misterjinglejay
Well-Known Member
This is taken from Fugly Horse of the Day:
http://fuglyblog.com/
My apparently controversial post from Friday has sparked another debate topic. One reader emailed the following hypothetical and I thought it would be interesting to hear what everyone has to say about the different types/formats of rescues out there. What do you feel is best, and why? Just to be extra clear, the purpose of this post isnt to bash one type of rescue over another, its not even to question (and you know my fondness for questions!) the validity of one methodology over another, but to encourage people to share their opinions and experiences with the different rescue philosophies out there.
If everyone agrees that the basic issue is an overwhelming number of unwanted horses in danger of being sent to slaughter, and that there are a variety of organizations attempting to address this issue, what are the pros and cons of the different approaches?
For example, Organization Alpha acquires 20 slaughter-bound horses from an auction and within a few weeks euthanizes 10 for a variety of medical and behavioral issues that may or may not have been treatable if funds or professional training opportunities had not been limited. In short, they made a specific decision to euthanize horses who had less potential to be adopted, but still considered their actions to be in the best interests of the animals.
Organization Beta also acquires 20 slaughter-bound horses from an auction, but was more discriminating in their selection and made an effort to purchase only animals with apparent higher potential for adoption (while screening may be limited when buying at auction, lets say they had seen a catalog or attended a venue where they knew what sort of quality to expect). They then make an effort to retrain (to some extent) each animal and adopt them out, rather than taking in the animal strictly to give it a forever home. And of course, for the sake of a hypothetical situation, lets assume both organizations are credible, provide adequate care, adhere to their mission statements, are sufficiently transparent in their acquisition and allocation of funding, etc. Lets also say they have similar budgets. Ive ignored many other specifics, but lets see if we can work with a basic hypothetical premise.
Both organizations have saved animals from slaughter. Alpha may be able to move through animals more quickly in terms of horses saved from slaughter, they may have higher numbers. But Beta may have a higher success rate of finding their horses new homes/careers. Both have their merits. If you had the time or money to only support one organization, which follows a mission statement you personally prefer?
Obviously example rescues Alpha and Beta dont cover all of the options out there. Please feel free and encouraged to share your experiences with other types of rescues; what youve seen that works, and what doesnt. Whats the best way, in your opinions, to help the horses?
Just wondering what HHO readers think.
http://fuglyblog.com/
My apparently controversial post from Friday has sparked another debate topic. One reader emailed the following hypothetical and I thought it would be interesting to hear what everyone has to say about the different types/formats of rescues out there. What do you feel is best, and why? Just to be extra clear, the purpose of this post isnt to bash one type of rescue over another, its not even to question (and you know my fondness for questions!) the validity of one methodology over another, but to encourage people to share their opinions and experiences with the different rescue philosophies out there.
If everyone agrees that the basic issue is an overwhelming number of unwanted horses in danger of being sent to slaughter, and that there are a variety of organizations attempting to address this issue, what are the pros and cons of the different approaches?
For example, Organization Alpha acquires 20 slaughter-bound horses from an auction and within a few weeks euthanizes 10 for a variety of medical and behavioral issues that may or may not have been treatable if funds or professional training opportunities had not been limited. In short, they made a specific decision to euthanize horses who had less potential to be adopted, but still considered their actions to be in the best interests of the animals.
Organization Beta also acquires 20 slaughter-bound horses from an auction, but was more discriminating in their selection and made an effort to purchase only animals with apparent higher potential for adoption (while screening may be limited when buying at auction, lets say they had seen a catalog or attended a venue where they knew what sort of quality to expect). They then make an effort to retrain (to some extent) each animal and adopt them out, rather than taking in the animal strictly to give it a forever home. And of course, for the sake of a hypothetical situation, lets assume both organizations are credible, provide adequate care, adhere to their mission statements, are sufficiently transparent in their acquisition and allocation of funding, etc. Lets also say they have similar budgets. Ive ignored many other specifics, but lets see if we can work with a basic hypothetical premise.
Both organizations have saved animals from slaughter. Alpha may be able to move through animals more quickly in terms of horses saved from slaughter, they may have higher numbers. But Beta may have a higher success rate of finding their horses new homes/careers. Both have their merits. If you had the time or money to only support one organization, which follows a mission statement you personally prefer?
Obviously example rescues Alpha and Beta dont cover all of the options out there. Please feel free and encouraged to share your experiences with other types of rescues; what youve seen that works, and what doesnt. Whats the best way, in your opinions, to help the horses?
Just wondering what HHO readers think.
