all, although it was a terribly sad decision to have to make, it was the best thing all round. The whole procedure was actually quite peaceful.

The worst thing about it actually, is how people have reacted. Some liveries are still not speaking to me, and the others are just slagging me off behind my back. I know we did the right thing, and actually am a bit proud of myself for being brave enough to go through with it (we really loved that horse) but it still is getting to me. I can really sympathise with L, and can understand how she bowed under the pressure.
 
scatty_mare said:
I have recently had a horse shot at home. He could be termed healthy, and was fine with calm, consistent and firm handling. However he had health issues, cost a fortune to keep, was unlikely to ever be able to be ridden again due to injury, and in the wrong hands his behaviour could become dangerous. We could not envisage him having a secure future, unless we could commit to keeping him forever. We couldn't. So we had him shot 6 weeks ago.

I do not regret it at all, although it was a terribly sad decision to have to make, it was the best thing all round. The whole procedure was actually quite peaceful.

The worst thing about it actually, is how people have reacted. Some liveries are still not speaking to me, and the others are just slagging me off behind my back. I know we did the right thing, and actually am a bit proud of myself for being brave enough to go through with it (we really loved that horse) but it still is getting to me. I can really sympathise with L, and can understand how she bowed under the pressure.
Click to expand...


Bravely done - both the decision and posting about it.

I have one who sounds very similar to yours. I have my own land, there are few foreseeable reasons why I won't be able to keep him until the natural end of his days however it is written in my will that if I pre-decease him he is to be shot. He is too unreliable and finds change too difficult to be moved and handled by someone else and he's too much for my husband to cope with.

I wish you happy memories:)
 
*hic* said:
Bravely done - both the decision and posting about it.

I have one who sounds very similar to yours. I have my own land, there are few foreseeable reasons why I won't be able to keep him until the natural end of his days however it is written in my will that if I pre-decease him he is to be shot. He is too unreliable and finds change too difficult to be moved and handled by someone else and he's too much for my husband to cope with.

I wish you happy memories:)
Click to expand...

Thanks *hic*
Sounds like your horse is a very lucky boy to have found you! :)
 
It's a shame that horses are treated so materially. Not so many people take their dogs to the vet to be PTS because they don't want them any more. I guess they abandon them though. Personally, I could never have a healthy horse PTS unless it was dangerous. I'm not keen on shooting them either. Much prefer injection as I've heard too many horror stories about shootings going terribly wrong. There are horror stories about injection too, but it's improved so much over the years that it seems very rare now.
 
scatty_mare said:
I have recently had a horse shot at home. He could be termed healthy, and was fine with calm, consistent and firm handling. However he had health issues, cost a fortune to keep, was unlikely to ever be able to be ridden again due to injury, and in the wrong hands his behaviour could become dangerous. We could not envisage him having a secure future, unless we could commit to keeping him forever. We couldn't. So we had him shot 6 weeks ago.

I do not regret it at all, although it was a terribly sad decision to have to make, it was the best thing all round. The whole procedure was actually quite peaceful.

The worst thing about it actually, is how people have reacted. Some liveries are still not speaking to me, and the others are just slagging me off behind my back. I know we did the right thing, and actually am a bit proud of myself for being brave enough to go through with it (we really loved that horse) but it still is getting to me. I can really sympathise with L, and can understand how she bowed under the pressure.
Click to expand...

Well done you! Why do others assume this is an easy option? Why is it "treating horses materially"? Horses are not dogs, they cost so much more, need much more specialist handling and are much harder to rehome. When we put a horse down a few years ago I had people offering to have him "if you don't want him". They admitted though that they could not afford to buy another one for themselves - WTF - he was not sound, he was a high maintainance TB who was 8 years old. He needed to be PTS as he was uncomfortable. If they couldn't afford to buy one how were they going to pay his vets bills? The 12yo we lost this year was a paddock ornament for 2 years but to allow this my daughter had to decide to not have a riding horse for his lifetime. This was her personal decision but she did not make it easily and misses riding terribly sometimes. He would never have gone as a companion - he was another high maintainance, stressy TB with multiple issues with feet and colic. He was difficult to handle especially if you did not know him - we loved him - but my goodness it was hard work. I think people do not understand the commitment involved in caring for this kind of horse - and circumstances change sometimes so if you cannot commit then PTS is the safest option.
 
Seems to me the owner was being responsible, if the mare is pottery and has other problems I'm afraid it's probably the best decision for her.
What is better, a kind, swift end or being passed from pillar to post?
The world is full of horses like her and some are lucky enough to end up with happy lives despite not having any ridden or breeding use, for the others I'd rather see them euthanised than go hungry/thirsty or cold.
 
Liveries should not have got involved unless they had the balls and cash to carry this through until the end. It is all well and good having well meaning thoughts and ideas in principle but especially when it involves more than one person and was probably an idea based upon a whim then it could end up with disastrous consequences for the said horse.
I don't think most horse owners truly like the idea of having a healthy animal pts.
We are not all bunny huggers, but we don't have to be. We DO though have to be pragmatic about choices that we make. It is all well and good making decisions that we think are in the best interest of the horse but is it?
Unless someone can truly offer this mare a loving and permanent home for life then they should butt out and let the owner do what they were planning to do in the first place.
As other people have said there are worse things than death for a horse.
I happen to think that being passed around from pillar to post or facing an uncertain future is worse for a horse than a humane end to its life.
I used to think a lot like a few people on this thread that life means life and all that and that all life should be preserved. However none of us truly know what is around the corner and well thought out plans can go do down the pan at any time if our circumstances change for the worse.
So unless a permanent home can be found for the mare and not as a broodmare either!
Then the mare should be pts.

I do have a few reservations about why the horse was bought in the first place because as someone has already said there may have other ways around the issue with the other horse being in for winter and another solution could have been arranged than just buying a companion horse. However as I don't know the person and don't know the full details it is perhaps not fair of me to comment on this issue as there well may have been good intentions and their circumstances may have changed. At least the new owner was thinking long term about the mare when she was arranging to be pts than to pass around and for that I do give them credit.
 
Re the different attitude to dogs - how many thousands get put down by dogs homes each year because they are not re-homeable? Wouldn't it be better to do it before they got carted off to a strange place because they have just been dumped (either in the street or by handing over directly IMO it's the same thing)?
 
I would never buy a horse that wasn't 'for life'. I have had 3 PTS - all for medical emergencies (2 fractures and 1 colic). But that is just me. We all have different attitudes and people's circumstances can change so that they are no longer financially or physically able to take care of a horse.
 
hairycob said:
Re the different attitude to dogs - how many thousands get put down by dogs homes each year because they are not re-homeable? Wouldn't it be better to do it before they got carted off to a strange place because they have just been dumped (either in the street or by handing over directly IMO it's the same thing)?
Click to expand...

A very good point. Like horses, in some circumstances a dog is far better off pts at home rather than placed in rescue kennels with little chance of rehoming. People put them in rescue because they "love" them too much to pts, but don't think of the poor confused dog in kennels for months or even the rest of its life.:(
 
misst said:
When we put a horse down a few years ago I had people offering to have him "if you don't want him". They admitted though that they could not afford to buy another one for themselves - WTF - he was not sound, he was a high maintainance TB who was 8 years old.
Click to expand...

What do you think he would have chosen though? Death, or to be given a chance? I was in the situation of not being able to afford another horse a couple of years ago because my mare had broken her shoulder and was permanently lame. I loved her so much and she was very comfortable and happy so I decided not to PTS an keep her as a pet. She is not the easiest horse (lots of blood!), and costs a lot, is stabled in winter etc but there was no doubt at all in my mind that she would want to live. Trouble was, I could not therefore claim the £8k she was insured for and was left with no riding horse. All my money was poured into running the livery and the upkeep of the horses. But I could give a horse a 5 star home at a luxury yard, so I took on a loan horse WVTB and bought him a year later when I had some spare cash. If I couldn't buy him then I would have loaned him long term. So don't assume tat just because people can't afford the outlay to buy a horse, that they are not in a position to meet the day to day costs. :)
 
What do you think he would have chosen though?
Click to expand...

Oh dear Wagtail - another who likes to anthropomorphise animals.......

You are clearly a caring person - who presumably has their own facillities in which to keep an ever growing population of sick and needy horses. Which is just wonderful.

Most don't - and many of the considerations about destruction have to include the finances of those involved.

It's all very well to say 'I would never have a healthy horse put down' - but people's definition of 'healthy' seems to vary considerably - as can be seen by some of the responses to this post.

I would argue that in most cases it is never irresponsible to put an animal down - especially if the future they face is uncertain.

Out of interest Wagtail what would you do with the horse??
 
Wagtail said:
What do you think he would have chosen though? Death, or to be given a chance? I was in the situation of not being able to afford another horse a couple of years ago because my mare had broken her shoulder and was permanently lame. I loved her so much and she was very comfortable and happy so I decided not to PTS an keep her as a pet. She is not the easiest horse (lots of blood!), and costs a lot, is stabled in winter etc but there was no doubt at all in my mind that she would want to live. Trouble was, I could not therefore claim the £8k she was insured for and was left with no riding horse. All my money was poured into running the livery and the upkeep of the horses. But I could give a horse a 5 star home at a luxury yard, so I took on a loan horse WVTB and bought him a year later when I had some spare cash. If I couldn't buy him then I would have loaned him long term. So don't assume tat just because people can't afford the outlay to buy a horse, that they are not in a position to meet the day to day costs. :)
Click to expand...


In certain cases such as yours that might well be true, but I would have to say that rehoming a lame high maintenance horse to somebody who can't afford to buy IS irresponsible, if they can't meet the day to day costs then the horses welfare could be compromised.
As plenty of others have said when you are in the situation of good sound well behaved horses being taken to the knackers because nobody wants them, then realistically the future for lame or horses with problems is pretty bleak.
You only need to see some of the sights at sale rings to realise that being kept alive can be a horse's worst nightmare, life should be based on quality not quantity and a market flooded with unwanted horses isn't where I'd want mine to end up.
 
I don't believe horses make such choices as "death or be given a chance", they just live for each day. We have 3 retirees here and one rideable horse, it is likely when he too has to be retired we will not have funds or space for another, but this lot will stay until the end of their days. However if they became seriously lame or in any other way unhealthy they would be pts. I had a WHW mare who had arthritis, for many years she was kept pretty sound on low dose bute, but once she became permanently lame she was pts. Unlike your mare she was not comfortable, but was struggling and together with the WHW field officer the decision was made to let her go.

ETS. If our circumstances changed, and we were unable to keep the horses or find them local loan homes, they would be pts, even if healthy. They all have quirks and would be candidates to be moved on from pillar to post, I would far rather I knew their end.
 
Last edited:
amymay said:
Oh dear Wagtail - another who likes to anthropomorphise animals.......

You are clearly a caring person - who presumably has their own facillities in which to keep an ever growing population of sick and needy horses. Which is just wonderful.

Most don't - and many of the considerations about destruction have to include the finances of those involved.

It's all very well to say 'I would never have a healthy horse put down' - but people's definition of 'healthy' seems to vary considerably - as can be seen by some of the responses to this post.

I would argue that in most cases it is never irresponsible to put an animal down - especially if the future they face is uncertain.

Out of interest Wagtail what would you do with the horse??
Click to expand...

Oh dear amymay another peson who feels animals have little importance in life other than to please humans. :rolleyes:

In answer to your question, if I had the resources as I do, I would take care of the horse and only PTS if I thought his life wasn't worth living. The thing is, I would not buy a horse in the first place that I could not make a commitment like that to, barring financial or physical disaster of course. But as I say, that is just me. I appreciate that others take a different view.
 
MurphysMinder said:
I don't believe horses make such choices as "death or be given a chance", they just live for each day. We have 3 retirees here and one rideable horse, it is likely when he too has to be retired we will not have funds or space for another, but this lot will stay until the end of their days. However if they became seriously lame or in any other way unhealthy they would be pts. I had a WHW mare who had arthritis, for many years she was kept pretty sound on low dose bute, but once she became permanently lame she was pts. Unlike your mare she was not comfortable, but was struggling and together with the WHW field officer the decision was made to let her go.

ETS. If our circumstances changed, and we were unable to keep the horses or find them local loan homes, they would be pts, even if healthy. They all have quirks and would be candidates to be moved on from pillar to post, I would far rather I knew their end.
Click to expand...

You are quite right. Of course horse don't make life or death choices, which is why we do it for them. In doing this, I try to make the decision from their POV not my own. Your horses are lucky to have such a caring owner as you.
 
Wagtail said:
Oh dear amymay another peson who feels animals have little importance in life other than to please humans. :rolleyes:

In answer to your question, if I had the resources as I do, I would take care of the horse and only PTS if I thought his life wasn't worth living. The thing is, I would not buy a horse in the first place that I could not make a commitment like that to, barring financial or physical disaster of course. But as I say, that is just me. I appreciate that others take a different view.
Click to expand...

I think animals have huge importance - hence my stance on destruction. But that's a debate for another day.

You may not buy a horse that you could not commit to for life (but obviously nothing in life is certain - and who knows even your circumstances could change one day). However, in many cases horses are not bought for life. But are quite often passing experiences in our life.

So, baring in mind that a lot of people don't buy for life, what should this lady do for this horse?
 
Hmmm, yes you would only buy or take on a horse if you could make that commitment, but there are sadly others who don't take that commitment into consideration and we end up with neglected horses often left in pain, just because they had the misfortune to end up in the wrong home.

Mine will be cared for until the end of her days, however if the time came that we were struggling too much financially or she was in constant pain then I would make the decision to pts.
At rising eighteen, prone to laminitis and with a few sarcoids, I wouldn't rate her chances of finding a good home and once she went I would have no cvontrol over what happens to her, and under those circumstances I think pts would be the kindest thing for her. Nothing to do with her not having importance in my life, in fact the complete opposite. :)
 
touchstone said:
Hmmm, yes you would only buy or take on a horse if you could make that commitment, but there are sadly others who don't take that commitment into consideration and we end up with neglected horses often left in pain, just because they had the misfortune to end up in the wrong home.

Mine will be cared for until the end of her days, however if the time came that we were struggling too much financially or she was in constant pain then I would make the decision to pts.
At rising eighteen, prone to laminitis and with a few sarcoids, I wouldn't rate her chances of finding a good home and once she went I would have no cvontrol over what happens to her, and under those circumstances I think pts would be the kindest thing for her. Nothing to do with her not having importance in my life, in fact the complete opposite. :)
Click to expand...

I would be exactly the same. I know a day might come when my mare is not so comfortable as she is now, and when her very lame days might become more frequent so that she becomes miserable. I am dreading it, but I would never keep a horse alive that I thought was suffering. For now though, she is more than happy and I do clicker training with her to keep her very intelligent mind ticking over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top