Got to be cruel to be kind....

P

putasocinit

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 March 2012
Messages
2,373
Visit site
following on from the thread about cruelty at the abbattoir I felt compelled to raise the issue regarding not enough room at animal sanctuaries because they are full.

I believe in the wild only the fittest survive and it was made this way so that there would be a cycle of life from the smallest ant to the biggest mammal and due to so many more animals being abandoned and rescued over the recent years sanctuaries are now full so there is no room for new ones.

Therefore we have to be cruel to be kind and set an age when all these animals reach a certain age, say 25 years of age, they are humanely PTS, this will allow room for new ones to come in and also older animals will need more veterinary treatment due to infirmities of age so cost more to keep.

I think the biggest problem sanctuaries have now incl the RSPCA and why they don't want to get involved until the very end is because they have no where to put these poor animals so something has to be done to make room.

Am I the only one who thinks this way?
 
Sorry it wouldnt be my pov, my retired horses are my responsibility and my old girl was ridden up until 24 giving me years of fun and learning, the least i can do for them is look after them in their old age after all theyve given me.
Yes peoples circumstances change, take responsibility for your horse and if that means pts as they are unsellable then have the decency to do it rather than pass on to an unknown fate
 
I didn't want to read and run.

I kind of know where you are coming from (I hate that phrase). I do think more people need to take responsibility for their own horses and not pass them on.

I do think setting an age is wrong though, many older horses/ponies have a lot to offer.
 
Janah said:
I do think more people need to take responsibility for their own horses and not pass them on.

I do think setting an age is wrong though, many older horses/ponies have a lot to offer.
Click to expand...

I think the OP setting the age was meant for animals in sanctuaries not for those in loving homes so no worries that Big Brother will come along and shoot your old horse when you're not looking. ;):D

Have to say I agree with OP, I would have done it years ago as it's the only logical way with the upturn in neglected and dumped horses that we are now seeing.

If you want to be Big Brother about it I would be castrating all colts under a certain value and of dubious types, namely gypsy coloureds and Dartmoor Hill Ponies, the Welsh mongrels and so on; I would not be advocating it for any of the rare native breeds, namely the Exmoor, Dartmoor, Fells and Dales but there are so many of the other natives it wouldn't hurt for them to be culled a bit. I'd go so far as to say ALL colts of any denomination should be inspected and if not up to scratch, the emasculators should be out that same day. I'd also limit coverings to any stallions of whatever breed or type. People should have to prove that a colt is decent enough to keep his nuts and it should be inspected several times through it's life both through its own performances and that of his progeny. Loads more could be done but it's getting someone (like DEFRA, Weatherbys and co.) to have the balls to get it done.
 
I think a horse levy will be an effective way to control the problem.

There has to be govt intervention as the charities, societies and boards are not effective enough. The passport system for non-pedigree horses is a complete joke.

Breeding needs regulation and so does ownership.

None of us would like to see a horse-tax being imposed but licensing could contribute a lot more towards horse-ownership than we may think. It would give us greater rights and safeguard vulnerable horses and ponies who at the moment rely almost solely on kind donations which, as we have seen, do not do much to help.
 
I think that the OP was referring to sanctuaries and not an overall ban on keeping a horse over 25 years of age, hopefully anyway.
 
If the passport system had been introduced correctly, then this problem would not have existed in the first place. However the passport system was not administered in any sort of sensible fashion and was innefective, with the demise of NED there is now no point whatsover in having the passports at all. One of the difficulties was the number of passport issuing authorities. Imo what was needed was one overarching passport issuer, with registration with breed societies as an extra, if owners wanted it.
 
The only problem with that is that surely a lot of the horses/ponies in sanctuaries will b of unknow age? A vet/EDT could estimate a horse's age but it's not always accurate to an exact age?
 
tallyho! said:
I think a horse levy will be an effective way to control the problem.

There has to be govt intervention as the charities, societies and boards are not effective enough. The passport system for non-pedigree horses is a complete joke.

Breeding needs regulation and so does ownership.

None of us would like to see a horse-tax being imposed but licensing could contribute a lot more towards horse-ownership than we may think. It would give us greater rights and safeguard vulnerable horses and ponies who at the moment rely almost solely on kind donations which, as we have seen, do not do much to help.
Click to expand...

A horse levy might very well hit the most conscientious owners - I have one competing, one semi-retired with Cushings and one piece of ancient Connemara history who at 32 owes us nothing - happy to keep them but don't fancy being charged for the privilege!
 
My responsibility....my animals.... Can't stand free to a good home or give it t a charity cos I can't afford it.......

Charity is there fir horses in need not a disposal home... If you can't afford it or do not want it then pts.
 
I think setting an age limit is unfair, some 25+ year olds are happy and healthy whereas some much younger horses are knackered and require medical intervention to give them a reasonable quality of life. Maybe a cost limit should apply? If a horse is costing x amount a month in meds, just so it can sit in a field at a sanctuary, potentially taking up space that could be used for rehabilitating a horse with a chance to be rehomed into a useful life, cost the sanctuary less and free up space for more potentially useful horses.

Health should count for more than age.
 
justabob said:
I think that the OP was referring to sanctuaries and not an overall ban on keeping a horse over 25 years of age, hopefully anyway.
Click to expand...

Well that was how I read it! If they did that and heavily publicised it... to make the public aware and also so people appreciate that horses live on a lot longer nowadays..
 
ponydi said:
A horse levy might very well hit the most conscientious owners - I have one competing, one semi-retired with Cushings and one piece of ancient Connemara history who at 32 owes us nothing - happy to keep them but don't fancy being charged for the privilege!
Click to expand...

Absolutely, it will hit me where it hurts too.

I would willingly contribute if it stops the indiscriminate breeding, free-to-good-home adverts, £500 Xmas present adverts, full sanctuaries, un-necessary suffering at the abbatoirs etc... suffering of horses at the hands of the old, frail, incapable and downright crazy people.

BHS Ownership Certificate should be mandatory before purchasing licences as well as proof that the horses would be kept in suitable conditions.

It would cost, the money has to come from somewhere but something HAS to be done.
 
Its then mind set of the masses that needs changing:-

the sell it or give it away when i cant do what i want anymore, so i can get a new neddy.
the flossie needs a job, so lets put her in foal to some 2nd rate stallion
the flossie is unsound and can no longer be ridden, so lets put her in foal to some 2nd rate stallion
the selling of in foal mares with foals at foot - the buy 1 get 2 free approach
 
If you mean it as I read it that every horse in the UK, privately owned and in charities, should be PTS at 25, then no, absolutely not.

My horse owes me nothing and will be with me until the day I decide PTS is in her best interests. I wouldn't dream of putting her to sleep at 25 in order to be able to take on a homeless horse. She is my pleasure - I don't get paid to look after her, I pay. My choice.


In regards to sanctuaries, hmm not sure. Surely a small 25 YO pony that would be perfect for a kids first pony is easier to rehome than say a 10 YO laminitus -prone un-rideable pony.
 
I do see where you're coming from re sanctuaries, but I don't think an age restriction is the way to do it. A 25yr old small native that's been in a sanctuary years requires less upkeep & time, than say a scrawny 3yr old unhandled colt. I also think that if the general public knew they were using a blanket age of 25 to pts long term residents it would have a massive impact on donations. I'd make it against all advertising conditions on popular sights & publications to advertise below meat value. Won't stop idiots doing free to a good home, but might reduce it.
 
I disagree, I think it can't possibly be an age thing. I struggle to see how you can say a horse is more deserving of a place in a sanctuary than another just because it is younger.
There are so many variables there, general health and 'rehome-ability' to name a couple, and a 10 year old rescue case could very well cost as much or more than a 25 year old one.

Our 40 year old is currently doing well, and has one of the lowest vet bills of the lot!

I agree with Gingerwitch, it's the mindsets and indiscriminate breeding that needs changing.
The sanctuaries do what they can and IMO, it is impossible to set a higher value to a horse based solely on it's age.
 
Tough as it sounds, I'd be tempted to say that if a horse is NEVER going to be re-homeable, it should not be allowed to block a place in a sanctuary but should be pts so that the charity can take in another one which could be rehomed, so freeing up further places.
Give those horses a few weeks good care and a thorough assessment and then a decision should be made.

But indescriminate breeding got us into this mess and has to be stopped.
 
Pearlsasinger said:
Tough as it sounds, I'd be tempted to say that if a horse is NEVER going to be re-homeable, it should not be allowed to block a place in a sanctuary but should be pts so that the charity can take in another one which could be rehomed, so freeing up further places.
Give those horses a few weeks good care and a thorough assessment and then a decision should be made.

But indescriminate breeding got us into this mess and has to be stopped.
Click to expand...

Licences are needed to do this. A policing system has to be funded to have any impact.
 
Sorry I can't see why a license is needed. Sanctuaries/charities decide atm when to pts or not, based on whatever criteria they decide, presumably quality of life in most cases. IMO, they could extend their quality of life criteria to the capability of being re-homed. If the animal is unable to be rehomed, even as a companion, they should pts rather than keeping on their own premises, thus freeing up a space for another 'rescue'.
 
It's really up to the charities to decide how they make these choices when horses have ended up ion their care.
As an owner I would never pass on an oldie I Jusy saw too many old horses in terrible trouble when I was a welfare officer.
 
I agree about the indiscriminate breeding and was only discussing similar today with Pony Club DC. We ended up comparing the European methods to the Welsh breeding and the demise of some old British breeds, and concensus was that the lack of controlled breeding and stallion or mare inspections hasn't helped.
I don't agree with the age limit though, I have an expensive-to-keep laminitic who isn't even 20 years old yet and a mid 20s old pb TB who is as fit as a fiddle. Neither of which will ever be passed on -I will make the decision to pts when the time comes for any of mine. That's the responsibility I accepted when I decided to buy.
 
putasocinit said:
following on from the thread about cruelty at the abbattoir I felt compelled to raise the issue regarding not enough room at animal sanctuaries because they are full.

Therefore we have to be cruel to be kind and set an age when all these animals reach a certain age, say 25 years of age, they are humanely PTS, this will allow room for new ones to come in and also older animals will need more veterinary treatment due to infirmities of age so cost more to keep.

I think the biggest problem sanctuaries have now incl the RSPCA and why they don't want to get involved until the very end is because they have no where to put these poor animals so something has to be done to make room.

Am I the only one who thinks this way?
Click to expand...

Many of the sanctuaries are now telling people who can no longer keep their horses, who contact them, to get them put down, so perhaps those horses the sanctuaries have, that are old and infirm should have a quick and dignified end to allow room for some of the younger horses who need a place in them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top