Is it unthinkable....

"I would be interested to know how many of the (very few) people who object to this view are vegetarian?! "


I'm sorry, how on earth is this relevant at all???
confused.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I would be interested to know how many of the (very few) people who object to this view are vegetarian?!

[/ QUOTE ]

What an absolutely ridiculous comment
crazy.gif


I am all for pts if necessary for the welfare of the animal. The OP asked for an opinion and I gave mine. Why does someone always have to try to make out you're some kind of numpty for disagreeing with the majority on here ffs.

signed MrMeldrew - blood thirsty carnivore
tongue.gif
 
"I think its very mean to take one away live and leave the other who will be wondering where his mate is. If you were to pts mac in his field with horse watching and able to say goodbye after it would be slightly different. "

"While he may be fit and healthy now, horse is old for a TB and unless you can find a companion for him to settle in with now, its simply not fair. Horses do not know what's going on and will have no idea what's coming."

Sort of a conflicting argument there - you say it's mean to take one horse away leaving the other one "wondering" what is going on then in the next breath say how horses do not know what's going on and will not know what's coming?! If they don't know what's going on why would it care for more than a few moments that its friend's gone?

Our old horse lived fit, healthy and happily until he was 36 so to say "ah well he's had a good innings" as a justification to put him down doesn't wash well with me. Sure if the horse was struggling/in pain etc I'd agree but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
 
i'd let them go together too...this post made me cry
frown.gif
i just read a book called 'the boy in the striped pyjamas' which is about 2 friends and this sprang to mind when i read your post...better to let them go together happily in my humble opinion
 
[ QUOTE ]
"I think its very mean to take one away live and leave the other who will be wondering where his mate is. If you were to pts mac in his field with horse watching and able to say goodbye after it would be slightly different. "

"While he may be fit and healthy now, horse is old for a TB and unless you can find a companion for him to settle in with now, its simply not fair. Horses do not know what's going on and will have no idea what's coming."

Sort of a conflicting argument there - you say it's mean to take one horse away leaving the other one "wondering" what is going on then in the next breath say how horses do not know what's going on and will not know what's coming?! If they don't know what's going on why would it care for more than a few moments that its friend's gone?

Our old horse lived fit, healthy and happily until he was 36 so to say "ah well he's had a good innings" as a justification to put him down doesn't wash well with me. Sure if the horse was struggling/in pain etc I'd agree but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

[/ QUOTE ]

No this isn't strange or contridicting. Horses understand death in the sense that if you let them say goodbye to the body they do move on, some do pine for their companions and a pair bond will often go within a few weeks of each other. However, if your not having the horse pts at home and taking it alive to the kennels I don't consider this fair on the other horse or its pair bond. Horses though do not understand death in the way humans do, they do not fear death itself, they fear pain, hurt and stress. Hence why having an old horse PTS at home is always the best option, esp. if they aren't well travelled individuals. FYI we would only take our old hunt horses to be pts at the kennels, they are used to hunting, traveling and the sound of the hounds. All of the others are done at home. I'm not saying the horse would care for more than a few minutes that the friend has gone, but if your doing things in way the horse will accept you need to have him pts at home then let pair say goodbye, otherwise its much worse for the remaining horse. Ideally also another horse needs to be introduced while the original 2 are still alive . If this can't be done, then yes, its kinder to take both old gents together.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely take them together - much better to go out as a healthy, happy horse than to suffer the likely pain of arthritis and other conditions that are almost bound to start afflicting the healthy horse soon. I would be interested to know how many of the (very few) people who object to this view are vegetarian?!

[/ QUOTE ]

What an utterly totally ridiculous comment, on many levels, from the, IMO, ridiculous point of view that the horse should go now while he is healthy (because heaven forbid he may suffer from treatable old age conditions such as arthritis.
crazy.gif
) to the view that those who wouldn't PTS a healthy horse are vegetarians....
confused.gif
confused.gif
confused.gif


Based on the information given I wouldn't necessarily PTS healthy Horse: OP has not said the horse is irrepairably pair bonded to that friend alone, and (understandably) does not appear to know if the horse would take to a different companion or change of circumstances.

I would vote for trying the idea out for size now, while other horse is still around: how does Horse react to being left alone if his friend is taken out of sight? How does he react to the connie/any other equines you can lay your hands on to gently introduce him to?

If OP already knows Horse won't take to another equine, then different story, and despite how strongly I may come across, I am not against inseperable friends going together if the situation is right. I just think this is far from certain from what is said in the OP
crazy.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
"I would be interested to know how many of the (very few) people who object to this view are vegetarian?! "


I'm sorry, how on earth is this relevant at all???
confused.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
Its relevant because many people are quite OK that perfectly healthy, young cattle, pigs, lambs, etc, are slaughtered for humans to enjoy eating. I am, as it happens, a vegetarian, but I'm in full support of the farming industry and of working animals, which both involve the humane destruction of animals not always on the basis of euthanasia. Sometimes it does come down to finance, or like in this case, practicalities.

This is an old horse, past the age where selling it would be fair. Should they get it a new companion? What about when it does, eventually, die, then do they need to get a new companion for the companion?

Take it with it's mate, it is not unthinkable at all. I'd say its a damn lucky horse myself.
 
Sorry no the vegetarian comment is totally irrelevant to the post. It has no bearing on the views of having a completely healthy animal not intended for the food chain PTS.

I am vegetarian but understand the need for farming and live in a farming community - I don't eat meat because I don't like it pure and simple. However, neither could I kikll anything myself so feel it would be hypocritical of me to eat meat now when it is mass produced and the majority of people who eat it have no clue how that animal has lived.

Anyway, I digress - people are going to have different views on these matters. My view is that i wouldn't have a healthy animal put to sleep same as if i had an elderly dog (fit and healthy) whose elderly doggie friend was sick and needed to be PTS - I wouldn't then think to put the other one down!

As for the argument saying horses understand death but don't understand when they are going to be PTS. I don't think it makes sense to say a horse can grasp one concept but not another. Unless you are actually a horse you will never know what horses do and do not understand and I don't think it's right to pick and choose what we think they understand as long as it suits us! That is all I have to say!
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry no the vegetarian comment is totally irrelevant to the post. It has no bearing on the views of having a completely healthy animal not intended for the food chain PTS.


[/ QUOTE ]
That is the exact point. An animal does not think, "its ok to kill me because I'm going to be eaten, but its not ok to kill me because you don't want to look after me anymore". Its all the same to them, and if you believe they see some terrible act coming, then you should be against it all. It is always relevant when someone says "you should never put a healthy animal down". Hello, it happens to farm animals every day! The fact that they are in the food chain is neither here nor there to the animals.
 
Sorry to hear about this situation.
A similar thing happened to me, I had 2 oldies, 1 who was 32 & 1 a 27 year old; while I was on hoilday the 32 year old had a heart attack & had to be put down, they'd been together for 20 years & had a very close bond. I'd already made the decision that they would go together when the time came.
But as I wasn't around my Mum couldn't face it so she asked the vet to have a look at the other horse & the vet stated that she was fine. So Mum didn't have her put down but if she had I wouldn't have held it against her.
2 years on she's in robust health & has made a new friend with a previous enemy! But it took several months & she isolated her self from the rest of the herd for a long time. So I can understand why somebody would put them down together, it worked out for my old girl but it could so easily have gone the other way.
 
If Horse is not going to have a good quality of life without his friend then I would take him as well. If there is a chance of introducing a new companion before either goes then Horse may have a chance to bond and you will get the idea whether or not he may be happy with a new friend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top