GREAT NEWS ABOUT CLARITA!!!!!

[0]

Have no idea about your horses situation, if it was in pain etc - never heard anything about it.

I have had horses pts (including a 6 year old which i wish could have ended differently) - i would not keep one alive if it was in pain or unhappy but if they just can't be ridden but they are fine and happy to be a field ornament then I would not have it pts.

 

[GTs]

Then we are all in agreement

 

[0]

we are not

 

[GTs]

So people are obligated to pay $300-$500 a month for a horse to do nothing? Lets say that horse needed colic surgery, are they obligated to provide that? Where are horse owners obligations? There are many bad owners who will do the above as they think it makes them a good owner - but in reality none of the above is required to be a good owner.

 

[ruscara]

I wonder, Tia, whether you consider that the joy and pleasure that the owner has in caring for the horse, even though the horse may be old, or unrideable, is a worthwhile purpose for its life? I ask, because I know of several horses who cannot now compete etc. and who are living in retirement; but whose owners would never part with them. They are all happy and could not be better cared for. But it is the owners, I think, who benefit.

 

[0]

Yes, I think if you buy a horse then you take on the responsibility of that horse and so if it gets ill it is your obligation to try and get it better.
I would not have a horse pts unless the vet advised that the horse would be better off.........if the vet says that you can't do anything with it but it will be happy enough then I think it is your obligation to keep it (and look after it properly)

It seems GTs (from what Weezy posted) that pre Clarita getting ill you thought that horses who can't do their job should be shot, then for Clarita it is great that they are keeping her, and now it is general again you think they should be shot?????
Even Tia said you changed your tune - at least she has an opinion and sticks to it.

 

[Tia]

As I have consistently said on this thread; I feel that providing the horse has a purpose then it's life is worthwhile. I also said that some of mine are much loved and being loved is just one of their purposes.

 

[S_N]

Fair do's! I thought that seeing your join date was the day he went to horsey heaven you might have read all about it and seen the vids that some lovely peeps on here made for me. I am mistaken.

Essentially, I had him PTS BEFORE his condition got too horrendous, I didn't want him stiff and in pain on a cold, wet, miserable day and to have to make the decision in a rush due to his deteriorating health. His health was deteriorating as it was, I just let him go with the sun on his back.

I understand what both you and Tia are saying here and I can understand why GTs is coming from several different angles. It's all swings and roundabouts and essentially theoretical.

 

[S_N]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder, Tia, whether you consider that the joy and pleasure that the owner has in caring for the horse, even though the horse may be old, or unrideable, is a worthwhile purpose for its life? I ask, because I know of several horses who cannot now compete etc. and who are living in retirement; but whose owners would never part with them. They are all happy and could not be better cared for. But it is the owners, I think, who benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good point - although it is unfortunate from a welfare point of view that occasionally owners have rose tinted specs and don't let their animal go - totally understandable, but can be heartbreaking to observe.

 

[xspiralx]

Yes but what is your point? Just because YOU would do something doesn't mean it is right, or that others who behave differently are wrong!

Frankly it is not your business to say that what Tia chooses to do is "not fine", because they are her animals and her responsibility.

If you want to keep every horse you can alive for as long as possible, good for you. However some people have a more practical outlook on it - which doesn't make it wrong or cruel - it is their decision.

 

[Tia]

[ QUOTE ]
Then we are all in agreement

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes we are - only the OP hasn't been able to comprehend this.

 

[0]

No, sorry I missed what happened to your horse.
If I had a horse with a condition that would deteriorate then I too would have it pts.

 

[S_N]

Will pm you

 

[0]

We are having a debate (well that is how I see it anyway)
Tia has said what she thinks is right and wrong, as has GTs, as have I

 

[0]

I don't know what OP means but if it is me that you say is in agreement but can't see it then your wrong, we are not, for the reason I have already stated:
[ QUOTE ]
I have had horses pts (including a 6 year old which i wish could have ended differently) - i would not keep one alive if it was in pain or unhappy but if they just can't be ridden but they are fine and happy to be a field ornament then I would not have it pts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would not have a horse pts just because it had no purpose to me but could not be sold.

 

[Tia]

Okay - I gave you waaay too much credit here.

I'll spell it out if it helps:

Loving a horse means there is a purpose.
Feeling responsible for a horse means there is a purpose.
Wanting to care for a horse means it has a purpose.
Riding a horse means it has a purpose.
Enjoying looking at a horse means it has a purpose.
A shoulder to cry on means it has a purpose.

If you feel none of the above (or the many other purposes they have) then there is obviously NO purpose which could very well end in the horse being destined to neglect.

Purpose is a fairly simple term to understand - it is totally subjective - what is a purpose to you, may not be to me.....but it is still a blooming purpose for someone.

*takes pause as a fit of giggling has taken over my body*

Right back to serious stuff again - if a horse has no purpose for me then it is sold onto someone who feels it has a purpose to them......BUT only IF it is healthy.

If one of mine develped a lifetime health problem with a poor prognosis, then no that horse will never be sold on, it will be shot just like you have done and just like I have done in the past. I will not pass on my problems to someone else and I see it as the responsible thing to do.

 

[0]

[ QUOTE ]
How old is Clarita? What is she going to do for the rest of her life? Just plod around a field...

Don't get me wrong, that is nice that the girl is going to keep her; but I can't see the point unless she has loads of land and needs a companion-horse for the next 20 years. Sorry - no doubt I will be branded "nasty" yet again for saying something like this.....heyho.

[/ QUOTE ]

You changed your tune - did you ask if someone loved this horse, likes to look at it etc etc
No, you simply said you couldn't see the point of it plodding round the field END OF you didn't say unless it has a purpose. you just indicated that you would shoot it.

 

[Weezy]

Oh dear what have I started!

 

[JadeWisc]

using quick reply

really there is no right or wrong ans. here. I agree with the statements of it being a very personal choice. The ONLY thing inhumane here would be to prolong suffering or selling to a killer buyer instead of taking care of your horses end yourself.

I think all who have spoken about using the pts method have mentioned that selling on or letting it suffer is a bad idea.

In a perfect world (like I stated before) where I had plenty of money, time and space , I would be very open to keeping a pasture ornament. If I had a very different situation and I could not find a trusting permanent retirement home I would pts as well.

I would have to make the call at the moment I needed to

 

[GTs]

Jem you are bringing matters back up for what has already been addressed - I am starting to believe you are enjoying the game you have created then actually wanting to discuss what is being said.

As I said after Weezy posted that comment - it is selling or giving away a horse who is not suitable to be ridden I am against, and I feel it is not wrong to put a horse down if it has reached that stage. However if you have the land/time/money and want to keep it around to serve the purpose of a pet, I see nothing wrong with that.

To put it in perspective when the owner asked my opinion about finding a nice home, or a place where you donate retired horses and they look after them - I voiced my concern and offered to arrange transport for Clarita to go to the hospital, and pay the bills with putting her down.

You can not say that I have changed my attitude towards anything here - cause I clearly have not.

 

[0]

I am bringing matters back up which you are contradicting yourself on.......the first page clearly indicate's that you used to tell people in similar situations to Clarita's to shoot it and now your saying that it is great to keep your horse - you are right that every situation is different and you are different when you are emotionally attached. I think "sooty" was right when they said
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe remember that next time you give someone the advice 'shoot it'!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I now find it amusing because it has got ridiculous and distracts me from the accounting which I am supposed to be doing. However I do want to discuss what is being said.

You have evidently changed from what you used to advise people and Tia has altered from on the first page saying it should just be shot no exceptions as it is just a waste to have it plodding around the field for 20 years, to now saying well, if you love it or like to look at it blah blah blah then keep it...

 

[Tia]

PMSL!!!

Oh dear - you've moved the conversation back to Clarita again - so I'll rewind and respond to that part of the discussion yet again:

No I haven't changed my tune one iota - I believe firmly that a horse who has a messed up heart, cannot breathe properly and may require further veterinary assistance for possibly up to 20 years should not just be plonked in a field for the next two decades.

I have not said a healthy horse should be shot. I have not said that a horse who no longer has a purpose in my life should not have a purpose in someone else's life.

I am sure everyone on here is sick of hearing me say the same thing over and over again. All I can hope for is that they have all chuckled as much as I have to try to relieve some of the boredom of reiteration on a mass scale.

Healthy horse lives - if not with me then with someone else.
Terminally sick horse is not sold on!

 

[Tia]

Aww GTs - I can read and understand perfectly what you have written. I am also sure that you totally comprehend what I have said. This person is not reading what has been said - they are changing the parameters at every stage - moving the conversation on and when we move along with them, they jump back to another piece that was said in relation to something completely different to what the topic now is.

I know I am wasting my time - feel free to continue but I doubt you will be heard, let alone understood.

 

[0]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh dear - you've moved the conversation back to Clarita again - so I'll rewind and respond to that part of the discussion yet again:

[/ QUOTE ]
Makes no difference whether it is Clarita or hypothetical, the point is still the same.

[ QUOTE ]
I am sure everyone on here is sick of hearing me say the same thing over and over again.

[/ QUOTE ]
yes, i am

[ QUOTE ]
All I can hope for is that they have all chuckled as much as I have to try to relieve some of the boredom of reiteration on a mass scale.

[/ QUOTE ]
yes i have

[ QUOTE ]
Healthy horse lives - if not with me then with someone else.
Terminally sick horse is not sold on!

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not that black and white.

This discussion as far as I am concered is about one issue only because we agree on the rest at that point is what happens to the horse can't be ridden but has no problem living in the field - you won't sell it because it has something wrong with it. It's no use to you but it's health causes no reason to put it to sleep.

You would shoot it, I would not, we disagree, end of, this is turning from funny to boring. Don't know why your still going on about healthy horses and terminally sick ones - they are easy.........the whole discussion as far as I was concerned was about the horses that you would shoot that from a medical point of view don't need shooting. That is probably why you are repeating yourself so much because you keep answering the same qu but it is not the one I am asking

 

[GTs]

Jem - you are spouting third hand information from people who misquoted or misunderstood what I have said, you have quoted nothing from me - I have posted a lot, go off and find a place where I said 'kill it regardless' I have said many times to kill if you are unable or unwilling to look after it - infact I said this on the phone to Clarita's owner on Wednesday........

I have spoken to you many times on MSN am surprised you do not understand our stance, and astounded at your lack of ability when it comes to debating - you are making it a personal 'slap it on the table' kind of debate when you really intend to debate obligations of horse owners to their horses regardless of their condition.

 

[M_G]

Thank you that is great news and I am glad you shared it was worried about her future