Individual turnout

[Upthecreek]

And what about horses who are not content alone? As has been established throughout this thread, horses are individuals. Just as there are horses who do not suit herd turnout, there are horses, such as mine, who would not suit individual turnout.

I realise this wouldn't be the case as I have 3 horses so unlikely that they would be turned out alone, but I can honestly say my horses, particularly my geldings would be utterly miserable on individual turnout.

If I was to move yards, should I subject my horses to individual turnout, knowing they will be utterly miserable, but it suits my needs and wants to own a horse?

I think people need to remember, owning a horse is a privilege, not a right. Their welfare must always come first. No one has any issues with keeping horses on individual turnout where the horse isn't suitable to be turned out in a group, but where a horse is only subjected to isolation for the convenience of the owner, or worse a horse that doesn't particularly enjoy individual turnout, then that is where many of us draw a line.

As for your comment about lack or experience with group turnout going wrong, I can assure you I have had my share. Most recently one of my boys had a bad kick to the stifle, before that he injured his check ligament (more than likely galloping around the field with the others), I've had rugs ripped etc. I also suffer with anxiety and I understand the feeling of dread when turning a horse out. Believe me when I say my horses mean everything to me. But I set my own feelings aside, I pay the vets bill, I replace the rug, however difficult/irritating it may be, and I put my horses first. I wouldn't subject them to individual turnout knowing how unhappy they would be, no more than I would subject them to a yard that required them to be stabled 22hrs+ a day in winter. I'm not intending to offend anyone but it completely goes against my moral code to do that to my horses. I do not believe my right to own them is greater than their mental wellbeing.

Why do you keep insisting that individual turnout must mean the horse is ‘alone’ and ‘isolated’? Does your horse enjoy being ridden? groomed? clipped? stabled? If we are going to criticise how people choose to keep their horses and go as far as to say that ‘subjecting’ them to individual turnout is immoral we need to look at the whole picture.

How do you know your horses would be ‘utterly miserable’ if a fence was separating them from their neighbours? Have you tried it or is it your assumption that they would be?

 

[Pearlsacarolsinger]

On her own or in individual turnout?

You're assuming the mare's issues were caused by her being kept in individual turnout whereas it may be that she was kept in individual turnout because of how she behaved with the owner's other horses.

Hormonal mare's are often a problem in group turnout.
.

No she was kept on her own because the owner only had 1 horse

 

[Ali27]

I’ve got my own land and my 21 year old mare (who absolutely loves every horse out) had been with our little companion pony for the last 3 years. I got a 2 year old mare last year and my older mare absolutely hated her at first! Charging at her with ears back when I introduced them over the stable door. My instructor suggested just chucking all three out in the field and letting them sort it out. I took down all electric fencing, let them charge around 4 acres with stacks of grass, within 15 minutes they had settled down and older mare had established she was herd leader and they’ve all been best friends since! I love watching them groom each other and their other interactions!

 

[ycbm]

No she was kept on her own because the owner only had 1 horse

Then I don't think the experience you relate with that mare has any bearing on individual turnout with other horses around.
.

 

[ycbm]

And what about horses who are not content alone?

Frankly this is a stupid and insulting question to ask me. It is not worthy of the discussion.
.

 

[Gallop_Away]

Frankly this is a stupid and insulting question to ask me. It is not worthy of the discussion.
.

Why is it? Are you the only one who is allowed to question anyone?

 

[Upthecreek]

No she was kept on her own because the owner only had 1 horse

I would never keep a single horse alone with no other equines around. This is not the same as individual turnout with neighbours in my opinion.

 

[ycbm]

Why is it? Are you the only one who is allowed to question anyone?

There is only one acceptable answer.

Asking the question at all suggests that you believe that I might give the unacceptable answer. I find that insulting.

Write what you like, I don't have to like it.
.

 

[Tiddlypom]

I would never keep a single horse alone with no other equines around. This is not the same as individual turnout with neighbours in my opinion.

Absolutely. The two situations are not comparable at all.

 

[AandK]

Why is it? Are you the only one who is allowed to question anyone?

Surely the sensible answer is, if the horse is not content alone then you keep it in company... If the horse is a nightmare in company, then it is best kept on individual turnout.

As a general thought, this is getting a bit like the stabled vs out 24/7 debate. It's not as black and white as as horse can be in 'solitary confinement' on a postage stamp paddock, or out in a stable herd on lots of acres. There are lots of shades of grey in-between, not everyone has the option of their own land and owning several horses to keep each other company. As lots of people have stated, large herds on livery are more often than not a nightmare (my late gelding got kicked resulting in a fractured elbow in a livery herd situation).

 

[Gallop_Away]

Why do you keep insisting that individual turnout must mean the horse is ‘alone’ and ‘isolated’? Does your horse enjoy being ridden? groomed? clipped? stabled? If we are going to criticise how people choose to keep their horses and go as far as to say that ‘subjecting’ them to individual turnout is immoral we need to look at the whole picture.

How do you know your horses would be ‘utterly miserable’ if a fence was separating them from their neighbours? Have you tried it or is it your assumption that they would be?

How does anyone know anything about their horses? Do we not know our own horses well enough to judge that they are content and when they are unhappy? I judge it based on how I watch them interacting with others, and their personalities in general. My boys are quite "clingy" horses by nature. They also frequently "play" and lark about with each other and this type of interaction wouldn't be possible over a fence.

And for the record, my horses do seem to enjoy all of those things, yes even clipping as they just dose off.

There is only one acceptable answer.

Asking the question at all suggests that you believe that I might give the unacceptable answer. I find that insulting.

Write what you like, I don't have to like it.
.

Well then frankly I fail to see what can be gained from discussing this any further with you. Feel free to ignore any further posts by myself. But please remember that discussions work both ways and you are not the only one entitled to question others views.

 

[Upthecreek]

How does anyone know anything about their horses? Do we not know our own horses well enough to judge that they are content and when they are unhappy? I judge it based on how I watch them interacting with others, and their personalities in general. My boys are quite "clingy" horses by nature. They also frequently "play" and lark about with each other and this type of interaction wouldn't be possible over a fence.

And for the record, my horses do seem to enjoy all of those things, yes even clipping as they just dose off.

Exactly. So why do you say that anything other than herd turnout is immoral and a welfare issue? If that is what’s best for that individual horse in the opinion of their owner who knows them best why do you think you know better? There is no one size fits all.

I would not keep a single horse alone with no other equines around as that is totally different to keeping horses separated by fences. I would also personally choose not to own horses if I did not have somewhere to keep them that offered year round turnout. For me those are welfare issues.

I moved my horses earlier this year due to yet another incident with herd turnout. This time a mare was kicked to death by two others. She was found in the morning with catastrophic injuries.

I really don’t think you can compare herd turnout on a large livery yard where the liveries have little or no control over introductions and management of grazing to keeping your own horses together on your own land. It’s completely different.

 

[Slightlyconfused]

Mine is in a herd of two, mine and my sisters.

I have had one in individual turnout before as he just kept getting injured as him and his fiels mate just wouldnt stop playing even when blood was drawn. But he also debrided a hind leg down to the cannon bone while on individual turnout by either rolling near the electric fence or trying to play over it. The fence was still standing. So he got himself in trouble no matter what.

Another on individual because he had different medical needs.

My current boy would be fine in a herd but one we recently lost could only be with mine as he was very protective of his herd and stoppes letting other owners take his herd away

I am open to either depending on the horse.

 

[Gallop_Away]

Exactly. So why do you say that anything other than herd turnout is immoral and a welfare issue? If that is what’s best for that individual horse in the opinion of their owner who knows them best why do you think you know better? There is no one size fits all.

I have not said this. I have acknowledged repeatedly that there are exceptions and some horses are not suitable for herd turnout.

 

[Burnttoast]

It is interesting that group turnout is so often singled out as a risk to be avoided (even where they may be no particular need to do so and owners have not had prior traumatic experiences of it) when we are happy to ask horses to undertake plenty of other activities known to be risky - travelling, riding on the roads, jumping fixed obstacles, working on poor surfaces. All cause injury and death to horses not necessarily purely as a result of bad luck, but sometimes because of poor risk assessment, riding or management, but it's not all that frequent for owners to swear off them with the same or subsequent horses afterwards, or even because of future risk, if those activities give the *owner* enjoyment.

(Adding the obligatory proviso that group turnout should be enjoyable for the horse and not undertaken purely for ideological reasons...)

 

[Upthecreek]

It is interesting that group turnout is so often singled out as a risk to be avoided (even where they may be no particular need to do so and owners have not had prior traumatic experiences of it) when we are happy to ask horses to undertake plenty of other activities known to be risky - travelling, riding on the roads, jumping fixed obstacles, working on poor surfaces. All cause injury and death to horses not necessarily purely as a result of bad luck, but sometimes because of poor risk assessment, riding or management, but it's not all that frequent for owners to swear off them with the same or subsequent horses afterwards, or even because of future risk, if those activities give the *owner* enjoyment.

(Adding the obligatory proviso that group turnout should be enjoyable for the horse and not undertaken purely for ideological reasons...)

I agree with a lot of what you say. The issue for me with group turnout on a large livery yard was having no control over new horses being introduced, which of course happens fairly often due to turnover on a large yard. Herd dynamics being upset on a regular basis is unsettling for the horses and can be a very dangerous time. If you have zero control over new horses being added and how introductions are managed you cannot personally do very much to mitigate the risks. There are things I can do to mitigate other risks that I have control over, such as how and where I ride, travelling etc.

 

[Burnttoast]

I agree with a lot of what you say. The issue for me with group turnout on a large livery yard was having no control over new horses being introduced, which of course happens fairly often due to turnover on a large yard. Herd dynamics being upset on a regular basis is unsettling for the horses and can be a very dangerous time. If you have zero control over new horses being added and how introductions are managed you cannot personally do very much to mitigate the risks. There are things I can do to mitigate other risks that I have control over, such as how and where I ride, travelling etc.

I agree - in a situation like that an owner may place their horse knowingly or otherwise at as much risk as travelling in a knackered trailer, say, but again if that was all that was available to me I'd take no pleasure in horse ownership and therefore not own. A friend of mine is currently on the horns of this dilemma - she's between horses but there's no livery near her that provides suitable safe group TO and a horse-centric environment, and it's the main thing holding her back from looking for another.

 

[equinerebel]

It is interesting that group turnout is so often singled out as a risk to be avoided (even where they may be no particular need to do so and owners have not had prior traumatic experiences of it) when we are happy to ask horses to undertake plenty of other activities known to be risky - travelling, riding on the roads, jumping fixed obstacles, working on poor surfaces. All cause injury and death to horses not necessarily purely as a result of bad luck, but sometimes because of poor risk assessment, riding or management, but it's not all that frequent for owners to swear off them with the same or subsequent horses afterwards, or even because of future risk, if those activities give the *owner* enjoyment.

(Adding the obligatory proviso that group turnout should be enjoyable for the horse and not undertaken purely for ideological reasons...)

This is a really good point!

 

[paddy555]

I agree - in a situation like that an owner may place their horse knowingly or otherwise at as much risk as travelling in a knackered trailer, say, but again if that was all that was available to me I'd take no pleasure in horse ownership and therefore not own. A friend of mine is currently on the horns of this dilemma - she's between horses but there's no livery near her that provides suitable safe group TO and a horse-centric environment, and it's the main thing holding her back from looking for another.

I agree.
I gave up on the typical HHO argument about 3 pages ago but surely it is common sense?

Yes horses are herd animals however we must consider their safety and our safety (in getting in from a herd). Some horses are happy alone, some actually prefer it. My first horse did. He was in a field with 60 others. He had no connection with them at all. He was a total loner. One pony liked him and paired up but it was not reciprocated. When I moved him away from the herd he lived alone for a while and was never happier.
Some are very sociable and for some a herd is a nightmare. Especially if you are the bottom of the pile and bullied.

Pair turnout works well for the bullied. There is a herd leader in the "herd" of 2 and a follower. Everyone is happy.

However if comes down to common sense and horsemanship, a skill often sadly missing nowadays.
Everything on these pages is about what the owner thinks is right presumably having read the right books, internet groups etc. Forget that and study the horse. He hasn't read the internet forums.

 

[Tiddlypom]

It is interesting that group turnout is so often singled out as a risk to be avoided (even where they may be no particular need to do so and owners have not had prior traumatic experiences of it) when we are happy to ask horses to undertake plenty of other activities known to be risky - travelling, riding on the roads, jumping fixed obstacles, working on poor surfaces. All cause injury and death to horses not necessarily purely as a result of bad luck, but sometimes because of poor risk assessment, riding or management, but it's not all that frequent for owners to swear off them with the same or subsequent horses afterwards, or even because of future risk, if those activities give the *owner* enjoyment.

(Adding the obligatory proviso that group turnout should be enjoyable for the horse and not undertaken purely for ideological reasons...)

It's all about management of risks.

Plenty of people no longer ride on the road as they deem it too risky - and it is very risky. I do travel my horses but I make sure that my vehicle and trailer are well serviced and in good condition, and I have an equine rescue package. I avoid riding on poor surfaces and always did avoid dangerous fixed fences or even not fixed fences and cavaletti which can roll over and cause a rotational.

Group turnout includes a greatly elevated risk of death from a kick compared to individual turnout. If you personally have never known of or lost a horse to a kick, your view of the level of risk may well be less than someone who has.

I evaluate and manage risks with my horses all the time, and tweak my management all the while. For instance, I abhor electric gates, which are very common - it is so easy for a horse to get an accidental zap and so much more difficult to use than a conventional gate.

I will also never do the common practice of opening a gate and allowing horses to file in and find their own stables - I've know good horses die doing that when horses end up slipping or getting cornered in the 'wrong' stable. I've been shot down on the forum before for not doing that. I bring mine in one at a time.

 

[AdorableAlice]

I have a question for the people who are promoting individual turnout …..at what age would you only keep a horse alone ? Do you think youngsters should be in herds ? If so then what is the difference ?

I kept 3 youngsters together, living out with access to a barn and round bale. All was fine and happy until they started being broken and worked. Then they all fell out and had to be separated. One was sold and the other two now live side by side in their own paddocks. Having very nearly lost a horse after a kicking incident I don't keep them together anymore. They can see one another and the geldings can groom one another over the post and rail. The mares are more than happy with their own space that is not invaded by another horse. They all get on ok, all travel together and do not yell at one another on showgrounds, each can be left on the lorry whilst the other one clears off out of sight. Each can be left in their paddocks alone when the others come in, with no fear of galloping, jumping out or stressing. I personally think we should teach our horses to cope with being alone for periods of time to make our lives and theirs easy in terms of looking after them. If we keep them buddied up, always with others they often become insecure and nappy. I recently watched a horse at a low key dressage competition, he had to have his mate stood alongside the arena as they are never separated.

Young horses should be in groups, no shoes, no rugs and plenty of space. Keeping adult, fit, shod and opinionated horses together is an accident waiting to happen and in my case it did happen.

There is no such thing as an established herd environment on livery yards, the comings and goings of horses simply does not allow for any settling or establishing to happen and there will always be dominate types, frail types etc, in the groups regardless of how many acres they are running.

 

[Caol Ila]

For instance, I abhor electric gates, which are very common - it is so easy for a horse to get an accidental zap and so much more difficult to use than a conventional gate.

Me too. My previous yard loved them. The dodgiest one was Hermosa's main field gate for summer turnout. There was an electric rope inner fence and a normal wire outer fence on the field. They had constructed a "lock" at the gate, a box made of the electric rope that you had to go through to get them into the field. The main gate was a metal five bar one which only swung one way, into the lock. The lock wasn't huge, either. You had to take horse into lock, then maneuver them into a tight space between the rope and the metal gate as you swung the latter open. If you screwed up and accidentally zapped your horse, you would have a panicking horse in a very small space surrounded by electric rope. Not ideal. The only one of us I ever zapped was myself, luckily, but that gate always felt like a health hazard.

If the other horses were sufficiently far away and uninterested, I would open the electric gate and the metal gate at the same time, which gave us more room. She would then stand at the end of the lead rope, more or less out of the field, while I shut the electric one. Then I would close the metal gate. However, if the other horses were too close and being annoying, I would have to bring her into the lock, shut the lock gate, then carefully open the five bar gate while trying to not back her or myself into the rope. It was fun.

 

[PinkvSantaboots]

I'm sure quite a few of them, the majority?, are turned away in groups when they aren't in training and racing.

I know a neighbour of mine turned his three jumper racers out together for the summer each year.
.

The racing yard near me has huge fields with large herds of youngsters in so I think your right.

 

[Hormonal Filly]

Blimey.. quite a controversial subject!

Me and a friend had a similar discussion recently. So she has moved to a yard with herd turnout, but the rule is they're ONLY allowed out between 9am - 4pm ALL year. She has been looking at a new yard, turnout 24/7 all year if you wish.. as long as your paddock is cared for (which looks a decent size!) but its individual turnout.

I said, personally, I'd move to the new individual yard (providing your horse isn't phased) because I feel being out is better than being shut in a stable 17 hours a day.

Its just impossible, around here anyway.. to find the 'ideal' livery yard.

 

[Tiddlypom]

I said, personally, I'd move to the new individual yard (providing your horse isn't phased) because I feel being out is better than being shut in a stable 17 hours a day.

That's a very moot point, and which will be faced by many owners who rely on livery.

So which is better? 24/7 on good individual turnout (not little electric rectangles) or 7/24 in group turnout? As ever, it will depend on the horse.

 

[Burnttoast]

It's all about management of risks.

Plenty of people no longer ride on the road as they deem it too risky - and it is very risky. I do travel my horses but I make sure that my vehicle and trailer are well serviced and in good condition, and I have an equine rescue package. I avoid riding on poor surfaces and always did avoid dangerous fixed fences or even not fixed fences and cavaletti which can roll over and cause a rotational.

Group turnout includes a greatly elevated risk of death from a kick compared to individual turnout. If you personally have never known of or lost a horse to a kick, your view of the level of risk may well be less than someone who has.

I evaluate and manage risks with my horses all the time, and tweak my management all the while. For instance, I abhor electric gates, which are very common - it is so easy for a horse to get an accidental zap and so much more difficult to use than a conventional gate.

I will also never do the common practice of opening a gate and allowing horses to file in and find their own stables - I've know good horses die doing that when horses end up slipping or getting cornered in the 'wrong' stable. I've been shot down on the forum before for not doing that. I bring mine in one at a time.

Well this is all great and just how it should be, but it doesn't mean you are representative of all horse owners. Because I couldn't have my own until recently I've been privy to the decision-making of quite a few different owners over the years and they are not all considered or careful in their risk assessments or knowledgeable in terms of the effects of either their riding or their management, while frequently being notably concerned about the risks presented by group turnout. Quite frequently the vibe is very much that the horse shouldn't incur an injury on their own time, as it were, but the tolerance of risk when the owner is having fun is not the same.

 

[Upthecreek]

I have not said this. I have acknowledged repeatedly that there are exceptions and some horses are not suitable for herd turnout.

My horses are not the exception or unsuitable for herd turnout. It is my choice. They have previously been in herd turnout and they are now on individual turnout in large paddocks with horses either side, so I have experienced both situations with the same horses. I don’t have my own land and I sometimes need services so they have to be at a livery yard.

Both horses are more settled and relaxed since moving. They are thriving on not having the regular disruptions to the herd. They sometimes interact with other horses over the fence. They sometimes have a hoolie if something sets one of them off. They don’t care if they are last in or first out. They are both independent types and not at all needy. There has been no detrimental changes in their behaviour when handled or ridden. So for us it has been a positive move. I don’t miss the injuries, the ripped rugs and the nightmare of having to bring in and turnout with field mates. There is greater flexibility. It is good for us, but I have nothing against anyone making a different choice for their horse.

 

[ycbm]

Quite frequently the vibe is very much that the horse shouldn't incur an injury on their own time, as it were, but the tolerance of risk when the owner is having fun is not the same.

Racing is at the top of that list. Usually never turned out at all when in training, in a minority of cases turned out singly for a short time. Even padded gate posts in some places. But taking a statistically huge risk over jumps on the racecourse, a different story.

Horses are generally bought to be ridden. Ridden activities create risk and can't be done without. I don't see the conflict between doing the activities which the horse was bought for and choosing to reduce the risk of turnout injury at the same time. The overall risk is still reduced.
.

 

[Gallop_Away]

My horses are not the exception or unsuitable for herd turnout. It is my choice. They have previously been in herd turnout and they are now on individual turnout in large paddocks with horses either side, so I have experienced both situations with the same horses. I don’t have my own land and I sometimes need services so they have to be at a livery yard.

Both horses are more settled and relaxed since moving. They are thriving on not having the regular disruptions to the herd. They sometimes interact with other horses over the fence. They sometimes have a hoolie if something sets one of them off. They don’t care if they are last in or first out. They are both independent types and not at all needy. There has been no detrimental changes in their behaviour when handled or ridden. So for us it has been a positive move. I don’t miss the injuries, the ripped rugs and the nightmare of having to bring in and turnout with field mates. There is greater flexibility. It is good for us, but I have nothing against anyone making a different choice for their horse.

I'm glad it has worked out for you but equally would you insist on them staying on individual turnout if they hadn't settled? Would you insist on them being on individual turnout for your own convenience if it clearly wasn't in their best interest? I'm assuming not. This is what myself and other posters take issue with, is when it is done for the benefit of only the owner and is of no benefit to the horse.

 

[Burnttoast]

Racing is at the top of that list. Usually never turned out at all when in training, in a minority of cases turned out singly for a short time. Even padded gate posts in some places. But taking a statistically huge risk over jumps on the racecourse, a different story.

Horses are generally bought to be ridden. Ridden activities create risk and can't be done without. I don't see the conflict between doing the activities which the horse was bought for and choosing to reduce the risk of turnout injury at the same time. The overall risk is still reduced.
.

Even when the horse would prefer company? We are reducing the risk in that case not for their benefit but for ours and if our benefit is the only consideration then it all starts to look pretty selfish. They aren't bicycles, after all.