Lets create a solution

[ihatework]

Indeed, what's being proposed is a facility which is on offer to those with horses which for what ever reason, they need to but are unable, to dispose of humanely.

Alec.

And that would be a relatively easy charity to set up.

It would however not get to the roote of this countries overpopulation of horses.

I'm also not deliberately ignoring fides comment of what would I suggest be done, it's just that would take more thought time than I have available at present!

 

[cobgoblin]

I would not support any charity that had powers of seizure and destruction. Where power is given it is eventually corrupted! Plus any charity relies on public donations, and I can't see a charity like this getting any even from related industries, who would not want to be associated with it from a PR point of view.
I know you are all fired up about this but you have to stand back and look at what you are proposing. Can you even imagine how many legal cases this charity would end up with? These are draconian measures and the public backlash (including horse-owners) would be enormous! The charity directors would be hounded into the ground by the tabloids. You would also need a small,or perhaps large, army of armed men to seize horses from some sectors of society.

I am puzzled as to why, whenever I look at a horse rescue website, the only animals on offer for adoption seem to be either very young or only suitable as a companion, especially as the charities claim to have rescued so many animals during the recession. I am wondering whether these charities have been hoisted by their own petard in that, when people leave their horse and a legacy to them certain conditions are attached. If horses with multiple health problems are kept for the pity factor , then I am disgusted!

I would support help for people to have their horses PTS if they cannot afford it and no other solution can be found. However, I do not subscribe to the view that if you cannot afford the cost of PTS and disposal then ' you shouldn't have a horse'. Having lived through many recessions I have seen many individuals go from wealthy to bankrupt within a few days and the heartbreak is unbelievable, and the circumstances beyond their control. I'm sure that during the this recession there were a number of members of this forum who would have found it hard to come up with the cost of euthanasia and disposal.
You cannot dictate who should have a horse or how much money they should have before they buy a horse- you can only educate as to the costs involved. Elitism has done, and is still doing the equestrian world a great deal of harm.

Stallion registration may work, but only for the already law-abiding members of society, I doubt it would affect the breeding of ' poorly conformed' horses.

There are quite a lot of poorly conformed humans about too! What draconian measures do you suggest for them?

 

[3OldPonies]

I would not support any charity that had powers of seizure and destruction. Where power is given it is eventually corrupted! Plus any charity relies on public donations, and I can't see a charity like this getting any even from related industries, who would not want to be associated with it from a PR point of view.
I know you are all fired up about this but you have to stand back and look at what you are proposing. Can you even imagine how many legal cases this charity would end up with? These are draconian measures and the public backlash (including horse-owners) would be enormous! The charity directors would be hounded into the ground by the tabloids. You would also need a small,or perhaps large, army of armed men to seize horses from some sectors of society.

I am puzzled as to why, whenever I look at a horse rescue website, the only animals on offer for adoption seem to be either very young or only suitable as a companion, especially as the charities claim to have rescued so many animals during the recession. I am wondering whether these charities have been hoisted by their own petard in that, when people leave their horse and a legacy to them certain conditions are attached. If horses with multiple health problems are kept for the pity factor , then I am disgusted!

I would support help for people to have their horses PTS if they cannot afford it and no other solution can be found. However, I do not subscribe to the view that if you cannot afford the cost of PTS and disposal then ' you shouldn't have a horse'. Having lived through many recessions I have seen many individuals go from wealthy to bankrupt within a few days and the heartbreak is unbelievable, and the circumstances beyond their control. I'm sure that during the this recession there were a number of members of this forum who would have found it hard to come up with the cost of euthanasia and disposal.
You cannot dictate who should have a horse or how much money they should have before they buy a horse- you can only educate as to the costs involved. Elitism has done, and is still doing the equestrian world a great deal of harm.

Stallion registration may work, but only for the already law-abiding members of society, I doubt it would affect the breeding of ' poorly conformed' horses.

This sums it up for me as well. I've already said that I support the subsidised PTS for people who cannot afford it, and the financial dire situations that people can find themselves in, particularly in current times with business still making redundancies or going under completely is why I support it. For some the recession is far from over and they are still dealing with the consequences on a personal level even if the economists say the country is doing better. It is not so that people can have a cheap way out if they get fed up with a horsey lifestyle or if the fancy a new horse cos the one they've got becomes unrideable or is unsuitable. I certainly am not in favour of seize and destroy.

Regulation of all horses and ponies, other than a passport scheme I think would be too costly I think for many people bearing in mind that the majority of owners are hard working people with plenty of other taxes, insurances, afilliation and registration fees to pay.

However, the indiscriminate breeding has to stop, then the problem would, eventually decrease to a level that whilst still not comfortable, could be more easily dealt with. How to stop it - unfortunately I have no idea because in the main those that do it are of the community that believe that the law of the land doesn't apply to them.

 

[RunToEarth]

A charity that gets rid of 'useless' horses for free would be a godsend to people who should never own horses. Get rid of any horse you don't want to feed over winter for free and then start again in the spring. Wonderful.

The reason the RSPCA has to pick up the pieces for horses and prosecute the feckless owners is because the CPS and government has no interest in animal welfare. It'd be great if charity funds could be used for rehoming horses who's owners genuinely fall on hard times, but until animal welfare is taken seriously in this country, which rates as one of the wealthiest in the world, horses will continue to suffer.
If charities get rid of the unwanted surplus, it will just continue the cycle for more irresponsible breeding and ownership. The problem can only be tackled at the point of breeding. There is no instant solution.

I agree, completely.

We wouldn't need any of these charities if people didn't insist on being such morons - what happened to common sense?

 

[MotherOfChickens]

I would support help for people to have their horses PTS if they cannot afford it and no other solution can be found. However, I do not subscribe to the view that if you cannot afford the cost of PTS and disposal then ' you shouldn't have a horse'. Having lived through many recessions I have seen many individuals go from wealthy to bankrupt within a few days and the heartbreak is unbelievable, and the circumstances beyond their control. I'm sure that during the this recession there were a number of members of this forum who would have found it hard to come up with the cost of euthanasia and disposal.
You cannot dictate who should have a horse or how much money they should have before they buy a horse- you can only educate as to the costs involved. Elitism has done, and is still doing the equestrian world a great deal of harm.

well said. Something means tested taken on a case by case basis (if that were possible). I would support an existing charity (the BHS for example) in having more welfare officers. You'll not stop the do as you likeys-they will always find away all the time they are untouchable and that wont change any time soon.



We have no horse licensed abattoirs in Scotland. It cost me £140 for injection last year and £220 for disposal by Grayshill-thats alot of money to find if/when you are faced with losing everything else and can make a difficult decision even harder.


why are there so many horses? Is it all down to hill ponies and coloured cobs? Is it people's reluctance to PTS an unsound horse? (for financial or other reasons). is it because insurance dictates that people should treat and have a problem 'cured' within 12 months when in reality, many lamenesses require much more time that that turned away which people can't arent willing to pay for? Is it a general lack of horsemanship? Is it because pre-recession, livery was so ridiculously cheap that I could never work out how some yards kept going (or why they would want to!) and now people are paying more and many seem to be losing their grazing? Is it because riding schools now have to charge so much more to make ends meet that people just go and get their own? Would more riding programmes in schools be beneficial?
I don't know what the answer is-more affordable disposal might help some, having DEFRA involved might be a double edged sword for those of us who are responsible.

 

[Wagtail]

I am a little confused by the poll as charities do already suggest PTS in many cases. I also disagree that field sound on one bute a day means that the horse would be better off dead. If the horse has an owner caring enough to fork out for the cost of bute and the horse is happy, then what is wrong with that?

I do agree that we have a huge problem with the horse population in this country. My solution would to be that anyone wishing to breed should be required to donate a fixed sum (say £250) to a central 'horse welfare pot' for every foal they breed. They would then receive a certificate/licence to breed that one foal. In addition, they should complete a detailed form setting out the proposed 'use' of that foal. Is it to be kept by the owner or sold on? If sold on, they should specify their market (target buyers) and price estimate. If they have a buyer already, for the unborn foal, then this buyer should be recorded. Then only when/if the foal to be bred, is approved, should the mare be allowed to go to stud. Stallion owners should be required to examine the approval certificate before allowing the breeding. Anyone who breeds a foal without obtaining the certificate should be fined. I would suggest a fine should equate to the average price of a riding horse.

 

[MissChaos]

I am a little confused by the poll as charities do already suggest PTS in many cases.

This. There have been some hefty assumptions (and in fact some eye-poppingly crazy other suggestions, particularly as to the true motives and behaviour of leading charities) made otherwise on this thread, even though somebody on one of the other threads (apologies to that poster!) cited some of WHW's info pointing out that they will PTS as necessary. That doesn't and shouldn't necessarily mean only when an animal is on its absolute last legs. A cull is needed. The problem is PR, as somebody has said - and that's not actually a 'bad' or 'wrong' reason; charities need money, simple as. Try bluntly putting the idea of culling cutey-wutey ickle ponies to those uninformed and see what a gamble it is.

I think Wagtail's and some other ideas are good. However, I don't think it's necessarily legislation overall that's lacking (although I'd support stallion licensing, not that the resources exist currently to get that off the ground) - we've already seen with passports that a lot of problems come from lack of enforcement.

 

[Merrymoles]

The poll says do would you support a charity who supported PTS as an option.
I am pretty sure every uk charity I ever worked along side support PTS in certain circumstances .
You really need to define it a bit more .
There's very few people in the UK who would never support PTS as an option .

This ^^^

Until there is a proper passport system, by which I mean one central agency rather than dozens, and the system is properly enforced in terms of traceability, I can't see anything improving.

I know someone who has a collection of elderly horses, ponies and donkeys - only the horses have passports. She doesn't live in fear of a visit from someone checking up and, to be fair, all are well looked after and she will never sell or otherwise move on any of them. Her view is that she should not have to pay to passport them and therefore will not do so. While it is a different set up, her views are the same as those of many indiscriminate breeders - no-one is going to check up so why should I bother/fork out?

 

[pennyturner]

I would be very interested in seeing some figures, a business plan, if you will, on the economics of PTS for petfood and/or human consumption. I can see no reason why it should need charity subsidy at all, being essentially the collection of a waste product which has economic value in another sphere. This is the essense of good business.

If it could make money, why aren't people doing it? If it doesn't stack up economically, why not - is it regulatory costs?

If an owner can SELL to a reputable meat man, then many more will CHOOSE to PTS - including the 'indiscriminate breeders', who suddenly become.... farmers.

 

[_GG_]

I've been thinking long and hard about this whole thing. I am going to do something so if you wish to help, I would genuinely appreciate it.

See here:-

https://forums-secure.horseandhound...y!-A-Welfare-solution&p=12539311#post12539311

 

[MiJodsR2BlinkinTite]

I've (deliberately) not read too many other responses on here other than flick through quickly.

Whilst the concept may seem unpalatable, yes I would support it.

Its time for some common-sense thinking on this issue; but it has to go back much further to this and issues like random breeding need addressing. i.e. just take a look at what's happened to the "Dartmoor" pony and other hill ponies in the UK............ this goes back to the 1960's and even before that, where people like Lady Sayer (and others) warned about the consequences of inter-breeding of pure-bred types by allowing seedy little mares and stallions to run on the moors, and breed, producing poor runty little cross-bred animals that don't even fetch a good meat price nowadays. THAT's where the problem lies IMO.

But - to go back to the original topic, yes, I would, wholeheartedly support such an organisation. It is well overdue IMO.

 

[windand rain]

It is a simple if unpleasant fact that horses should have to be treated in the same way as cattle perhaps with the exception of the movements bit.
All stallions over 2/3 years of age must be licensed graded and checked with a microchip and if necessary a freeze brand with its license number on it.
All horses in the leisure industry should by the time they are 6 months old have a microchip and or freeze brand to show they have it
Any horse not having the necessary chip or brand to be seized and destroyed NO EXCEPTIONS.
Any horse found abandoned should be seized and destroyed would be easy to trace ownership of cherished animals because they would be freeze branded and chipped so theft would be reduced too
Any animal destined for meat should be freeze branded at the breeders cost and should never leave the premises except straight to slaughter
I can see three real problems with these proposals
1. policing costs
2 funding, veterinary and slaughter
3 the fluffy bunny brigade
Passports should be a document of responsibility and every horse not in possession of one again should be seized and destroyed
Responsible owners already comply the irresponsible will either comply at cost or lose their animals
A fund should be set up for those in financial difficulties to chose the kind way and PTS old and infirm animals and of course those that are genuinely unwanted

 

[cobgoblin]

It is a simple if unpleasant fact that horses should have to be treated in the same way as cattle perhaps with the exception of the movements bit.
All stallions over 2/3 years of age must be licensed graded and checked with a microchip and if necessary a freeze brand with its license number on it.
All horses in the leisure industry should by the time they are 6 months old have a microchip and or freeze brand to show they have it
Any horse not having the necessary chip or brand to be seized and destroyed NO EXCEPTIONS.
Any horse found abandoned should be seized and destroyed would be easy to trace ownership of cherished animals because they would be freeze branded and chipped so theft would be reduced too
Any animal destined for meat should be freeze branded at the breeders cost and should never leave the premises except straight to slaughter
I can see three real problems with these proposals
1. policing costs
2 funding, veterinary and slaughter
3 the fluffy bunny brigade
Passports should be a document of responsibility and every horse not in possession of one again should be seized and destroyed
Responsible owners already comply the irresponsible will either comply at cost or lose their animals
A fund should be set up for those in financial difficulties to chose the kind way and PTS old and infirm animals and of course those that are genuinely unwanted

Well I'm glad you're not running the country!
We'd all be frog marching up and down the streets. Fortunately I don't think there's much danger of you being elected.

 

[windand rain]

probably not but wishy washy ideas only confuse the matter say what you think will work and a practical and sensitive solution will be found
I think I would make a clear and concise decision on things it is not rocket science something needs to be done and quickly trying to do it by the side door is a waste of time get out and say what you really mean

 

[cobgoblin]

probably not but wishy washy ideas only confuse the matter say what you think will work and a practical and sensitive solution will be found
I think I would make a clear and concise decision on things it is not rocket science something needs to be done and quickly trying to do it by the side door is a waste of time get out and say what you really mean

These measures could only be instigated by the government. It would be political suicide, so they won't do it!
No other body, charitable or independent , should be given such wide ranging powers as these. In fact I find the very thought of it quite abhorrent and akin to a dictator-led existence.

 

[The Fuzzy Furry]

one small step: http://www.bhs.org.uk/our-charity/press-centre/news/july-to-dec-2014/coh-bill

Control of horses bill, lets hope the coalition of charities gets this listened to!

All who posted on this thread, do read the entire article

 

[windand rain]

Not really sure why you think that it is what everyone is saying in a round about way. The rules for livestock work and could work in the same way for horses if the only welfare change that was made was the ear tags were replaced by freeze branding and a slightly less rigid movements plan

 

[Clare85]

You cannot legally seize someone else's horses unless of course theirs a welfare issue or grazing illegally. If people stopped buying them they would soon stop breeding and move onto the next money making scheme. How long is it before enough is enough and everyone is full, theres only a certain number of horses people can accommodate

Well no, but let's not forget that there are welfare issues with most of the mass produced horses we are talking about here. They are kept in herds of hundreds, on overgrazed land with no alternative forage (and sometimes water) available to them (often fly grazed), they will have heavy worm burdens, lice infestations, overgrown hooves, ringworm, etc. etc. The state of most of these creatures is despicable and imo there would be good grounds to seize them.

Also, many of them will need lots of extremely expensive treatment and rehab, which may or may not see them right. I personally believe there would be a good case for putting many of the poor things out of their misery asap once discovered. I know that sounds harsh but, as you say, rescues are full to bursting and there isn't room for them all. We need to get much much better at prioritising those that are kept going for too long. Better pts than leaving them with their uncaring, neglectful owners imo.

Also, as I've touched on, I feel we need much better id systems in place and any horses whose owners cannot be proven should be seized. Obviously we can't do this atm, but I really feel there should be much tougher legislation regarding this which is actually followed through.

We aren't in a position to deal with the situation effectively atm, but we need to be.

 

[Clare85]

one small step: http://www.bhs.org.uk/our-charity/press-centre/news/july-to-dec-2014/coh-bill

Control of horses bill, lets hope the coalition of charities gets this listened to!

All who posted on this thread, do read the entire article

Something for us all to get behind. Let's hope they listen.

 

[cbmcts]

one small step: http://www.bhs.org.uk/our-charity/press-centre/news/july-to-dec-2014/coh-bill

Control of horses bill, lets hope the coalition of charities gets this listened to!

All who posted on this thread, do read the entire article

Certainly a step in the right direction.

I especially like the phrase that owners should take responsibility for their own animals...