Melody Grey
Well-Known Member
This- or hindgut imbalance. Can turn perfection into an absolute nightmare!!
My heart is torn :(
- Thread starter AlDestoor
- Start date
AlDestoor
Well-Known Member
I've just spoke to my trainer and had a heart to heart with him.
Hes said that he feels that this is him now as hes feeling happy and healthy but has recommended talking to the vet first.
Hes said he'll have him on training livery for a few weeks and work with me and him and then I can make a decision. He has said that you need to be a bit selfish with 'is this horse really what I want' etc
I feel a bit better now that I've got a plan of action and then I can honestly say I've tried IF that decision comes. The trainer has mentioned though that if I did sell, hes happy in a job and could go far with the right person so not to worry if I chose to sell too much. One of his top eventers has KS and although he wouldn't get as much money without the KS, hes still doing the job and is happy and healthy otherwise.
Hes said that he feels that this is him now as hes feeling happy and healthy but has recommended talking to the vet first.
Hes said he'll have him on training livery for a few weeks and work with me and him and then I can make a decision. He has said that you need to be a bit selfish with 'is this horse really what I want' etc
I feel a bit better now that I've got a plan of action and then I can honestly say I've tried IF that decision comes. The trainer has mentioned though that if I did sell, hes happy in a job and could go far with the right person so not to worry if I chose to sell too much. One of his top eventers has KS and although he wouldn't get as much money without the KS, hes still doing the job and is happy and healthy otherwise.
Laurac13
Well-Known Member
Hi
I think he could have ulcers and would get him scoped if he has been rehabbed with lots of box rest it’s highly likely once sorted his old personality will return x
I think he could have ulcers and would get him scoped if he has been rehabbed with lots of box rest it’s highly likely once sorted his old personality will return x
AlDestoor
Well-Known Member
Yes I'm speaking to the vet on Monday.
Hes started his behaviour post diagnosis at the mounting block as well; trainer got involved and thinks its not pain related by behaviour as I've let him get away with it as he went perfect after.
I'm still torn as to what to do tbh as I just feel ill never be able to be confident enough to do what I wanted in the first place with him, but if I sold him with his issues, I just dont know he wouldn't get passed around but at the same time, I cant afford 2 horses ?
Winters100
Well-Known Member
So it depends if you love the animal or not. If he is a machine to you and you value him only for the work that he does then do as you will. If not I think you know what the right thing is.
Red-1
I used to be decisive, now I'm not so sure...
I think the phraseology in this is a little unfair. My new horse has numerous issues, declared, and the old owner sold. According to many people on HHO, she should either have kept the horse she no longer could have or PTS to ensure his future. Actually I think Rigsby has a good deal in his new home with me. 2 people and a horse happy.
I think keeping a horse that does not give you delight is unwise, unless you have stacks of money so proportionally the 'cost' to you is less. I do agree that if you love the horse and get something from keeping him/her in retirement, then keeping is great, I have retired two of mine who could have lived here forever and never worked a stroke. They still gave me delight. I have sold others, even if they have had problems, which I have declared that and sold to the most suitable home.
That being said, once a horse has issues such as this one, I think that OP is unwise to think that she/he can get funds from this horse for another. When I buy one, I think mentally that I write off the purchase price. If I get some back from a sale, I consider that a bonus. I think OP sounds unhappy and selling (or PTS for that matter, if the horse's issues impact its behaviour) is OK, as long as it is not a money making exercise, but more to find the solution for the horse and OP. With Rigsby, it was not about making money that he was sold. The owner genuinely tried to find the 'perfect' home.
The way you worded it, I think the phrase I take exception to is the 'right thing' as this will be different to every person, and may be different again for the horse. Selling to the right owner may be the 'right thing' for this horse (but I think it is unlikely that such a sale would fund a new competition horse).
Winters100
Well-Known Member
Yes, perhaps the phrasing is harsh, but to me it is the truth. There are many people here who genuinely do love their horses, and who would not dream of putting them to sleep just to make space for a new riding horse. I have no issue at all with selling if the right home could be found, but it should be a search with the welfare of the horse in mind, not simply an exercise to raise cash and reduce expenditure to keep a more 'useful' animal. I have no issue with what the sellers of Rigsby did, they found a good and knowledgeable home for him where he will not have more expected of him than he is able to give. I also really doubt that they would have pts just to buy another. If the horse is just a machine to someone, or an animal of work, then I can understand the decision, however to say that you 'adore' an animal and then just seek to dispose of it just because it is not working as you would like is, to me, insulting to those who actually do adore their animals and do everything they can to give them good lives. There are many on this forum who are doing just that, even in some cases with horses that are only recently purchased.
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Winters100, the sellers of Rigsby took a huge risk and the horse is very lucky to have found Red.
I sold a horse which my vet told me had to live on flatter ground. Because he was cheap, I took references and interviewed his prospective new owner. Her stable yard looked like a palace. In the space of 4 months she starved him to skin and bone. I was alerted by a concerned person at the yard. We mounted a rescue operation which cost us a lot of money and even more heartache.
Years later I was gifted a horse. That horse's history included being diagnosed as incapable of more than light work and loaned to a seemingly caring home as a light hack. That person sold him as a show jumper, where he was found, lame, after a long search and gifted back to his owner.
Anyone who sells an unsound horse takes this risk.
I worry about giving horses 'long and happy' retirements because nobody has any idea how much pain a horse is in, they hide it so well. I also see far too many that are clearly having a long and unhappy retirement. So far, since the starved one, I have put horses down. They can then never be in pain again. They neither know nor care about the retirement, happy or otherwise, which they could have had. The only animal in that situation who cares a jot is the human.
Which begs the question, if the human is the only one it matters to, why anyone who retires their horses feels entitled to be so judgmental about those who don't. Still less to call them "morally bankrupt" as you did on another thread.
I sold a horse which my vet told me had to live on flatter ground. Because he was cheap, I took references and interviewed his prospective new owner. Her stable yard looked like a palace. In the space of 4 months she starved him to skin and bone. I was alerted by a concerned person at the yard. We mounted a rescue operation which cost us a lot of money and even more heartache.
Years later I was gifted a horse. That horse's history included being diagnosed as incapable of more than light work and loaned to a seemingly caring home as a light hack. That person sold him as a show jumper, where he was found, lame, after a long search and gifted back to his owner.
Anyone who sells an unsound horse takes this risk.
I worry about giving horses 'long and happy' retirements because nobody has any idea how much pain a horse is in, they hide it so well. I also see far too many that are clearly having a long and unhappy retirement. So far, since the starved one, I have put horses down. They can then never be in pain again. They neither know nor care about the retirement, happy or otherwise, which they could have had. The only animal in that situation who cares a jot is the human.
Which begs the question, if the human is the only one it matters to, why anyone who retires their horses feels entitled to be so judgmental about those who don't. Still less to call them "morally bankrupt" as you did on another thread.
Last edited:
mariew
Well-Known Member
I think that is harsh to say you don't love your horse enough if you would consider PTS a horse that can't be ridden.
I think fine, if you want to keep a horse retired for 10 or 20 years, knowing you can't afford another to ride, it's your choice. But I also don't think it's a fair to judge others who put a broken younger horse to sleep for money purposes. They are incredibly time consuming and expensive creatures and won't know different. I think as a horse owner you need to go into horse ownership knowing that you may have to take unpleasant decisions at some point or another.
It sounds like the op is exhausting all reasonable avenues before having to make any calls.
I think fine, if you want to keep a horse retired for 10 or 20 years, knowing you can't afford another to ride, it's your choice. But I also don't think it's a fair to judge others who put a broken younger horse to sleep for money purposes. They are incredibly time consuming and expensive creatures and won't know different. I think as a horse owner you need to go into horse ownership knowing that you may have to take unpleasant decisions at some point or another.
It sounds like the op is exhausting all reasonable avenues before having to make any calls.
Errin Paddywack
Well-Known Member
I have taken on my friend's retired brood mare. If I hadn't she would have been put down but that isn't why I took her. She has several problems or has had, not least that she is PSSM N/p1 but appears to be asymptomatic. She is a delightful, no-nonsense sort of horse. Doesn't know how to kick or bite and a lovely person to have around. She has filled the hole that was left in my life after I lost my last horse. I couldn't justify buying another horse at my age as I can't guarantee a younger horse a lifetime home and I don't ride any more. If she goes badly wrong or my life goes wrong and I can't afford to keep her any more she will be put down, no question.
I would much sooner see a horse with problems be that physical or mental put down rather than risk being passed around to all and sundry. Retirement sounds lovely but in practice unless well managed could be a living hell.
I would much sooner see a horse with problems be that physical or mental put down rather than risk being passed around to all and sundry. Retirement sounds lovely but in practice unless well managed could be a living hell.
Winters100
Well-Known Member
I'm afraid we won't agree on this one. I simply do not believe that we need to ride horses to know whether they are in pain or feeling unwell. And just because some horses are neglected in retirement, or indeed at any other time of their lives, does not mean that it is not possible to care for them properly and give them a good and happy life, ridden or not.
The fact that an animal does not know about retirement is not a good reason to say that the life of this animal does not matter. Would you feel the same if someone wrote that they were having their adult dog put to sleep because they wanted to get a new puppy who would be cuter and more amusing? It is the same thing.
I can understand someone putting their older horse to sleep for many reasons, because it is in pain, because they simply cannot afford to keep it and do not want to pass it on, or even because to them it is something like a farm animal with a limited useful economic life. What I can not understand is people saying that they 'love' or 'adore' their horses, but that they would pts just to replace them with a more useful one. If you truly can't keep a horse it is one thing, but if you choose to spend your money on a different horse it is quite another. If some choose to do it fine, but I really don't think that people can claim to be heartbroken by their own choice to pts a horse who could live a good life, but just would not amuse them so much or win prizes.
doodle
Well-Known Member
I’m with winters on this one. I couldn’t put down a horse that would be ok in retirement (and I mean mentally and physically) just so I could get something I could ride. But for me having the horse is the bit I want and riding is an added extra.
AmyMay
Situation normal
And I will disagree. There is absolutely nothing wrong in wanting to be able to ride the horse you own. Spending thousands a year on keeping a field ornament when what absolutely drives you is riding is simply not viable for most (or at least a very bitter pill to swallow).
And as an aside, nobody should ever be made to feel guilty for putting an unsound horse down.
doodle
Well-Known Member
Simply saying my opinion and I realise others have different priorities.
Hallo2012
Well-Known Member
My ulcer horse went crazy over reactive to noise and movement after being very solid.
deffo get a scope and treat for hind gut ulcers (cannot be seen on scope)
FWIW to me a happy jolly fresh horse might rodeo in to canter, or explode over a line of trot poles or launch up a track hacking, but they dont dump you because someone shuts a door or coughs or a wheel barrow goes up the muck ramp etc.....to me that says pain and trigger loading....
deffo get a scope and treat for hind gut ulcers (cannot be seen on scope)
FWIW to me a happy jolly fresh horse might rodeo in to canter, or explode over a line of trot poles or launch up a track hacking, but they dont dump you because someone shuts a door or coughs or a wheel barrow goes up the muck ramp etc.....to me that says pain and trigger loading....
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
No I wouldn't, because it isn't the same thing at all.
I get that it annoys you that people put a horse down when it could retire, so that they have one to ride, while also saying that they love the one they are putting to sleep. I can see why you find that irritating.
But on a previous thread on this topic, without reference to whether they are saying that they love it or not, solely because they choose to put down an unsound horse so they can keep a horse they can ride, you said that those people are "morally bankrupt".
You appear with this latest post to have moderated that view a bit to only those who claim that they love the horse?
.
Winters100
Well-Known Member
No, I have not changed my view, I can't find that thread, but from memory I think I said that I would consider myself morally bankrupt if I put my much loved horse to sleep for no reason other than I could not ride it. I do not agree with the morals of putting a horse to sleep when it can enjoy a perfectly good non-ridden life and the owner can afford to keep a horse, but what i am saying above is that I can understand this course of action as being logical to someone for whom the horse is an unloved animal of work or a machine. It makes no sense to me at all when someone is claiming to 'love' or 'adore' the animal.
Edited to ask why is the example of putting a dog to sleep to get a cuter puppy any different? To me it is exactly the same thing.
paddi22
Well-Known Member
Yes I've had one with kissing spine and retirement didn't work for him at all as his back got sore when he wasn't in work. I have another now with KS and I know I won't be able to retire him either. He constantly has to be worked and muscle kept along his back or else it gets sore. retirement isn't an option for a lot of KS horses.
paddi22
Well-Known Member
The OP has tried everything she could with the horse and if it's not the horse for her then she is working through the process of what happens now.
There is a few difficult bits to the story though. the reality is the horse is worth very little money wise with those existing issues and the Op should be aware that once sold, the horse doesn't face good odds. Unless the horse is extremely talented that someone puts the care and treatment in for the issues and gets enough rewards out of it performance wise.
Working with a charity we see these horses coming in all the time and it's always the same story. what happens to these horses is a new buyer goes 'oh nice horse, I know it has issues but it's cheap so I'll take a chance and hope it works out', then it DOESN"T work out, the horse starts rearing, not jumping etc. The new owner doesn't have the history or bond with the horse to keep making the effort money and time wise, so it's sold onto a dealer (not in badness, Im sure people convince themselves it will go to a good home) and the cycle starts where its life goes downhill and it can end up in a situation where a charity gets it. if you sell a quirky tricky horse, then this is a possible future for it. that's why any of the quirky ones I loan out or LWVTB. You cannot guarantee it will get a good life and you are kidding yourself to think most do, the odds are against it. In this horse's case, if it's an amazing competition horse and is young enough, then it has a good chance. But that's a tiny percentage of riders who are good enough to ride hot horses and will still care for the horse even if it turns out they can't compete at the level wanted. thats honestly a tiny minority.
The older I get the more I think there are two types of horse owner, - the type who loves the actually body and soul of the animal you own and are happy to see it eating grass in a field if it can't be ridden, or the other is someone who enjoys riding and wants to be out and about doing stuff. Both are valid but I think the 'riding' type need to own their feelings about how replaceable their horses are. The peak of this is the ads you see that have 'five star home only' for a 26 year old horse.
If someone's finances and circumstances mean they want to have one horse on livery and ride then they need to be realistic about that and in my heart of hearts I don't think they get to play the 'but I love the horse so much card'. I think the onus is on every owner to guarantee the best future they can for any horse they take responsibility for and that entails really tough choices at times.
There is a few difficult bits to the story though. the reality is the horse is worth very little money wise with those existing issues and the Op should be aware that once sold, the horse doesn't face good odds. Unless the horse is extremely talented that someone puts the care and treatment in for the issues and gets enough rewards out of it performance wise.
Working with a charity we see these horses coming in all the time and it's always the same story. what happens to these horses is a new buyer goes 'oh nice horse, I know it has issues but it's cheap so I'll take a chance and hope it works out', then it DOESN"T work out, the horse starts rearing, not jumping etc. The new owner doesn't have the history or bond with the horse to keep making the effort money and time wise, so it's sold onto a dealer (not in badness, Im sure people convince themselves it will go to a good home) and the cycle starts where its life goes downhill and it can end up in a situation where a charity gets it. if you sell a quirky tricky horse, then this is a possible future for it. that's why any of the quirky ones I loan out or LWVTB. You cannot guarantee it will get a good life and you are kidding yourself to think most do, the odds are against it. In this horse's case, if it's an amazing competition horse and is young enough, then it has a good chance. But that's a tiny percentage of riders who are good enough to ride hot horses and will still care for the horse even if it turns out they can't compete at the level wanted. thats honestly a tiny minority.
The older I get the more I think there are two types of horse owner, - the type who loves the actually body and soul of the animal you own and are happy to see it eating grass in a field if it can't be ridden, or the other is someone who enjoys riding and wants to be out and about doing stuff. Both are valid but I think the 'riding' type need to own their feelings about how replaceable their horses are. The peak of this is the ads you see that have 'five star home only' for a 26 year old horse.
If someone's finances and circumstances mean they want to have one horse on livery and ride then they need to be realistic about that and in my heart of hearts I don't think they get to play the 'but I love the horse so much card'. I think the onus is on every owner to guarantee the best future they can for any horse they take responsibility for and that entails really tough choices at times.
Last edited:
AmyMay
Situation normal
Well they’re diametrically different, obviously, because this is not a healthy older animal being put down to make way for a younger one.
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Dogs are predator animals, they don't hide pain. They are vocal animals, they can express particularly a sharp sudden pain well, and do. Dogs live in the house with you, you don't have to leave the house to care for them in retirement other than a short walk. Dogs don't usually cost thousands of pounds a year to keep. Dogs are not usually bought with the objective of working them, so there is no loss of anything as a dog gets older, except perhaps the length of a walk (though I see a lot of dogs being carried or push chaired these days). A retired dog is there in the house with you all the time. You don't visit them twice a day, or put them on retirement livery somewhere, and then spend every minute you aren't there with them worrying about if they are ok today. Digestive and urinary problems common in old age, for example, are more obvious in a dog. With an old dog you don't run the risk of being stuck in a field in the rain with an animal who can't get up, waiting a long time for a vet to arrive to put it out of it's misery.
Basically, pet dogs don't actually retire, they just get older. For me there is just no comparison between getting rid of an old or lame dog and retiring a horse.
Winters100
Well-Known Member
paddi22
Well-Known Member
totally agree with YCBM, it's not comparable at all. At.a base level you aren't paying, what, a minimum of forty quid a week? plus medication on top? for a dog that isn't 'useable' I always think horse people should have an 'adopt don't shop' mentality. but then financially and riding wise it's so much of a risk that I can see why people don't do it. If you get a dog that doesn't work it's heartbreaking but it's a lot easier than dealing with a horse that doesn't work out.
Winters100
Well-Known Member
This is true, but of course we should remember that to a lot of families the cost of a dog is a major expenditure, maybe even comparable to horses for some. And of course a dog in your home who is not working out might be even more difficult in some cases.
paddi22
Well-Known Member
yeah I agree it's heartbreaking, but would it only really be comparable if the dog was staying at an expensive boarding kennel that you had to pay weekly? and if, say, you needed that dog for a 'job' and you were left paying for a dog to live at a kennels that you couldn't enjoy. I can see your point but it's a bit apples vs oranges. I would have to dispute the cost of a dog vs horse, maybe if the dog is on crazy medication, but on a day to day level you don't have the cost for farrier/rugs/more expensive wormers/physios/dentists etc. I know dogs get them, but it's a smaller level compared to horses. we have a few small pets with issues but the cost doesn't even comparer to the running of one horse.
splashgirl45
Lurcher lover
i have never sold or gifted a horse , even if they couldnt be ridden, , they are with me until their quality of life is compromised and i then make the call, but there is no way i would post on here and think that my way is the only way.... i see too many horses who IMO should be PTS but the owners want them to have a retirement and keep them going , their choice.... i would rather someone takes the difficult step of PTS if a horse is not able to be ridden rather than passing them on. who are we to judge the way others live their lives, and who is to say that the OP's horse would be comfortable in retirement..its a difficult enough decision without being judged on here by people who have other ideas and dont seem to be able to see anyone elses point of view..
Winters100
Well-Known Member
Perhaps I phrased it wrongly. I did not mean the cost in 'actual' terms, rather that the cost for some families might be a high proportion of their disposable income, similar to that proportion of disposable income that horses represent to some owners.
As an aside I did about 4.5 years ago pick up a very sick dog in the street. My intention was to deal with health issues and rehome him .... turned out he had a rare autoimmune disease and for the first 6 months needed to see a dermatologist 3 times a week and cost more to keep than the one horse that I had at the time! Not my best decision financially, but he turned out to be a really nice dog, and even though he was old he was with us for 4.5 years until we finally had to pts a month or so ago when he was just too old!
paddi22
Well-Known Member
that dog was so lucky you found it. how kind of you to give it such a good life!
yeah the proportion money wise is a good point. for us our horse costs would be similar to our mortgage cost, which is terrifying!