People Who Can't Afford To Look After Horses?

M

merlin100

Well-Known Member
Joined
31 May 2016
Messages
124
Visit site
Hi folks,

I've noted with some interest comments being made regarding people who can't afford to keep horses.

Without being pedantic, exactly how do we define these people and what criteria is applied to them?:confused: And no, I'm not trolling. It's a legitimate question. There's such thing as a daft question, just a daft answer.:rolleyes:

Regards,

Ian.
 
Last edited:
I would say people who's horses suffer because they cant afford feed, farrier, vet etc? But refuse to admit they cant afford their horses and keep them rather than sell them to someone who can afford to care for them?
 
WeeLassie said:
I would say people who's horses suffer because they cant afford feed, farrier, vet etc? But refuse to admit they cant afford their horses and keep them rather than sell them to someone who can afford to care for them?
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but would also add people who are on such a tight budget that they just cannot afford anything that isn't already accounted for.
By this I mean:
- Bad weather has meant that horses are being kept in and so a round bale of hay has only lasted an owner 2 weeks instead of the usual 4. She/He absolutely cannot find the money to buy another bale because she/he is living so close to the edge that an 'unexpected' £30 is enough to financially cripple them. Horse either goes hungry or owner steals from other liveries.
- Horse injury has meant that it has to be kept in for a few weeks. The horse normally gets a bale of straw a week when out daily. The horse needs more bedding (as it's in more = more mess = more bedding being removed) but the owner can't afford any more than she already pays for. Horse suffers due to bed being too small (on concrete)/dirty.
- Owner is on JSA and horse goes very very lame. Owner can't afford vet so keeps horse on box rest for 2 months to see if that helps. It doesn't so horse is turned out 24/7 for 6 months, still very lame, and makes no improvement. Owner decides she's had enough so gets bute from ~somewhere~ and starts buting horse up. Horse's back end keeps collapsing from underneath him. Owner still can't afford vet - horse is suffering.

There are a myriad of other situations in the same vein that are going on at cheap DIY yards up and down the country, these are just some that I have witnessed first hand.
 
Those with horses who genuinely can't afford them are probably fairly few and far between - I suspect it's far more common for people to say "can't afford" when they mean "won't prioritise".

There are certainly those who can't afford the extra bale of hay, or the extra bedding, or the vet visit - I don't want to denigrate them, but unexpected costs are part of ownership and if they can't be covered to a degree that welfare is compromised, the owner should sell.

There are also those who choose not to find the extra money, even though they may not necessarily have cut back everywhere else that they can - if they're buying non essentials, like magazines or takeaway coffee, or won't skip a month on their hair colour or do without a manicure, or drive when they could walk short distances - welL, all those things would quickly add up to the cost of a big bale of hay, so those people are choosing not to pay rather than being unable to afford it. Those people should definitely sell,and should not own again - because the money isn't the problem; their attitude is.
 
I'd add those who Pts for financial reasons. E.g. Can't afford surgery/box rest, don't want to pay for an unridden horse etc.

Keeping a horse isn't just about the good times.

Edited to add: not just those who do pts but those who would "have to" pts for financial reasons, or for who it would be a factor.
 
Last edited:
Theocat said:
Those with horses who genuinely can't afford them are probably fairly few and far between - I suspect it's far more common for people to say "can't afford" when they mean "won't prioritise".

There are certainly those who can't afford the extra bale of hay, or the extra bedding, or the vet visit - I don't want to denigrate them, but unexpected costs are part of ownership and if they can't be covered to a degree that welfare is compromised, the owner should sell.

There are also those who choose not to find the extra money, even though they may not necessarily have cut back everywhere else that they can - if they're buying non essentials, like magazines or takeaway coffee, or won't skip a month on their hair colour or do without a manicure, or drive when they could walk short distances - welL, all those things would quickly add up to the cost of a big bale of hay, so those people are choosing not to pay rather than being unable to afford it. Those people should definitely sell,and should not own again - because the money isn't the problem; their attitude is.
Click to expand...

This!
 
merlin100 said:
Hi folks,

I've noted with some interest comments being made regarding people who can't afford to keep horses.

Without being pedantic, exactly how do we define these people and what criteria is applied to them?:confused: And no, I'm not trolling. It's a legitimate question. There's such thing as a daft question, just a daft answer.:rolleyes:

Regards,

Ian.
Click to expand...
i think people can find themselves in financial problems quickly. i had the vet out four times in three days in may for a very worrying colic episode and ended up with an a nearly nine hundred pound bill. its been paid off now but for a lot of people this would cripple them. Its the unexpected things that people dont plan for. i was lucky as i have some savings but also was able to pay back in instalments to the vet. contingency funds are a good idea but not everyone is able to do this. i dont have contempt for people who do things on a shoe string as i used to be the same. just feel sorry for them but thats my nature. people are too judgemental at times. whats that saying? ...Walk a mile in my shoes...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ThursdayNext said:
I'd add those who Pts for financial reasons. E.g. Can't afford surgery/box rest, don't want to pay for an unridden horse etc.

Keeping a horse isn't just about the good times.

Edited to add: not just those who do pts but those who would "have to" pts for financial reasons, or for who it would be a factor.
Click to expand...

Putting an animal down is not a welfare issue.

My horse costs me hundreds of pounds a month, and could have another twenty years in her. If she became permanently unrideable, I'm afraid I wouldn't keep her alive - it would cost tens of thousands of pounds; I would be skint and unhappy without riding (there's no way I could afford two) and I do not have the sort of life that would allow DIY livery. By your measure, I can't afford a horse.

You can judge me by your own measure, of course, but you cannot describe it as being "unable to afford" it. The reality for me is that, unless I won the lottery and kept horses at home with a groom, keeping a non-ridden horse would ultimately detract from my happiness. That's an entirely different reason.
 
ThursdayNext said:
I'd add those who Pts for financial reasons. E.g. Can't afford surgery/box rest, don't want to pay for an unridden horse etc.

Keeping a horse isn't just about the good times.

Edited to add: not just those who do pts but those who would "have to" pts for financial reasons, or for who it would be a factor.
Click to expand...

Well, best I sell up then.:blue: Anyone want to buy a couple of uninsurable veterans? :rolleyes:
 
Substitute 'dog' for 'horse' and see how it feels?

Or 'child' in a country without a welfare state.

Theocat: the question was about affordability not welfare. Although I do happen to think death is a welfare issue in a very literal sense. And yes, I would judge choosing not to prioritise happy, non-working life as not being able to afford. Just as much as not prioritising extra hay or whatever.

Beusmate: I'd be in your position financially. I.e.unable to afford significant extras. Therefore I don't own. So, whilst it isn't a choice you make for me, yes, I choose not to own over having that level of uncertainty.
 
It's a difficult question. In my opinion it's a person who can not provide the day to day care of the horse, to keep it in a happy and healthy condition.

Unexpected costs and keeping oldies are always difficult and also subjective and dependant on circumstances.

As someone else said sometimes horses are neglected and it's not really a money issue.
 
People keep dogs for different reasons. I love my horse, but I have her to do a job as a riding animal. Different relationship. It's just silly to compare animals with children. I am at peace with my view. Yes, I have considered it.

If you can't tell the difference between "prioritise" and "afford" I'm not sure you'll get much out of this discussion. I can afford the costs of my horse. If she was unrideable, I would still have the money, but I would choose not to spend it. Entirely different from affordability.

Welfare is the crux of this - because affordability (or lack of it) only matters if welfare (and I'd argue the welfare of the owner, as much as of the horse) is compromised. The horse doesn't care if the owner can't afford tack, or new buckets, or stable name plates - the horse needs feed, shelter, company, some sort of freedom and health / care needs meeting, and that's it. Affordability only becomes an issue if the owner is no longer able to meet those needs.
 
It's a moot point for me though, as anything I'd consider to be a 'significant extra' would almost certainly be something involving surgery/extended box rest/invasive treatments etc. and I wouldn't put them through it anyway.

If only people who could afford every eventuality had horses, then there would be a hell of a lot of homeless horses out there!
 
ThursdayNext said:
I'd add those who Pts for financial reasons. E.g. Can't afford surgery/box rest, don't want to pay for an unridden horse etc.

Keeping a horse isn't just about the good times.

Edited to add: not just those who do pts but those who would "have to" pts for financial reasons, or for who it would be a factor.
Click to expand...

Surely that's more responsible than letting a horse suffer?? I was in that situation with a horse in pain, wouldn't have come right without surgery, insurance ran out, horse unsalable, not a suitable companion...should I have dosed him up with Bute and sold to an unsuspecting novice?? No - I chose to have him PTS and do not regret the decision. I will never have another though.
 
ThursdayNext said:
I'd add those who Pts for financial reasons. E.g. Can't afford surgery/box rest, don't want to pay for an unridden horse etc.

Keeping a horse isn't just about the good times.

Edited to add: not just those who do pts but those who would "have to" pts for financial reasons, or for who it would be a factor.
Click to expand...

A previous horse of mine had colic surgery which was covered under insurance. Colic exclusion then put on. If she'd had another major colic episode where the option was surgery, I would not have been able to afford it, and in my opinion a second major op and the subsequent box rest, etc would not have been in her best interests anyway so I would have PTS. Would that have fallen into your category?

ETA: A friend of mine chose to PTS his horse a few months into his retirement as by then he was most comfortable on 2x bute and 2x Prascend a day, and he couldn't justify spending close to £80 a month on drugs just to try and keep the horse field sound.

SEL said:
How about people who stop paying their DIY livery charge and just leave the horse in the field? Our yard owner has had a couple of those!
Click to expand...

People who can manage the day-to-day care without compromising their horse's well-being but would struggle with a really large unexpected bill is one thing (I'm probably still in that category myself).

But those who just stop paying livery/feed/hay/vet bills because they "can't afford it" are the worst. These people should not have horses. I recently heard of one such owner in my old area - did a flit from one yard owing close to a grand, owed few hundred to feed/hay supplier, got chucked off another yard for non-payment, etc.

We all know from other recent threads how yard managers are struggling to maintain a living - one yard nearly went under due to this selfish *****.
 
Last edited:
Beausmate said:
If only people who could afford every eventuality had horses, then there would be a hell of a lot of homeless horses out there!
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I have 5 horses and never intended to have so many, but take full responsibility. Yet if tomorrow every single one of them suddenly developed a medical issue I would struggle with the finances of that. One or even two, no problem. That said, in the unlikely event I find them all on the floor tomorrow, I will find a way.

What I am saying is that there is risk in having a horse - of a sudden unexpected expense. We gauge and accept that risk - sometimes (mostly) it works out ok; at other times it is more than anticipated. It's ok that sometimes we struggle to find the money, as long as we take responsibility for it, and work out ways of coping.

Another factor especially with older horses is that insurance doesn't always cover everything. My old boy is pretty much only insured for colic and accidental injuries - every leg and foot is excluded. Should I put him down, just in case he suffers an injury I am not insured for? But he's still out eventing and is a schoolmaster for 2 people having lessons on him. I'll take the risk.
 
For me it's the people that can afford the day to day costs - hay, feed, bedding, livery - and can find money for extras such as more feed, bedding, hay, but can't afford to have the horse insured, chiro visits, new saddle etc.
 
People who can't afford day to day care and at the very least have a fund for euthanasia should the worst happen are the ones who shouldn't be owning IMO.

Not being able to afford livery, hay and feed, farriers, vaccinations and health checks, regular dentistry, worming, saddle fitting and third party insurance are all basics and they don't come cheap.

It could well mean that people who can't afford to keep horses means there are fewer homes out there, but I wouldn't want to rehome a horse anywhere where it's welfare could be compromised anyway, there are far too many horses and not enough good homes as it is, and being able to afford to keep a horse would be an important criteria.

I've seen people who didn't realise that if their horse broke a leg they would have to pay the knacker man there and then, and possibly a vet bill on top, they didn't have two pennies to rub together and no access to funds. A contingency of a few hundred is always a good idea.

I've no issue with people keeping horses as cheaply as possible providing welfare isn't compromised.
 
Another thought. It's not just money - the day to day, vet and incidental fees. It's the rehabilitation...

My example is that I had a horse on part livery and lived half an hour away, and also worked half an hour away. A hind suspensory injury meant that I had to walk the horse twice per day, starting with 5 minutes and working up to an hour [TWICE PER DAY] walking exercise. I had a full time job, baby and a commute either to the yard or work. So I had to get my child to nursery, drive half an hour to the yard, walk the horse for an hour, drive for half an hour to get to work for 9, somehow get back to the yard (another half hour) for an hours walk, get back to work, drive back to nursery to get the baby and home...

I threw money at it to get some help - but its not always possible. Should you not have a horse because this might happen?
 
Mine is kept on a budget but I have learned where I can save money without compromising welfare....for example: a friend and I rent 4 acres of land smack bang in the middle of our village so either of us only has to travel approx a mile to get there which saves on fuel.
There is a huge field shelter and storage shed but no stables, school, electric etc though we do have self filling water troughs. Although this saves on bedding we have had to sacrifice the facilities...though the horses don't care about that!! ;)
My horse doesn't need shoes so goes without (I could afford them if that were to change though).
Fed mainly forage with a good quality broad spectrum supplement.
I buy tack and equipment second hand mainly and keep it all well maintained.
Horse is insured up to the eyeballs to save worrying about vets bills.

My animals ALWAYS come first no matter what and I think that's what it comes down to. I could just about afford DIY livery on a yard if I needed to but would struggle if any issues came up.
If someone can't or won't afford the bare basics then they definitely cannot afford a horse.
 
I will refrain from spelling it out in black and white as it might appear "un PC", but it concerns claiming multiple benefits and not prioritising what they're spent on.
 
I think to say that an owner ccan't afford a horse if they can't pay a vet bill is a bit vague. Isn't that why most of us have insurance? What if it's a major operation costing a couple of grand how many of us have a couple of grand stored aside? What if the insurer won't pay out?

I couldn't afford a couple of grand all in one go for sure. Don't think that makes me a bad owner though. I have gotten the vet out several times for my horse when other professionals told me there was no need. I don't mind paying for a vet bill if it will mean that my horse has had every possible professional examine it. I would find a way to afford a large bill obviously but couldn't hand it over straight away.

I do buy second hand tack too at times like another owner. Not gonna spend two grand on a saddle that my horse will likely outgrow in a year and probably won't even like. But i definitely can afford all day to day things for him.

I think you can't afford a horse if you can't provide what it needs to be healthy and happy. Whether that be a stable at night extra feed supplements different shoes etc.
 
ThursdayNext said:
Substitute 'dog' for 'horse' and see how it feels?

Or 'child' in a country without a welfare state.

Theocat: the question was about affordability not welfare. Although I do happen to think death is a welfare issue in a very literal sense. And yes, I would judge choosing not to prioritise happy, non-working life as not being able to afford. Just as much as not prioritising extra hay or whatever.

Beusmate: I'd be in your position financially. I.e.unable to afford significant extras. Therefore I don't own. So, whilst it isn't a choice you make for me, yes, I choose not to own over having that level of uncertainty.
Click to expand...

When my dogs cannot be walked or if they had to stay in a crate ( the equivalent of box rest) for a prolonged period of time I would (and have Pts). I feel it would be a welfare issue not to.
 
I've known quite a few people who couldn't even afford the basic bills, and some of those would do flits. One family owed over £1000 to the YO because they had 5 horses (and rarely rode any of them but felt sorry for them in their previous homes!) and owed a good bit to the haylage man as well.) There are definitely far more people who can't prioritise though, and that is in all areas of their lives. I worked with a girl who wanted to buy a house with her partner but complained they couldn't possibly afford to even save for a deposit. I know she was careful with her food budget and cooked everything from scratch etc but they insisted on renting a nice house in a posh area, he was bike mad and was always forking out for a new bike or upgrading his existing one, and she had to have the latest iphone etc. Now another colleague who is single rents a terraced house on her own, but in a poorer area, doesn't have a car, and is saving hard. She expects to have her deposit in 12 months time. Both are on the same salary point - one is doing it on her own, the other can't do it between herself and her partner?
 
I'm not sure there's a clear cut answer to this one. Many of us, me included, do things by the book where they can and economise where they can in order to pursue our hobby. The 'trouble' is that the horse world is so very varied, at the top end you have fantastic yards where every possible luxury is laid on for the horses and at the other you have the DIYers renting premises and doing the best they can with what they have. Affordability therefore varies according to a) the amount of money available and b) practical possibilities; I would suggest that practical possibilities are the best that the majority of horse owners can acheive, whether this be by spending as much as possible on the best facilities, full livery etc, or getting by with the basics at DIY level. Either way I think most owners will want to do the best for their horses within their own financial constraints, and let's not forget here that we're not living in an ideal world and these days especially financial hardship can be just around the corner for anyone, there are no jobs for life anymore. I'm sure we all have tales of friends, acquaintances, YOs and YMs, etc who have been left with horses and/or bills because an owner has suddenly found financial life difficult, vilifying them is not going to help, it just sucks the problem underground and attaches stigma to finding yourself in difficulty and therefore makes it even harder to ask for and find help.
 
I know too many people who say they cant afford their horses and cut back on shoeing making them go 8 or 9 weeks instead of 6 weeks for example, use no bedding on rubber mats feed minimum hay, yet they have transport and go to competitions and hunt.
 
3OldPonies said:
I'm not sure there's a clear cut answer to this one. Many of us, me included, do things by the book where they can and economise where they can in order to pursue our hobby. The 'trouble' is that the horse world is so very varied, at the top end you have fantastic yards where every possible luxury is laid on for the horses and at the other you have the DIYers renting premises and doing the best they can with what they have. Affordability therefore varies according to a) the amount of money available and b) practical possibilities; I would suggest that practical possibilities are the best that the majority of horse owners can acheive, whether this be by spending as much as possible on the best facilities, full livery etc, or getting by with the basics at DIY level. Either way I think most owners will want to do the best for their horses within their own financial constraints, and let's not forget here that we're not living in an ideal world and these days especially financial hardship can be just around the corner for anyone, there are no jobs for life anymore. I'm sure we all have tales of friends, acquaintances, YOs and YMs, etc who have been left with horses and/or bills because an owner has suddenly found financial life difficult, vilifying them is not going to help, it just sucks the problem underground and attaches stigma to finding yourself in difficulty and therefore makes it even harder to ask for and find help.
Click to expand...
^^Amen!
I always find posts like this only add to the assumption that all equestrians are rich, stuck up and bitchy. As long as an animals welfare isn't compromised does it really matter how much money someone has or hasn't got in the bank? I've known very wealthy people let their animals suffer needlessly and people who are flat broke who will go without essentials for themselves in order to make sure their animals never go without
 
ThursdayNext said:
I'd add those who Pts for financial reasons. E.g. Can't afford surgery/box rest, don't want to pay for an unridden horse etc.

Keeping a horse isn't just about the good times.

Edited to add: not just those who do pts but those who would "have to" pts for financial reasons, or for who it would be a factor.
Click to expand...

I dont agree with the above, pts for financial reasons is a valid reason the end its life to prevent suffering for the horse and also bankruptcy of the owner. Most dont have unlimited bottomless wells to draw upon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top