Pts & h&h!

[babymare]

good words wind and rain

 

[PolarSkye]

So let me get this straight . . . it's preferable to pass unsuitable, or lame horses from pillar to post rather than either finding them a home in a field somewhere as a companion (if they will retire sound and not kill either themselves or another horse in such a situation) or putting them to sleep?

Really?

I doubt very much that Kali will take to retirement well . . . he has navicular, sidebone and arthritis . . . I am prepared to take his shoes off and give it a whirl, but if he is lame I will put him to sleep. Also, if I find that I can't afford to keep him any more (and before anyone shouts that I should get three jobs, live in a shack and live off baked beans I have two daughters about to head to university and am currently unemployed due to (unforeseen) illness and struggling), I will also have him PTS. He is NOT a novice ride . . . but he is broken enough (although currently sound) that anyone capable of riding him to his ability wouldn't want him. He doesn't enjoy hacking - finds it stressful and is unbelievably sharp/spooky out hacking - so wouldn't make a happy hacker. It would be unscrupulous of me to pass him and his problems on to some unsuspecting novice-y rider . . . and I can't guarantee that anyone with the ability to ride him wouldn't run him into the ground until he breaks and then sell him on as a happy hacker to some poor unsuspecting rube.

He has scope to burn . . . loves to jump . . . moves quite nicely and is lovely to look at . . . he's also very, very sweet and endearing . . . if I wanted to, I could find a buyer for him . . . he might even pass a five-stage vetting (although I wouldn't bet on it) . . . but I simply won't pass him on. So what's the option?

It's not about him no longer being useful . . . it's about making sure he has a good quality of life and ensuring his future.

For the time being, I can afford to keep him . . . and he is kept very well . . . but I truly resent the idea that by being pragmatic about his future, I consider him to be "disposable."

P

 

[Spring Feather]

. . . he has navicular, sidebone and arthritis . . .

. . . but I truly resent the idea that by being pragmatic about his future, I consider him to be "disposable."

This thread is not about horses who have numerous ailments such as yours. I certainly wouldn't sell on a horse with sidebone, navicular and arthritis and not many ethical horse owners would.

 

[Mithras]

So let me get this straight . . . it's preferable to pass unsuitable, or lame horses from pillar to post rather than either finding them a home in a field somewhere as a companion (if they will retire sound and not kill either themselves or another horse in such a situation) or putting them to sleep?

No, according to a rather strange group of posters on HHO, its better to humanely kill horses as soon as they reach a certain age, go lame, start refusing jumps or napping on hacks and who generally have the bad luck in life to have a series of owners who have caused them to have very mild behavioural problems, and replace it with a similar horse once you've had a nice little rest a few years later. Alternatively, to buy such a horse and keep it for a couple of years, go off riding and say that life changes mean you unexpectedly cannot afford a horse any longer and kill it humanely.

And apparently its also normal to constantly debate various different ways of humanely killing horses, constantly repeat how necessary and humane it is to euthanize such horses, and generally post high numbers of threads about killing horses humanely, over and over again.

 

[PolarSkye]

No, according to a rather strange group of posters on HHO, its better to humanely kill horses as soon as they reach a certain age, go lame, start refusing jumps or napping on hacks and who generally have the bad luck in life to have a series of owners who have caused them to have very mild behavioural problems, and replace it with a similar horse once you've had a nice little rest a few years later. Alternatively, to buy such a horse and keep it for a couple of years, go off riding and say that life changes mean you unexpectedly cannot afford a horse any longer and kill it humanely.

And apparently its also normal to constantly debate various different ways of humanely killing horses, constantly repeat how necessary and humane it is to euthanize such horses, and generally post high numbers of threads about killing horses humanely, over and over again.

Fairy 'nuff.

P

 

[MotherOfChickens]

No, according to a rather strange group of posters on HHO, its better to humanely kill horses as soon as they reach a certain age, go lame, start refusing jumps or napping on hacks and who generally have the bad luck in life to have a series of owners who have caused them to have very mild behavioural problems, and replace it with a similar horse once you've had a nice little rest a few years later. Alternatively, to buy such a horse and keep it for a couple of years, go off riding and say that life changes mean you unexpectedly cannot afford a horse any longer and kill it humanely.

And apparently its also normal to constantly debate various different ways of humanely killing horses, constantly repeat how necessary and humane it is to euthanize such horses, and generally post high numbers of threads about killing horses humanely, over and over again.

is it the same posters though? the forum is so huge these days. And I wish that people would use the search function rather than endlessly discuss rugs/injection or bullet or whatever. But you can always just not read I guess.

 

[Patterdale]

Alternatively, to buy such a horse and keep it for a couple of years, go off riding and say that life changes mean you unexpectedly cannot afford a horse any longer and kill it humanely.

And apparently its also normal to constantly debate various different ways of humanely killing horses, constantly repeat how necessary and humane it is to euthanize such horses, and generally post high numbers of threads about killing horses humanely, over and over again.

Yep, that's about the size of it..!

 

[Marydoll]

I believe it comes down to individual choice and ability to maintain the keep of old or lame horses, if they want to ride and if being able to ride meant only able to support 1 horse having to pts old or lame horses being the only way they can do it i dont see it as anyone elses business other than the owners, the horse isnt being neglected or abused, its being humanely destroyed because they choose not to pass it on. I have a lovely tb who has collaterall ligament damage, she is sound and can hack and dressage at low levels but if asked that horse would jump for fun, then would very quickly become lame again, possibly irrepairably, not to be sound enough to ride, she will never be moved on for fear of just that, in my mind i can see her then spiral down through various owners at a very low price, i would have pts first rather than see that happen to her

 

[Ibblebibble]

No, according to a rather strange group of posters on HHO, its better to humanely kill horses as soon as they reach a certain age, go lame, start refusing jumps or napping on hacks and who generally have the bad luck in life to have a series of owners who have caused them to have very mild behavioural problems, and replace it with a similar horse once you've had a nice little rest a few years later. Alternatively, to buy such a horse and keep it for a couple of years, go off riding and say that life changes mean you unexpectedly cannot afford a horse any longer and kill it humanely.

And apparently its also normal to constantly debate various different ways of humanely killing horses, constantly repeat how necessary and humane it is to euthanize such horses, and generally post high numbers of threads about killing horses humanely, over and over again.

have you ever considered becoming a writer for the Daily Mail?!
Amuses me how those who are complaining about the abundance of posts on euthanasia are doing a great job of adding to this thread .................... which is all about euthanasia

 

[Queenbee]

The horse I would be looking for would be a weight carrier that my novice husband could ride, so she probably wouldn't be suitable. But if I was looking for one for myself, then she would be. I was just making the point that there ARE very good homes out there for horses even that are being given away. Obviously you have to be very careful, but selling any horse is a risk, no matter what they are worth as you can never guarantee their future.

I agree, and I was saddened when I heard that she was considering this. Selling has always been a risk, although it seems more of one nowadays, one must be very careful. I think there is a very fine line between being flippant with a horses life and making a decision to pts. I would only pts my horse if it was ill and recommended/agreed by the vet for welfare reasons. That said, I wouldn't want to replace him, if I hadn't had ben when ebony died I would not have bought another horse and I don't envisage me in reality getting another in my circumstances. I have no children, only me, my dog, cats and horse. As a result he will be cared for and allowed to retire as and when because when he stops being rideable is when I stop riding.

 

[Queenbee]

No, according to a rather strange group of posters on HHO, its better to humanely kill horses as soon as they reach a certain age, go lame, start refusing jumps or napping on hacks and who generally have the bad luck in life to have a series of owners who have caused them to have very mild behavioural problems, and replace it with a similar horse once you've had a nice little rest a few years later. Alternatively, to buy such a horse and keep it for a couple of years, go off riding and say that life changes mean you unexpectedly cannot afford a horse any longer and kill it humanely.

And apparently its also normal to constantly debate various different ways of humanely killing horses, constantly repeat how necessary and humane it is to euthanize such horses, and generally post high numbers of threads about killing horses humanely, over and over again.

or perhaps no one should debate it, we should all bury our heads and pretend we do not have a very real crisis, lets just pretend everything is all good in the equine world and not consider even for a second that we have caused a very real and serious situation that may warrant some harsher control methods than we would ever have liked to consider.

 

[Pigeon]

I think H&H seems bloodthirsty, because the reason the 'shoot it' response comes up, is people are posting about elderly/unsound horses they don't want to keep. Realistically, how many horses die of old age, and is it really fair to let it get to that stage?

I truly admire people who keep horses well into their retirement, or who make suitable provisions (loan/bloodbank/retirement livery etc) for them, but I have very little respect for those who let the horses out of their possession. It is also worth bearing in mind that the number of unwanted unrideable horses far outweighs the number of possible homes.

There is a huge surplus of horses at the moment, and it is when people don't take responsibility for their animals that welfare cases happen. How many stories do you hear of lame/behaviourally challenged horses doped up and sold as a safe hack? Pip will never be sold, but if he went lame, there is no way I would pass him off to an uncertain future. I think the point I am trying to make is that there are worse things than death, and I am not going to gamble, I owe my horses more than that.

Also the 'you wouldn't put a dog down for those reasons' isn't really a valid argument. My horses are pets more than anything, but I have yet to meet a dog that costs £200 a month to keep, needs 2+ acres to roam, constant companionship, and farriery bills

 

[cbmcts]

I personally prefer to see 'unsellable and valueless' horses PTS at home if for whatever reason their owners cannot/will not keep them. I may think that some of the reasons given are less than reasonable but even so it is probably the best thing that can happen to that horse. I firmly believe that PTS is the safer option - rather than risk then going into the horrible downward spiral which sadly is a real possibility. Sane and healthy horses have a value so even if they are not suitable for their current owner they still have a better than evens chance of a good home - these are not the type of horses that people on HHO advocate PTS IME.

The above does not make me blood thirsty or heartless, just realistic and compassionate (I hope!). Any time I have had to be there for a PTS I spend the night before throwing up and the day itself on the edge of tears - it is not a decision that should be taken lightly nor it something I advise with a smile on my face nor an easy heart. However, I still think it is a better alternative then many others in this day and age. Sad but true.

I have 2 retired horses - one with a screw loose (owned since a weanling but truly unpredictable in his reactions so dangerous at times) and the other who I bought as an aged confidence giver in the full knowledge that I would be his last home - I only had him in work for 2 years but I owe him a lot too as he gave me the enjoyment of riding back after a few truly terrifying incidents with horse no 1. If I cannot keep them for whatever reason, finances, time, loss of livery - horse no 1 is not an easy animal to manage, doesn't stable and needs to be handled very quietly and confidently to avoid dangerous behaviour - or for any other reason that I as their owner of many years decide. They will be PTS quietly with me there. That to me, is taking responsibility for my animals.

 

[Orangehorse]

No, according to a rather strange group of posters on HHO, its better to humanely kill horses as soon as they reach a certain age, go lame, start refusing jumps or napping on hacks and who generally have the bad luck in life to have a series of owners who have caused them to have very mild behavioural problems, and replace it with a similar horse once you've had a nice little rest a few years later. Alternatively, to buy such a horse and keep it for a couple of years, go off riding and say that life changes mean you unexpectedly cannot afford a horse any longer and kill it humanely.

And apparently its also normal to constantly debate various different ways of humanely killing horses, constantly repeat how necessary and humane it is to euthanize such horses, and generally post high numbers of threads about killing horses humanely, over and over again.

No, I haven't seen any posts like this. It is always a decision that is decided upon after great heart searching, but sometimes people are looking for a decision that they know is right in their heart, but they are having great difficulty in making, and it involves horses that really do not have an alternative use, or any hope of a suitable home.