No, you do not 'love' your horse if...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Goldenstar said:
We all get that .
it's not what the threads about .
The threads about your judgement of when others love or don't love horses .
Click to expand...

This isn't true I'm afraid :( many people who have replied haven't got that at all, which is why she has to keep repeating it in response to people accusing her of saying things she has not said.
 
Theocat said:
This is aimed directly at me.

Wagtail, love isn't a fixed, absolute thing, and even in relationships between humans whether love exists or survives depends on so many circumstances - not just the individuals involved. It is possible to genuinely love someone (or something) and for that love to change or fade if circumstances change.

Imagine a scenario where a couple fell in love over a mutual love of cycling, and had years of being in love and cycling together. One day, one of them no longer can, or will, get on a bike. Easy enough to image that the relationship could change - you're a fool if you think otherwise.

I love my horse - but I also love riding. If the latter was removed, I'd still have the horse - but I would lose a very large part of the enjoyment of my life. It would still be costing me a fortune. I am honest enough to admit that I am human. I know that my feelings towards the horse are likely to change as the circumstances change. That doesn't mean a lack of love.

For those who love the horse but send it away to retirement livery or a blood bank - I don't have a problem with that, and it's certainly none of my business. But fundamentally, what's in it for the horse? Why is a longer life better than a short one? And what is the owner getting out of it? If they love the horse (more than those ghastly ones amongst us who would put down instead) how can they bear to be parted from it? I can't see that keeping a horse alive and sending it away shows any more love than having it put down.

I'd love to have my own grounds and keep my happy retired horses forever more. I don't, and I'm honest enough to admit that paying out hundreds of pounds a month, when I can no longer ride, would affect my feelings for my horse. That doesn't mean there's no love there.

You may stick your nose in and judge all you like when the welfare of an animal is compromised. You have no right to pass public judgement on how others must feel, and you certainly cannot know it.
Click to expand...

Perfectly put my feelings on this issue.
 
Mince Pie said:
Report me all you want, Wagtail, I stand by what I said. I find your behaviour and attitude completely appalling, thereare very few people generally who will arrange to have a horse PTS because it is no longer useful and I would be surprised if they profess to love their horse. All this thread has achieved is to upset a lot of people.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is true, Mince Pie. I know lots of people who will, and have, put a horse down just because it will no longer carry a rider. I am not one of them, but I would not rule out becoming one of them in future if I don't feel an emotional tie to the horse strong enough to offer it retirement.

The thread has indeed upset a lot of people, but the vast majority of them have described a situation which is simply not what Wagtail was writing about and then accused her of being nasty about them.
 
I don't think people have complained about Wagtail being nasty to them. I think most people have complained about Wagtail seeming to be judgemental, hypocritical and sanctimonious. I can't be bothered to trawl through for other adjectives but I don't remember the word nasty being used.
 
ycbm said:
I don't think this is true, Mince Pie. I know lots of people who will, and have, put a horse down just because it will no longer carry a rider. I am not one of them, but I would not rule out becoming one of them in future if I don't feel an emotional tie to the horse strong enough to offer it retirement.

The thread has indeed upset a lot of people, but the vast majority of them have described a situation which is simply not what Wagtail was writing about and then accused her of being nasty about them.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the grand scheme of things, if you look at all the pleasure riders in the UK it would be a small percentage.
 
ycbm said:
I remember her writing the exact opposite. That he has put on a lot of weight and that she still loves him. Is my memory faulty, or yours? Can you substantiate what you've written about Wagtail here PaS?
Click to expand...

I really cannot be bothered to go trawling back through all Wagtail's posts, I am afraid.
My recollection is that within that thread, Wagtail did a complete about face, so maybe we are both correct. Of course if you would like you to do the trawl ............
 
Last edited:
Pearlsasinger said:
I really cannot be bothered to go trawling back through all Wagtail's posts, I am afraid.
My recollection is that within that thread, Wagtail did a complete about face, so maybe we are both correct. Of course if you would like you to do the trawl ............
Click to expand...

Surely you should be sure that you are right before making an offensive allegation about what someone has posted?. It is for you to prove what you wrote, not for me to disprove it. Wagtail has confirmed my recollection, and until you prove otherwise, then your claim that she said that she would not love her husband if he put on weight remains a libel.
 
Wagtail said:
You say you will PTS as soon as it can no longer be ridden.

We all have different views, and it is true that the horse doesn't know it is going to be PTS because when it's dead, it's dead and so long as it is done well, then it is none the wiser. It does not suffer. If the owner has also taken care of it well throughout ownership, then they are a good owner from the horse's point of view. But please, people who state that they will PTS as soon as the horse cannot do its job, even if it is very happy and comfortable not being ridden, you do not love the horse. You love riding the horse and competing the horse and hunting the horse, or hacking, whatever, and you are probably a kind responsible owner, but you do not love your horse. If you really love your horse for itself, as a living, breathing being, then you would keep the horse in retirement, end of.

Now, I am not for one second condemning people who do this. Not one bit. I am just saying that they do not love their horse and they shouldn't state that they do. They care for it and treat it well but they do not know what it is like to love a horse if that is what they think it is.

Also, not all horses are equal. Some get to you more than others. One day they may meet a horse that they really do love, and then to PTS so they can get a new one would be the last thing they would want to do.

Then they will know what it is like to love a horse.
Click to expand...

This is my OP. What have I changed? I have clarified by explaining a few points that were queried, but not changed anything.
 
fburton said:
I would like both to understand the motivation behind what seems to me to be an oddly loaded (agenda laden?) question, and to encourage you to lay your cards on the table so that everyone can see where you are coming from - something there may well be misunderstanding about, given the responses so far.
Click to expand...

I have no agenda. I think I have fully explained why I posted this thread. There is no misunderstanding. It is fully intentional by a number of posters. The same posters do it over and over on my threads which is why I do not respond to them. They are the only ones with agendas. I just wanted a discussion because I hear it being said a lot in the horse world. Maybe I just like people to be genuine about what they say and not make throw away comments. I repeat again. I am not condemning putting an animal to sleep. I have admitted myself that I have only truly loved one horse. I think I will get to that with my current mare but I am not there yet. So I can admit it, and YCBM has admitted it, why can't others? I just find it hard to comprehend how if someone really loves a horse, they can put it to sleep even if it is field sound and happy in retirement, so they can get a new one. I can only imagine that they just haven't met 'that' horse yet. I am interested in genuine responses.
 
Last edited:
ycbm said:
Surely you should be sure that you are right before making an offensive allegation about what someone has posted?. It is for you to prove what you wrote, not for me to disprove it. Wagtail has confirmed my recollection, and until you prove otherwise, then your claim that she said that she would not love her husband if he put on weight remains a libel.
Click to expand...

Oh I did not say that I am not sure. What I said was that I could not be bothered to trawl back through Wagtail's posts. If someone alleges libel, the onus is on them to prove their allegation.

Should anyone decide to check, they will find another circular thread, similar to this one.
 
Please do not make incorrect allegations from a totally irrelevant thread on a private forum and post them on a searchable forum, Pearlsasinger.
 
ycbm said:
Surely you should be sure that you are right before making an offensive allegation about what someone has posted?. It is for you to prove what you wrote, not for me to disprove it. Wagtail has confirmed my recollection, and until you prove otherwise, then your claim that she said that she would not love her husband if he put on weight remains a libel.
Click to expand...

I wonder whose friend you are in real life to be defending someone who has blatantly crossed a line :rolleyes: also you really have a cheek to go on about someone being offensive when the most offensive person on this thread has been the OP herself according to the majority of people who think that she is outrageous in her opinion that she can define love for everyone, personally I think you are just out to claim some notoriety for yourself by standing by wagtail as she leads another merry dance. It's not her first rodeo and won't be her last I'm sure.

Wagtail you do have an agenda for posting this thread. There must have been a trigger, which going by theocats upset post it was aimed not so covertly at them. You haven't clarified points you have changed from you absolute statement to adding caveats to try and deflect from the original insulting and blatantly hurtful post.
 
Black Beastie said:
I wonder whose friend you are in real life to be defending someone who has blatantly crossed a line :rolleyes: also you really have a cheek to go on about someone being offensive when the most offensive person on this thread has been the OP herself according to the majority of people who think that she is outrageous in her opinion that she can define love for everyone, personally I think you are just out to claim some notoriety for yourself by standing by wagtail as she leads another merry dance. It's not her first rodeo and won't be her last I'm sure.

Wagtail you do have an agenda for posting this thread. There must have been a trigger, which going by theocats upset post it was aimed not so covertly at them. You haven't clarified points you have changed from you absolute statement to adding caveats to try and deflect from the original insulting and blatantly hurtful post.
Click to expand...

BB I have not responded so far to you because your posts have been so rude, but do not want YCBM to be tarred on here like I am and can assure you that I have never met her in my life! Good grief!
 
I think there is a lot of guilt here showing in the responses. It is simple - if you have a horse who can happily be retired in the field - not as taken out of context by many showing exmaples of lame or unmanageable horses, and you choose not to because you wish to buy another horse to ride or don't wish to commit to visiting daily etc. even though you could manage this while the horse was ridden it is incomprehensible that you love that horse as much as you claim - the phrase 'I love my horse but...' is so often bandied about. It is better to be honest and say that you love riding more...
 
Wagtail said:
I have no agenda. I think I have fully explained why I posted this thread. There is no misunderstanding. It is fully intentional by a number of posters. The same posters do it over and over on my threads which is why I do not respond to them. They are the only ones with agendas. I just wanted a discussion because I hear it being said a lot in the horse world. Maybe I just like people to be genuine about what they say and not make throw away comments. I repeat again. I am not condemning putting an animal to sleep.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I don't want you to feel I am unfairly pressuring you to reveal a motivation that isn't there. (Confess! Confess! ;))

I have admitted myself that I have only truly loved one horse.
Click to expand...
Hmm, so is there a distinction between "true love" and just "love"?

I think I will get to that with my current mare but I am not there yet. So I can admit it, and YCBM has admitted it, why can't others? I just find it hard to comprehend how if someone really loves a horse, they can put it to sleep even if it is field sound so they can get a new one. I can only imagine that they just haven't met 'that' horse yet. I am interested in genuine responses.
Click to expand...
For what it is worth - and since you are soliciting responses - I wouldn't choose to have a horse of mine pts after it ceased to be rideable, even if I didn't "truly love" it, as long as it wasn't suffering and was capable of enjoying life. I might be forced to by circumstances, but that would only be after failing to find a good enough home. It would be a sense of responsibility rather than any real feelings of love that motivated me; I would feel bad about pts a healthy horse. But that's just me, and I certainly wouldn't be critical of people with different outlooks or priorities as long as a horse's welfare wasn't being compromised.
 
Last edited:
Right, in order to get offended by this thread you must be intending to put your horse to sleep as soon as it reaches the end of its working life, even though it is field sound and happy to be retired and you can afford to keep it AND you profess to love said horse. Judging by the responses here there are a lot more people who think this way than I thought! If you do not fall into this category, then why be offended? And if you do, then why do you care what someone says on an internet forum?
 
Black Beastie said:
I wonder whose friend you are in real life to be defending someone who has blatantly crossed a line :rolleyes: also you really have a cheek to go on about someone being offensive when the most offensive person on this thread has been the OP herself according to the majority of people who think that she is outrageous in her opinion that she can define love for everyone, personally I think you are just out to claim some notoriety for yourself by standing by wagtail as she leads another merry dance. It's not her first rodeo and won't be her last I'm sure.

Wagtail you do have an agenda for posting this thread. There must have been a trigger, which going by theocats upset post it was aimed not so covertly at them. You haven't clarified points you have changed from you absolute statement to adding caveats to try and deflect from the original insulting and blatantly hurtful post.
Click to expand...

I am the friend of every single person who is misquoted on this forum including you if it happens to you and I spot it.
 
Wagtail said:
BB I have not responded so far to you because your posts have been so rude, but do not want YCBM to be tarred on here like I am and can assure you that I have never met her in my life! Good grief!
Click to expand...

My verion of to the point and incredulous is rude looking to you. Oh my what a shame, needless to say I don't feel anything close to remorse about upsetting someone like yourself, you who has decided that the only definition of love or care is yours. Pot and kettle I'm afraid.
 
fburton said:
Fair enough. I don't want you to feel I unfairly pressuring you to reveal a motivation that isn't there. (Confess! Confess! ;))


Hmm, so is there a distinction between "true love" and just "love"?


For what it is worth - and since you are soliciting responses - I wouldn't choose to have a horse of mine pts after it ceased to be rideable, even if I didn't "truly love" it, as long as it wasn't suffering and was capable of enjoying life. I might be forced to by circumstances, but that would only be after failing to find a good enough home. It would be a sense of responsibility rather than any real feelings of love that motivated me; I would feel bad about pts a healthy horse. But that's just me, and I certainly wouldn't be critical of people with different outlooks or priorities as long as horses' welfare wasn't being compromised.
Click to expand...

And that is exactly what I do. I am extremely fond of my current mare and she has a home for life with me(barring financial disasters). But I am lucky in that I have my own facilities here and who's to say what I would feel if things were different. But I could not state I would put her to sleep if she could no longer be ridden but was happy retired, and then say that I loved her, because that would not be true. I couldn't do it if I loved her. When I say 'truly' I mean genuinely, if that helps?
 
Just to clarify

Op has stated that a horse that cannot be ridden anymore shouldn't be PTS so as the owner can have a horse to do a job? So OP states that anyone who does this on this basis does not love the horse? Is this the crux of the issue here?

Well what about this then, horse is unable to do a job so owner turfs horse out in a field or into retirement and gets another one, keeps the unrideable horse Going just for the sake of it, give basic care and continues to ride and compete new horse whilst previous horse just languishes in the field until old age or the reason it cannot be ridden makes its life untenable. To me this isn't love. Most horses who aren't able to be ridden anymore aren't healthy or young so really the OPs point is a moot one. If mine were unrideable and I wasn't able to keep them then PTS would be the kindest thing rather than pass them on to an uncertain future. It take a lot of love and compassion to PTS a horse because you can't bear the thought of passing it on. Too many sad and neglected horses in adverts right now that I look at and think I would have PTS.
 
Wagtail said:
Right, in order to get offended by this thread you must be intending to put your horse to sleep as soon as it reaches the end of its working life, even though it is field sound and happy to be retired and you can afford to keep it AND you profess to love said horse. Judging by the responses here there are a lot more people who think this way than I thought! If you do not fall into this category, then why be offended? And if you do, then why do you care what someone says on an internet forum?
Click to expand...

You are wilfully choosing to misinterpret the responses of many while complaining that they are wilfully misinterpreting your own. The majority accept that you are not condemning the action but the majority are reacting to your supposed ability to be judge and jury when it comes to an individual's feelings about their animal and the belief that only a certain set of circumstances can mean that they love their horse.

If only the legions of posters would feel brave enough to post their support.
 
Neversaydie said:
Just to clarify

Op has stated that a horse that cannot be ridden anymore shouldn't be PTS so as the owner can have a horse to do a job? So OP states that anyone who does this on this basis does not love the horse? Is this the crux of the issue here?
Click to expand...

No, that is not what I have said at all.
 
Black Beastie said:
My verion of to the point and incredulous is rude looking to you. Oh my what a shame, needless to say I don't feel anything close to remorse about upsetting someone like yourself, you who has decided that the only definition of love or care is yours. Pot and kettle I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

No worries, you have not upset me one jot BB. I just don't respond to rude posts. :)
 
Wagtail said:
You say you will PTS as soon as it can no longer be ridden.

We all have different views, and it is true that the horse doesn't know it is going to be PTS because when it's dead, it's dead and so long as it is done well, then it is none the wiser. It does not suffer. If the owner has also taken care of it well throughout ownership, then they are a good owner from the horse's point of view. But please, people who state that they will PTS as soon as the horse cannot do its job, even if it is very happy and comfortable not being ridden, you do not love the horse. You love riding the horse and competing the horse and hunting the horse, or hacking, whatever, and you are probably a kind responsible owner, but you do not love your horse. If you really love your horse for itself, as a living, breathing being, then you would keep the horse in retirement, end of.

Now, I am not for one second condemning people who do this. Not one bit. I am just saying that they do not love their horse and they shouldn't state that they do. They care for it and treat it well but they do not know what it is like to love a horse if that is what they think it is.

Also, not all horses are equal. Some get to you more than others. One day they may meet a horse that they really do love, and then to PTS so they can get a new one would be the last thing they would want to do.

Then they will know what it is like to love a horse.
Click to expand...

Wagtail said:
No, that is not what I have said at all.
Click to expand...

According to this yes you did. I have only read the first and last page of this thread I'm afraid. Too much to trawl through.

You are clearly stating that if someone PTS a horse who they propose to love just because they are unrideable and want a ridden horse then they do not love that horse according to your definition of love.

I don't understand why you don't think this is the reason you are getting negative replies?
 
Neversaydie said:
According to this yes you did. I have only read the first and last page of this thread I'm afraid. Too much to trawl through.

You are clearly stating that if someone PTS a horse who they propose to love just because they are unrideable and want a ridden horse then they do not love that horse according to your definition of love.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is correct. But originally you said:

Op has stated that a horse that cannot be ridden anymore shouldn't be PTS so as the owner can have a horse to do a job? So OP states that anyone who does this on this basis does not love the horse? Is this the crux of the issue here?
Click to expand...

which is not what I said at all.
 
As far as I can see the Op is saying that if you have a horse that is unable to be ridden anymore, but can live a comfortable and happy life as a field ornament and you can afford to keep that horse in a comfortable retirement then you don't really love the horse if you choose to have it put to sleep?
If I understand it correctly, then I have to say I fully agree with the op.
To have a horse put to sleep for humane grounds is one thing and I've had to do it more than once, however I couldn't do it if the horse was able to have a happy life just being a horse.
 
Wagtail said:
Yes, that is correct. But originally you said:



which is not what I said at all.
Click to expand...

I have said the same thing just in a slightly different way which in no way changes the meaning? Is this a case of semantics to change the way or meaning something that was written in poor taste? You seem very strange OP you have taken it upon yourself to declare the definition of others feeling for their animals and that's a very slippery and treacherous slope to be on. This seems to be the crux of everyone issues with your post. Calling annoyed people rude when you yourself are seeming so perhaps isn't a good game plan either. Very odd thread for a Friday I have to say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top