Overbreeding - are vets part of the problem?

twiggy2 said:
my bosses vet suggested breeding from a 7yr old coloured mare of unknown breeding as she has a good head for work, she is currently half way through being turned away for 2 yrs as she has tendon damage in both front legs, she is lame in both front legs, has damage in her coffin joint and arthritic knees. the vet was not asked if she would be ok to have a foal he said 'you should put her in foal she is a nice mare', she did not put the mare in foal but we did discuss the cons before she made her decision.
Click to expand...

That is exactly the type of mare that should never be bred from, broken down by 7 as well as early onset arthritis, in this case the vet should not have suggested it, luckily the owners saw sense but many would not and so another poor quality youngster is produced to perpetuate the problem.
 
StormyMoments said:
The thing is if a vet goes out to see a lame sheep or a sick cow, they will recommend that it be put to sleep because treatment will cost more than the animal is actually worth but they are reluctant to do the same for horses. The problem being is that quite often the treatment needed for a horse that is lame or will be lame indefinitely WILL be more than the horse is worth. Horses are worth peanuts these days and keeping a useless horse in a field because they feel it "morally" wrong to PTS is BS. They shouldn't be saying "try this, try that" if the owner has already said that they want it to be PTS. If the horse is useless then its not economically viable to keep it pain free to doss about a field for the next 5- 30 years of its life. Sorry, if the horse is unable to do what it was bred/bought for then it shouldn't be questioned by the vet as to whether it should be PTS or not. If they want to take the horse off my hands and pay for it to be a lorn mower for the however many years it has left then please do go ahead, but don't question my decision or tell me that I can keep him in a field for the rest of his life comfortably on such and such a painkiller and certainly don't make me feel guilty for my decision!

So yes I do believe vets are to blame for over population of horses.
Click to expand...

part of the problem is the suing society, a vet HAS to give an owner all the options or they will not get the support from the RVC IF an owner later on decides that they were not told about an option they would like to have taken.
the question All owners should ask (and one vets often don't like) is what would you do is X was yours?
 
MotherOfChickens said:
they shouldn't-however, it does seem as though most vets have lost the knowledge in how to castrate standing, castrate in the field etc and charge accordingly. Its not rocket science-we would do three standing castrations a day on very expensive TBs. Yes there is increased risk but give owners the option rather than blinking referring everything.
Click to expand...

I agree many dislike standing castrations and agree it is a problem, my vet will castrate anything standing as long as it is fit and healthy and everything is where it should be, his quote is 'if you can keep it still long enough for me to put a needle in the vein I can do the job', he often does large adult stallions on the lorry at the surgery
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top