OMG. Can't even reply to this.

Casino solo, you are missing my point. It's a fact that anyone can raise the cost of a bullet without starving their kids. Not an opinion, a fact, so no devils advocate role to play, the owner chooses not to pts.
As explained, a knackerman or huntsman coming out & shooting at home is somewhat different to travelling to an abbatoir. Either you don't actually know the difference, or you are inexperienced enough to think shooting over injection is an unpleasant end.
I may not change your morals, I don't want to, I imagine they are the same as those of us who say pts. i.e. what is best for the horse. But experience of just how horrid life can be for some horses makes you change your mind on what is best for a very old horse. So I might not change your mind, but if one person who's considering giving their oldie away free reads this & does, its done some good. And for those that give them away, I'd like them to realise the massive gamble they are taking with their horses welfare.
There's no moral dilemma for me, healthy or unhealthy I go by quality of life not quantity.
 
casinosolo said:
Not at all! I love a healthy debate :D I run a debating club in my school and I must say I think this might be next week's topic. I must say I am rather enjoying myself.
Click to expand...

I am glad you like a healthy debate but you do keep missing the point theres a huge difference for the horse between being shot at the home and being moved from place to place and ending at an abattoir in a run with the animals in front of you going forward one by one to be shot.
You also rude never a good trait in a debate, makes you look silly.
 
This is desperately sad. I do a little oldie rescue with small animals - my chinchillas are 14 and 15 and have 3 guinea pigs in their twilight years, one is nearly 7 and an elderly degu sadly on her own after her friend passed away recently. But the difference is that these guys live in my spare room and a vet bill of fifty quid would be once in a blue moon.
 
Paulag said:
This is desperately sad. I do a little oldie rescue with small animals - my chinchillas are 14 and 15 and have 3 guinea pigs in their twilight years, one is nearly 7 and an elderly degu sadly on her own after her friend passed away recently. But the difference is that these guys live in my spare room and a vet bill of fifty quid would be once in a blue moon.
Click to expand...

It is sad ,once in the past I loaned someone in a very tight spot the money to but her old horse to sleep the horse was way past being ready to go she had no money literally none so I lent it to her.
Of course we don't know the circumstances and it's easy for me to say find the money to PTS in such a black and white way because I have seen with my own eyes old horses who have been passed on in terrible circumstances when I was a welfare officer.
 
sychnant said:
Just been posted on a FB page I belong to. I am trying SO hard not to reply because it wouldn't be polite.

"HELP.................. 30 yr old cob mare, in good health, Rhayader area, desperately needs new home asap - can anyone help??"

If it's anyone on here - no, I'm not sorry. How disgusting! Poor old girl. I don't know the circumstances but why won't people do the right thing by their old faithful friends???
Click to expand...



It is upsetting, and she may be old. But surely it would be better to sell to someone who maybe in need of a companion, rather than abandoning her etc.
If people just cannot simply afford the upkeep of her, or just don't have the time, they probably are just doing it for the better of the horse, think about it.
 
casinosolo said:
Hence my use of the word 'some people' and not 'little legs.' However, there are people on here who are so priviliged that I don't believe they see their own snobbery. Hence the frequent castigation of sites like Dragon Driving with absolutely no problem with similar 'cruelty' going on in the racing world.
This is simply untrue, cruelty is cruelty wherever it occurs, I am certainly not privileged, what an assumption to make! :D

It's not a silly shock tactic. In a healthy debate you need someone to play devil's advocate. If not, we would all just be on here with the mentality of a lynch mob jumping on a band wagon screaming 'let's have us a public floggin.''

People need to have their views questioned in order for the debate to become more articulate and more well reasoned. I must say, you have articulated your views very well, I do however not choose to agree with them.

And I must add that to staunchly deny that people on here are arrogant, and then in the same breath sneer 'you're not very experienced are you' is irony itself. My theory is borne out even more by this.
One does not need 'direct experience' of a moral dilemma to hold a viewpoint on it. I am not a victim of a murderer, an abuser or a fraudster but this does not mean I am 'too inexperienced' to hold views on such matters. Of course you don't need direct experience, but it can make a hell of a difference seeing a particular situation in the flesh.

Whether you think it goes without saying or not, the euthanasia of a healthy horse IS a moral issue and should be debated in a healthy manner. You can't just patronise and belittle someone who disagrees until they agree with you.

My views on horse euthanasia are influenced by my experiences but also by my personal moral code, principles and religious beliefs. I am not saying these are the only 'right' ones, I'm sure you have different ones, but they are mine. Therefore I am unlikely to change my mind simply because you tell me I must, aren't I?
Of course not, but I would hope that when your horse reaches its twilight years if you can no longer keep it that you at least consider the possibilities that can happen before handing the leadrope to the stranger who seemed very nice. The hardest choice for you can be the easiest for the horse.

Mine are also influenced by experience, accompanying my grandfather to sales from an early age opened my eyes to what can happen. My personal moral code and beliefs mean that I try to be compassionate and prevent suffering where I can rather than putting a horse at risk.

And yes, I do understand the difference between the knackerman and an abatoir. Tbh there is not so much of a distinguishable difference that makes one more morally acceptable than the other.
Click to expand...

Apart from one generally involves being passed from pillar to post beforehand causing stress and possible suffering.


casinosolo said:
What if the horse did not even belong to them in the first place? Perhaps it belonged to an elderly/ single relative or friend and they are simply trying to sort out the situation? They are unlikely to have saved up for putting a horse down that isn't even theirs.
Click to expand...
Which brings us back to the responsibility of the original owner who should have made provision in the first place.
 
Ibblebibble said:
copied from preloved,

I'm looking for a new home for my x broodmare she is 25 Appaloosa who would make a great field companion she has arthritis in her knees but cider vin helps massively she could be ridden by a lightweight adult or children if brought back into work, she loves fuss cuddles and people if anyone interested in giving my old lady a home where she will b loved and pampered pls get in touch, to assure genuin home we are asking for £100 this will include her halter lead rope and medium weight turnout and fleece.

so what do you think will happen to this mare casinosolo? as i see it there is a 50% chance she will end up in a good home, the other 50% option is that she'll get picked up for the measly sum of £100 and either be sold on as fit and healthy for a higher sum or she'll get bought and ridden through her pain until she can give no more and ends up being pts or perhaps passed on again:(
there are nice homes out there for retired horses but they are far and few between, even asking £100 is not going to ensure this girl a good home, it might ensure the buyer gets their £100 worth of fun out of her before they give up on her too:(
Click to expand...

That's not the post we are talking about. The post on here has very little information, and therefore not enough to brand someone as 'disgusting.' This one is a completely different story.

I think it's important to judge case by case rather than treating every case of re-homing an oldie as the same. They are not.
 
casinosolo said:
Well, from what some people have been saying on here, it's ok if you send them to the meat man yourself. It only becomes 'disgusting' if you sell them/ give them to someone else who then sends them to the meat man... the logic is flawless :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Have you ever been to any of these bin end sales:(

Taking a horse for humane destruction to the abattoir may not be everyone's first choice as a method of having their horse put down - however, it's a damn site better than sending it to the sales first. So distressing for these poor animals.

casinosolo said:
And does this not defeat the whole object of the argument that the horse will possibly end up in an uncertain future at an abattoir???
Click to expand...

The uncertain future refers to the unscrupulous who buy simply to send off to sale.
 
Last edited:
littlelegs said:
Casino solo, you are missing my point. It's a fact that anyone can raise the cost of a bullet without starving their kids. Not an opinion, a fact, so no devils advocate role to play, the owner chooses not to pts.
As explained, a knackerman or huntsman coming out & shooting at home is somewhat different to travelling to an abbatoir. Either you don't actually know the difference, or you are inexperienced enough to think shooting over injection is an unpleasant end.
I may not change your morals, I don't want to, I imagine they are the same as those of us who say pts. i.e. what is best for the horse. But experience of just how horrid life can be for some horses makes you change your mind on what is best for a very old horse. So I might not change your mind, but if one person who's considering giving their oldie away free reads this & does, its done some good. And for those that give them away, I'd like them to realise the massive gamble they are taking with their horses welfare.
There's no moral dilemma for me, healthy or unhealthy I go by quality of life not quantity.
Click to expand...

I haven't missed your point. I teach comprehension for a living; I know how to read between the lines of what someone is saying. You are missing MY point that I simply don't agree with you. I don't need it explaining to me, I'm not stupid I just don't agree.

You say the 'owner chooses not to pts' but do we even KNOW this is the owner? Like I've said before, it could be an unwitting relative who has been left to sort out the situation. Possibly it is, possibly it isn't but we don't know.

To be honest I don't disagree with what a lot of people have said, but I think it's important for someone to play devil's advocate in the respect that people just go along with the prevailing view without questioning it. If we do this we risk becoming a rabid mob who can't think for ourselves.

I was even told that as some more 'experienced' members of the forum had previously given me advice, I should agree with everything they said and never question them. This is a ridiculous concept and rather cultish.

I do respect your experience, but I also believe I am entitled to my own view, and even if it doesn't happen to be my own view I am entitled to air a view which is contrary to yours. Or do you need reminding of the meaning of the word 'forum'?
 
Goldenstar said:
I am glad you like a healthy debate but you do keep missing the point theres a huge difference for the horse between being shot at the home and being moved from place to place and ending at an abattoir in a run with the animals in front of you going forward one by one to be shot.
You also rude never a good trait in a debate, makes you look silly.
Click to expand...

When have I been rude to you? Is it rude to disagree?
 
touchstone said:
Apart from one generally involves being passed from pillar to post beforehand causing stress and possible suffering.



Which brings us back to the responsibility of the original owner who should have made provision in the first place.
Click to expand...

Some paranoia here guys! Once again, I said 'some people', not 'you.' The reason I feel the need to post responses questioning people on these threads is I dislike the privileged, preachy, black and white no grey areas viewpoints of 'some' of the threads.

Maybe the original owner should have made provision, but possibly they didn't or couldn't. Unfortunately there are circumstances in life when your horse can no longer be your number one priority. Mental illness, extreme poverty, grief all spring to mind. It does not make someone 'disgusting', it makes them human.

I never said I would hand my horse over at 30. He has a home for life with me. However, I'm not an irate Daily Mail reading vigilante who wants to cast judgement on every one else's behaviour. And I think that is the mentality that unfortunately prevails on these forums at times.

Plus, I like to shake things up a bit.
 
casinosolo said:
I haven't missed your point. I teach comprehension for a living; I know how to read between the lines of what someone is saying. You are missing MY point that I simply don't agree with you. I don't need it explaining to me, I'm not stupid I just don't agree.

You say the 'owner chooses not to pts' but do we even KNOW this is the owner? Like I've said before, it could be an unwitting relative who has been left to sort out the situation. Possibly it is, possibly it isn't but we don't know.

To be honest I don't disagree with what a lot of people have said, but I think it's important for someone to play devil's advocate in the respect that people just go along with the prevailing view without questioning it. If we do this we risk becoming a rabid mob who can't think for ourselves.

I was even told that as some more 'experienced' members of the forum had previously given me advice, I should agree with everything they said and never question them. This is a ridiculous concept and rather cultish.

I do respect your experience, but I also believe I am entitled to my own view, and even if it doesn't happen to be my own view I am entitled to air a view which is contrary to yours. Or do you need reminding of the meaning of the word 'forum'?
Click to expand...

So are you just choosing a POV and arguing from it when its not really what you think? If you are, you aren't doing a very good job, where are all your justifications when and why it is a wise and righteous decision to give away old horses?

If you do think its a sensible course of action, and you haven't really explained why you think this, I fear we're wasting our time trying to have a discussion when you just keep repeating "well this is my view, its different to yours so we just don't agree". That's fine if you feel that way, often things are left like that, but it isn't the reasoned debate you seem to be congratulating yourself about. :confused:
 
Flame_ said:
So are you just choosing a POV and arguing from it when its not really what you think? If you are, you aren't doing a very good job, where are all your justifications when and why it is a wise and righteous decision to give away old horses?

If you do think its a sensible course of action, and you haven't really explained why you think this, I fear we're wasting our time trying to have a discussion when you just keep repeating "well this is my view, its different to yours so we just don't agree". That's fine if you feel that way, often things are left like that, but it isn't the reasoned debate you seem to be congratulating yourself about. :confused:
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was wise and righteous. I just don't think putting to sleep is always wise and righteous either.

I'm not congratulating myself on anything, but the point of a forum is to air differing views for the purpose of debate.

I have explained that I find the judgement of people as 'disgusting' as unacceptable and I also explained that there is another side of this where adoption can work out.

I don't fall into either camp 100% as I take things case by case and use discretion to judge on individual circumstances.

I don't have to agree 100% or disagree 100%.
 
Naturally said:
If I could play devil's advocate for one moment, we all play god with our horses. Their euthinasia to prevent suffering is a decision most of us must make, sooner or later, whether it is because a horse is injured or ill beyond recovery, or whether doing something different with them would be unkind. I think most people object to the idea of uprooting an elderly horse or pony who has been in one home for a long time. An elderly horse is very likely to come with health problems, and many of us think it would be incredibly unkind to ask that horse to deal with the physical challenge of being transported elsewhere, the challenge to their immune system, a change of diet even if it is the source of their grazing and hay, and the stress of leaving behind the horses and people they know and having to get used to a new herd, people and routine.

The aforementioned health problems can be incredibly costly, time consuming and come with specific needs, and the fact that they will be either unsuitable to be worked or be approaching the age where working is no longer possible, makes them a wholly unattractive proposition for anybody looking for a companion horse, especially in the current economic climate. Sadly we see all together too many cases of horses sent out on loan with all the necessary checks and paperwork in place, and then they go missing, are found buted up, worked and broken down, or as a welfare case... it happens way too often, and it will be on the increase in times like these where genuine homes for these horses are even fewer and far between. I don't blame anybody for not wanting to risk that with their precious horse who has served them well for a lifetime. We have a huge oversupply of cheap horses in this country, and there simply aren't enough homes for the number of horses there are. If a horse has led a long life in a stable environment, it isn't that unreasonable to PTS.

It isn't a case that nobody thinks anybody else is able to care for the horse as well as them, or preaching to those who have had unfortunate changes of circumstances. It is a case of being realistic about an elderly horse's needs, and his chances of finding a decent home :(

I think the people offering elderly horses for rehoming need support to see the situation in all it's ugly detail. That can be really hard, especially if you've owned the horse for a very long time. :(
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. It's called good animal husbandry
 
Wouldnt it be lovely if there were homes crying out for a 30year old horse who would keep the horse until the horse died of old age. The reality is very different, people are desparately trying to get rid of their horses of all ages for all sorts of reasons. The horse rescues are full to bursting and are predicting that this winter is going to be far worse with I believe 6,000 horses in crisis.

This poor old horse should be put down, sometimes people do have to step up and make these decisions but that is what responsible ownership is all about.
 
I am shocked at how stupid some people appear to be.

Let's spell it out.

There is a HUGE shortage of good homes - charities are FULL, as spelt out earlier, while most people with horses have no spare capacity to take on more, especially heading into winter.

There is a HUGE oversupply of horses - there are just too many being bred, and too few people want them, especially in this economic climate.

A 30 yr old horse has had a fantastic innings - and whilst the owner may think it is 'healthy', it will certainly have underlying health issue, such as cushings, arthritis, increased sensitivity to cold due to decreased mobility etc.

It's a no-brainer for those of us that really care. I just wish more people had the guts to pick up the phone and make that final decision in the horse's best interests - and as for cost, most hunts charge a nominal £50, and I suspect would waive that fee if the owner was unable to afford that.

It's called doing the right thing by your old friend, in my book. I am going off to muck out and rant to myself as I can't believe how people can argue it is in this mare's best interests to be passed on to an unknown fate.
 
casinosolo said:
In that case, no one can ever sell any horse. Young horses are also liable to be sold on to bad homes. By your reasoning, no one should ever sell a horse and we should just shoot them all.

Maybe we should also shoot old people in case they end up in a dodgy care home? Or children when their parents can no longer care for them, instead of looking for suitable foster care?

Oh, and here's a dictionary definition for 'facetious' in case you need it :D:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...Ga0QWOv4DQBA&ved=0CB8QvwUoAA&biw=1366&bih=638
Click to expand...

Rude and deeply unpleasant post to compare the care of the elderly to shooting a horse.
 
Casino solo, you do miss my point. You've said more than once the cost of destruction might be forcing them to rehome. I'm pointing out that in this country, that's b0ll*cks. That's not a different opinion to yours, its a fact. As is the fact I find giving away oldies beyond disgusting. And I've said it to peoples faces, so certainly not bothered about saying it on here. If you get a day off from teaching comprehension, go visit a few low end sales & comprehend what happens to the oldies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top