I post this link with a heavy heart

Hi I was partly satirising the belief that we should not intervene and manage wildlife. I am sure it would be illegal for someone to have truly wild horses on their land.

A lot of it is a cultural thing. People would be outraged if horses were left to die of 'natural causes'. Of course dieing of lung worm/ starvation isn't really a natural cause at all. In the true wild horses with those conditions would be hunted down killed and eaten.

However there are people that think we should re introduce wolves in some of our truly wild places in scotland although I understand they will be fenced off.

Why not chuck a few wild ponies in to keep them happy?
 
Last edited:
Xlthlx said:
Hi I was partly satirising the belief that we should not intervene and manage wildlife. I am sure it would be illegal for someone to have truly wild horses on their land.

A lot of it is a cultural thing. People would be outraged if horses were left to die of 'natural causes'. Of course dieing of lung worm/ starvation isn't really a natural cause at all. In the true wild horses with those conditions would be hunted down killed and eaten.

However there are people that think we should re introduce wolves in some of our truly wild places in scotland although I understand they will be fenced off.

Why not chuck a few wild ponies in to keep them happy?
Click to expand...

aahh, I see. I agree with the sentiment-alot of waffle goes on about how lovely feral horses have it and it just aint the case. I personally would not like to see horse or wolves shot at from a helicopter or killed with poison. I might get a bit upset about exmoor ponies being food for wolves as well ;)

as for Scotland, I live up here and they've been on about introducing wolves for years and its still not happened and I can't see it, unless they open it up as a sort of game reserve for shooting. rural income depends on shooting up there. on an encouraging note however (and completely OT) they have just discovered beavers living up here in the wild and that they've been here quietly building dams while everyone thought them extinct :)

wrt to the ponies in this case, I don't know how big a space they were kept in, what forage was available to them, what breeds they were (don't all look to be Shetlands and although undoubtedly tough, they are a domestic breed) and what the breeding stock were to begin with. were all the ponies descended from the orignal ones?
 
DragonSlayer said:
I've had nothing but good dealings with the RSPCA. Every call answered, every concern always followed up. I hate the way some people seem to be sheep here and follow on and all scream 'WE HATE THE RSPCA!'....I think you really need to check out the bigger picture...

Why are some of you so quick to slate when you seem to over-look the good work they DO get done?
Click to expand...

Why are you so quick to insist that the RSPCA never does anything but good?

I don't think anyone here would dispute that, when it sticks to it's remit, the RSPCA does good work (bar the puppy / kitten spaying thing, which isn't great). But so do lots of other charities, and as a result they have a good reputation. There's no smoke without fire. The reason many people don't like the RSPCA is because all too often they stray well beyond their remit, and when they do that, often get it wrong. I for one was disgusted at their stance on the hunting ban. For a charity that's supposedly all about animal welfare, they didn't give much thought to the welfare or correct management of fox populations.

That makes it all the easier, when something like this case arises, for people to assume the worst of the RSPCA.
 
Why are people ignoring the fact that other horse charities were involved such as WHW and Redwings, who I believed to have very good reputations on this forum? Clearly those ponies needed help and clearly that man could not cope with the amount of ponies he had. If someone had simply posted the photos of the ponies, you would all be shouting about how they needed taking away from the cruel owner who was letting them starve. Ultimately nobody is responsible for this mans death except himself.
 
I have been following this thread with some interest, particularly the comments about the man who committed suicide, a good job the dead can't sue for deformation of charachter in this case! If the man appeared to be unstable, mentaly unwell etc he SHOULD have been assessed under the Mental Health Act 1983, at the police station. If he was arrested as they felt that he was unstable, then he should have been examined by the fornesic medical examiner on duty on the day. As to those who say it was his responsibility as to whether he took his own life or not, do they not believe that their actions have consequences to and effects on those around them?
 
yorksG said:
As to those who say it was his responsibility as to whether he took his own life or not, do they not believe that their actions have consequences to and effects on those around them?
Click to expand...

I take responsibility for my actions but I am not responsible for how others respond to them. Is this man not responsible for the state his horses were in, and did his actions (or lack of them) not have an effect on the starving animals supposedly under his care?
 
'take responsibility for my actions but I am not responsible for how others respond to them.'
I think that you are responsible for how others respond if you are in a position of power and can remove someones liberty, potentially removing their goods and chattles and inprisoning them, for a period of time. To think otherwise would be peverse to my mind. (I speak from the position of being in a profession where I am in a postion to deprive people of their liberty)
 
Well said Gemin1eye. Not only were other charities involved, but this chap had a family apparently, so where have they been for the last however many years, they must have known some of his problems? The photos were ghastly and I'm sorry but I find it unforgivable to leave any animals in that state. The RSPCA may not be perfect, but then who is:-(
 
bexwarren24 said:
If the RSPCA are over streched then why spend money taking such people to court? It cost tens of thousands to get the strangels trial through the courts. Money which could be spent better elsewhere.
Click to expand...

The RSPCA prosecutes for one of several reasons:

First - as in the Spindles Farm case - the neglect and cruelty is SO bad that the charity seeks to take the animals away from the owner permanently (and unless the owner agrees to sign the animals over, a court case is necessary for that outcome!) There is also the advantage of - hopefully - getting the courts to impose a lifetime ban on the guilty party - preventing them treating other animals in similar fashion.

Second, where the cruelty/neglect is not SO bad as in the first, but where the owner of the animals won't accept help and/or won't give up the animals - so neglect/mis-treatment are likely to continue.

And third - if the prosecution will benefit one of their campaigns!! This includes many past prosecutions most of which have failed/or been over-turned on appeal: anyone remember the 'horse on the gate' case? THAT prosecutionwas undertaken purely because it provided fuel for the anti-hunt campaign.

In the first, I don't think ANYONE would argue that the Amersham horses should not have been seized - nor that James Gray should not have been prosecuted! But what if James Gray had committed suicide the day after the seizure?? Would some people have said the RSPCA had been heavy-handed?? With the information we have NOW, no! But IF James Gray had committed suicide at the start, no doubt the RSPCA would NOT have released much of the information we now have out of respect for the family.

In THIS case, I suspect the problem was more of a scenario 2 - that the owner of the ponies was perhaps reluctant to accept advice/help - but ponies were suffering. In that case I think the charities concerned did the best they could in the circumstances.

I recall a case some years ago where an elderly lady who was in a nursing home was let down by the person who was being paid to care for her horses. The horses were seized by the RSPCA - at least one had to be put down. While the owner was very confused and not capable of much,she KNEW she loathed the RSPCA and wouldn't sign the horses over so the RSPCA intended to prosecute. The BHS - who had taken 3 of the horses to its rescue centre (all stallions) - intervened and the then Head of Welfare spent many hours with the owner (in her lucid moments) and persuaded her to sign the horses over to the BHS; the RSPCA did NOT prosecute as it was notnecessary then to secure the horses' future and would have been pointless as the owner was never going to acquire any MORE horses.

I am NOT a fan of the RSPCA - and rarely feel inclined to defend it - but I DO respect many of the people who work for it (most are not loonies like some of the RSPCA Council who make the rules!) In this very sad case, the RSPCA worked with other responsible equine charities - including the BHS - yet no-one is criticising the other charities for the sad outcome. :confused:

There is NO doubt that some of the horses WERE suffering considerably - and they didn't get into that condition overnight! The owner was obviously over-stretched and not coping; but the outcome was a tragedy that almost certainly could not have been foreseen - and thus could not have been prevented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top