rosie fronfelen
Well-Known Member
i agree with you there, no such thing as kissing spines years ago, and i do tend to agree with your saddle theory.
Free to good home? Why so many unwanted horses??
- Thread starter Montyforever
- Start date
i agree with you there, no such thing as kissing spines years ago, and i do tend to agree with your saddle theory.
siennamum
Well-Known Member
We had a pony with 'arthritis' in her neck 30 years ago, which was clearly kissing spines, it just wasn't called kissing spines. We could only ever afford horses with behavioural issues so I saw lots with problems which now would be acknowledged as physical. Back then they were classed as buckers, rearers, nappers and always considered just plain naughty rather than in pain.
Horses didn't get the range of physical issues they have now, in part I think because they were pts if they had a porblem and were far less likely to make old bones. Also it was acceptable for a horse to have some physical issues. My first pony had tendon problems, after she recovered we bought her (for £25)she was still expected to work. They weren't vetted anywhere like as stringently as they are now and horses had successful careers with al manner of physical problems.
Horses were often hunting at the end of their 3rd year and certainly did more as 4 year olds imo, not sure where the theory comes from that they did less. My mum is horrified at how slowly I'm taking my 4 year old. The two main differences I see now are that riders are bigger - I was able to use my one 16 inch medium saddle on all horses & ponies as I only weighed 8 stone. There are far more porky people riding these days (& I include myself in that) Also Horses were allowed to finish growing and get balance & musculature before they were put in an unnatural head carriage and asked to work really hard across their backs.
I don't recall anything much going on the bit till it was about 6. My trainer was a list 1 judge and we certainly didn't really focus (in the 70's) on head carriage. Now horses are put in side reins and made to go on the bit before they are backed and then their heads stay low through their 3rd & 4th year. They should be allowed to move their heads freely to muscle up as nature intended when they are babies. (just my personal no doubt eccentric view!)
Horses didn't get the range of physical issues they have now, in part I think because they were pts if they had a porblem and were far less likely to make old bones. Also it was acceptable for a horse to have some physical issues. My first pony had tendon problems, after she recovered we bought her (for £25)she was still expected to work. They weren't vetted anywhere like as stringently as they are now and horses had successful careers with al manner of physical problems.
Horses were often hunting at the end of their 3rd year and certainly did more as 4 year olds imo, not sure where the theory comes from that they did less. My mum is horrified at how slowly I'm taking my 4 year old. The two main differences I see now are that riders are bigger - I was able to use my one 16 inch medium saddle on all horses & ponies as I only weighed 8 stone. There are far more porky people riding these days (& I include myself in that) Also Horses were allowed to finish growing and get balance & musculature before they were put in an unnatural head carriage and asked to work really hard across their backs.
I don't recall anything much going on the bit till it was about 6. My trainer was a list 1 judge and we certainly didn't really focus (in the 70's) on head carriage. Now horses are put in side reins and made to go on the bit before they are backed and then their heads stay low through their 3rd & 4th year. They should be allowed to move their heads freely to muscle up as nature intended when they are babies. (just my personal no doubt eccentric view!)
Last edited:
pedilia
Well-Known Member
I think there are many horse owners who don't want to accept the respnsibilty of their horses once they have reached the end of their working life, I think its appalling.
My TB was officialy retired yesterday, he will live out his days with me. If I am ever in a position that i can no longer keeo him or he is in to much pain then I will have him pts. My other TB has back issues (kissing spine has been mentioned by two seperate vets) e is going into the vet school next week for tests.
So I currently have nothing rideable but I owe it to both of them to make them right, I took them on as my responsibilty and that doesn't end just because they can't do their original job.
My TB was officialy retired yesterday, he will live out his days with me. If I am ever in a position that i can no longer keeo him or he is in to much pain then I will have him pts. My other TB has back issues (kissing spine has been mentioned by two seperate vets) e is going into the vet school next week for tests.
So I currently have nothing rideable but I owe it to both of them to make them right, I took them on as my responsibilty and that doesn't end just because they can't do their original job.
Alibear
Well-Known Member
Someone mentioned giving to a sanctuary.
They're all full no sanctuary will take a horse with health issues, they will advise you that the best thing you can do is PTS.
I have one fully retired chap and one chap in light work, neither will go anywhere other than PTS if I can't keep them anymore. Yes I feel guilty about it but I also truly believe there is no better option for either of them.
Seen too many companions go missing whether given away free or out on loan etc.
This is a lesson I have learnt over many years and freely admit I made some naieve/cowardly choices in the past.
They're all full no sanctuary will take a horse with health issues, they will advise you that the best thing you can do is PTS.
I have one fully retired chap and one chap in light work, neither will go anywhere other than PTS if I can't keep them anymore. Yes I feel guilty about it but I also truly believe there is no better option for either of them.
Seen too many companions go missing whether given away free or out on loan etc.
This is a lesson I have learnt over many years and freely admit I made some naieve/cowardly choices in the past.
Tinseltoes
Well-Known Member
I know 2 horses with WOBBLERS.
BBH
Well-Known Member
I was conned by a dealer years ago and have had a years worth of intermittent riding out of a horse I have owned 16 yrs.
He was retired circa 15 years ago as couldn't be ridden but was paddock sound. So he became an expensive field ornament ( 16'3" TB ).
I am having him PTS before the winter as he is feeling his legs, dropping weight and generally grumpy whereas he used to be a saint. I don't think he or I want another winter and It wouldn't even enter my mind to offer to give him away.
He was retired circa 15 years ago as couldn't be ridden but was paddock sound. So he became an expensive field ornament ( 16'3" TB ).
I am having him PTS before the winter as he is feeling his legs, dropping weight and generally grumpy whereas he used to be a saint. I don't think he or I want another winter and It wouldn't even enter my mind to offer to give him away.
marmalade76
Well-Known Member
I totally agree with this.
But does anyone else think that the reason so many people want to give thier unrideable horses away is partly due to the costs involved with having them PTS? I recently had to have my horse PTS sadly and I chose to have the hunt do it. I assume that this is one of the cheapest options, but still cost £100 plus VAT.
fjordhorsefan
Well-Known Member
So true!
BBH
Well-Known Member
Yes i've been shocked at the cost, for someone who can't afford to feed their animal the costs of nearly £400 in my case ( by a vet ) must be enough to make you want to tie it to a gatepost at a welfare site or as you say give it away.
Flame_
Well-Known Member
4 reasons I can think of
1. A growing number of fluffy bunnies who have a problem with pts horses with no use and no value.
2. Over-breeding and over-importing in the economic climate.
3. A growth in the popularity of keeping horses at livery. Horses aren't now just for people with their own land, and for them, what to do with a useless horse is usually a bigger, more expensive, pressing problem.
4. Changing attitudes of vets to encourage owners to treat everything, even if it will only leave them with a hack/field ornament at the end. In the past it would have been pts at the incidence of illness or injury, now its treated and owner ends up landed with horse that can't do the job.
1. A growing number of fluffy bunnies who have a problem with pts horses with no use and no value.
2. Over-breeding and over-importing in the economic climate.
3. A growth in the popularity of keeping horses at livery. Horses aren't now just for people with their own land, and for them, what to do with a useless horse is usually a bigger, more expensive, pressing problem.
4. Changing attitudes of vets to encourage owners to treat everything, even if it will only leave them with a hack/field ornament at the end. In the past it would have been pts at the incidence of illness or injury, now its treated and owner ends up landed with horse that can't do the job.
TarrSteps
Well-Known Member
Re the "there didn't used to be kissing spines" comments - I have a training book from something like 1930 with a history of a horse with a "behavioural problem" followed up by an account of its autopsy and the massive arthritic changes in its spine. The major difference now seems to be diagnostic, although there is some evidence that as we're breeding more for athleticism and more people expect more from even quite ordinary horses, we are increasing the risks.
On the saddle subject, you did used to see horses quite regularly with white marks/scars, even fistulous withers, from badly fitting saddles, even in competition homes. It's been years since I've seen such a thing.
Horses in the old pony books were always foundering, dying of tetanus and getting things we now consider extreme so I'm not totally buying the idea all horses lived long and happy lives in the old days.
I think we were just a bit more realistic about dealing with the problems that cropped up.
What has changed is the idea that we are obligated do everything possible for every possible situation, complicated by the fact that the list of things we CAN do gets longer - and more expensive - every day. Add in the expectation the we can "fix" every problem back to "pre damage" levels with money and effort. People did used to be a lot more realistic about the progosis for unsound/old/damaged horses but there's now so much pressure to "do something" people who have a less than agricultural background think pts is evil rather than occaisionally necessary.
I think the current issues are largely economic - too many people are living too close to the line. Coupled with the idea that it's now "bad horsemanship" to admit defeat with an aging/ill horse, and you end up with a lot of people racking up huge bills to keep horses they could barely affored even if they were healthy.
On the saddle subject, you did used to see horses quite regularly with white marks/scars, even fistulous withers, from badly fitting saddles, even in competition homes. It's been years since I've seen such a thing.
Horses in the old pony books were always foundering, dying of tetanus and getting things we now consider extreme so I'm not totally buying the idea all horses lived long and happy lives in the old days.
I think we were just a bit more realistic about dealing with the problems that cropped up.What has changed is the idea that we are obligated do everything possible for every possible situation, complicated by the fact that the list of things we CAN do gets longer - and more expensive - every day. Add in the expectation the we can "fix" every problem back to "pre damage" levels with money and effort. People did used to be a lot more realistic about the progosis for unsound/old/damaged horses but there's now so much pressure to "do something" people who have a less than agricultural background think pts is evil rather than occaisionally necessary.
I think the current issues are largely economic - too many people are living too close to the line. Coupled with the idea that it's now "bad horsemanship" to admit defeat with an aging/ill horse, and you end up with a lot of people racking up huge bills to keep horses they could barely affored even if they were healthy.
Flicker
Well-Known Member
When I was a kid we had both my (retired and unrideable) horses at home and that was great until my parents decided to get a divorce and sell off the house and land. Putting down two otherwise healthy horses would have added to the trauma of the whole situation and we advertised them as 'free to good home' and found a family who needed a 5 acre paddock grazing as their old and beloved pony had just died. We sent them there and had regular updates on their progress, including the very sad day the TB went to sleep and didn't wake up again. As far as I'm aware, the pony lived out the rest of her days terrorising the new arrival they got to replace the TB.
I sold my mare to her new owner for very little money as a companion / hack, but again vetted the owner very, very carefully (having had about 20 people come and see the horse). My farrier regularly reports on her progress to me, I am free to visit whenever I want, and I am happy in the knowledge that she's living the life of riley.
Sometimes circumstances change and we unfortunately have to make a decision about the welfare of our horses. I think that a little time should be taken to thoroughly vet and research the new home, irrespective of price or what you are selling the animal as fit to do.
My lad's old owner sold him to me because he is such a jumping machine and generally wonderfully natured horse that she was scared he would be taken advantage of in a competition home and wanted him to go somewhere that would give him a bit of a quieter life.
So it cuts both ways really.
I sold my mare to her new owner for very little money as a companion / hack, but again vetted the owner very, very carefully (having had about 20 people come and see the horse). My farrier regularly reports on her progress to me, I am free to visit whenever I want, and I am happy in the knowledge that she's living the life of riley.
Sometimes circumstances change and we unfortunately have to make a decision about the welfare of our horses. I think that a little time should be taken to thoroughly vet and research the new home, irrespective of price or what you are selling the animal as fit to do.
My lad's old owner sold him to me because he is such a jumping machine and generally wonderfully natured horse that she was scared he would be taken advantage of in a competition home and wanted him to go somewhere that would give him a bit of a quieter life.
So it cuts both ways really.
Happy Horse
Well-Known Member
Sanctuarys have more than enough residents with those rescued from neglect without having extras dumped on them just because the owner doesn't want them any more. If you are not prepared to accept financial responsibility for your horse until the end of it's natural life then you should either not buy one, have it put to sleep if you can't afford to keep it or don't want it any more or pay to keep it yourself as a companion.
Sanctuaries are not there as a cheap dumping ground for unwanted horses. This makes me so cross!
cbmcts
Well-Known Member
I have 2 retirees - one who bust his tendon and has never stayed sound even in very light work, he also has other issues that didn't help- he's 19.
The other is only 14 and has been retired for the last 5 years because of behavioural problems but is in perfect physical health.
Now, there is no way I can afford a 3rd horse so I can ride so I have effectively given up riding which is heartbreaking but not a lot I can do about it. If I can't afford to keep mine as they are they will be PTS certainly not passed on for any reason, they are my responsibility, nobody elses!
However, while I wouldn't condemn who did PTS so they could have a riding horse, I just can't do it
The other is only 14 and has been retired for the last 5 years because of behavioural problems but is in perfect physical health.
Now, there is no way I can afford a 3rd horse so I can ride so I have effectively given up riding which is heartbreaking but not a lot I can do about it. If I can't afford to keep mine as they are they will be PTS certainly not passed on for any reason, they are my responsibility, nobody elses!
However, while I wouldn't condemn who did PTS so they could have a riding horse, I just can't do it
yaddowshad
Well-Known Member
The amount of cases of back problems seem more now as more people have horses now than they did 25 years ago. 25 years ago it was mostly people in the country or like me lived on a farm that had horses. We were brought up with them and didnt just get them for trophy purposes like so many do now. You will all know of people who have horses now that know sod all about them and just stick any cheap tack on them regardless of fit, Im not going to rant on but it makes me incredibly angry as i work for a large rescue organisation which sees this all the time. Horses are not a status symbol, they dont make you look better than you are, infact quite the opposite because if you mistreat them they make you look awful to everyone else.