RESPONSE TO URGENT HELP NEEDED

[Blue2006]

I feel compelled to update the forum on the recent post regarding the euthanasia of a horse and the deliberate slander of a well respected and professional livery yard as well as the misrepresentation of circumstances. The horse in question has now sadly been put to sleep however the proprietors of this yard had been well within their legal rights to object to the horse being put to sleep in their field as the horse in question was not (according to BEVA guidelines) suffering, in pain or in any distress. This horse was happy, healthy and in the field with other horses. The objection was to prevent clients and horses unnecessary distress and as such feel the abuse that was directed from a misinformed public was outrageous. I work for a large horse charity and although welfare guidelines are a fuzzy area and all horse owners have the right to put their horse to sleep, it is very much at the discretion of the veterinary surgeon. Most vets however feel it is morally wrong to put a healthy horse to sleep if it is not considered dangerous. This opens a can of worms as to why the horse in question was put to sleep but this does occur and will continue to do so until legislative reforms occur to protect the rights of horses and other sentient animals. I am also aware that the owner of this horse was offered an alternative solution where the horse in question would have been given a happy life. This was refused.

 

[AmyMay]

Whether it met the BEVA guildeines had nothing to do with them. It is an owners right to have their horse destroyed for whatever reason.

How dare this person behave in the manner they did. Absolutely shocking and quite disgusting imo.

I work for a large horse charity

I suggest you re-think your career choice in that case.

Most vets however feel it is morally wrong to put a healthy horse to sleep if it is not considered dangerous.

You've spoken to all vets have you? Because this is not a fair assessment of opinion.

I am also aware that the owner of this horse was offered an alternative solution where the horse in question would have been given a happy life. This was refused.

Good for them!

 

[Star_Chaser]

Is this sort of post appropriate?

 

[Spring Feather]

It's a private matter between you and the other poster. I doubt I was the only one on here who raised an eyebrow and wondered if what we were being told was the truth. I understand you wanting to put your point over and some of your comments make me uneasy about the other poster. Sorry to everyone who was caught up in this situation, especially the horse.

 

[carthorse]

Totally agree. It is not nice to have a horse put down and no one would do it by choice but if you feel for any reason that it would be better to have it pts than let it have an uncertain future than it is for the best.
I have a homebred horse that I would rather see pts than let him go elsewhere [he is on loan to a colege at present] I know of people that have sold horses really cheaply when they should have them pts. The new owner then finds the problem and has to do the best for the horse.

 

[Wagtail]

I think that a YO has every right to object to a horse being PTS on their premises if they disagree for compassionate reasons. If the horse in question is happy and healthy and they believe the owner is making a mistake. However, they then have to think that if they object so much due to compassion for the horse, that if it will be PTS whatever they say, then it would have been far less an ordeal if it is done at a place where the horse is happy and relaxed. It's a difficult one.

 

[PandorasJar]

In which case why did the YO give an alternative of a field and then lock out after?

Still don't agree. If a horse is to be pts it is the owners choice and if backed up by a vet, no one elses opinion matters.

A yard should be accommodating right through to the end or they shouldn't charge for when it's going well.

I'm sure a pts decision was not taken lightly.

 

[Wagtail]

If it is the case I am thinking of, then I was under the imression the horse was very unhappy and dangerous?? I had no idea it was actually healthy and happy, or that there was an alternative offered to the owner. Now who to believe?

 

[AmyMay]

If it is the case I am thinking of, then I was under the imression the horse was very unhappy and dangerous?? I had no idea it was actually healthy and happy, or that there was an alternative offered to the owner. Now who to believe?

What does it matter? It's no one's business but the owners as the reasons why the horse was put down.

I've had three horses put down. None met the BEVA guidelines. All were happy and 'well' at the time of their destruction. And I still made the right decision to destroy.

 

[FairyLights]

Well done the horse owner in having the horse PTS. I have the local huntsman call to PTS any unwanted horses I own. He does a professional competent job. He also disposes of the carcass. Far better to PTS at home than send it to a sale or bankrupt oneself keeping an expensive field ornament.
ETA Well put Carthorse

 

[Wagtail]

In which case why did the YO give an alternative of a field and then lock out after?

Still don't agree. If a horse is to be pts it is the owners choice and if backed up by a vet, no one elses opinion matters.

A yard should be accommodating right through to the end or they shouldn't charge for when it's going well.

I'm sure a pts decision was not taken lightly.

Being a YO myself, I couldn't imagine any of my clients making a decision to PTS for any reason that I would not agree with. However, if a healthy, happy horse was PTS for no reason at all, then that would upset me. And why should I be witness to it? I might still allow it on my property if it was going to be PTS whatever I said so as to avoid stress to the horse, but would understand that some YO may not.

 

[Clava]

In which case why did the YO give an alternative of a field and then lock out after?

Still don't agree. If a horse is to be pts it is the owners choice and if backed up by a vet, no one elses opinion matters.

A yard should be accommodating right through to the end or they shouldn't charge for when it's going well.

I'm sure a pts decision was not taken lightly.

Quite agree.

 

[Moomin1]

I must have missed this one..what's it about?!!

 

[Wagtail]

What does it matter? It's no one's business but the owners as the reasons why the horse was put down.

I've had three horses put down. None met the BEVA guidelines. All were happy and 'well' at the time of their destruction. And I still made the right decision to destroy.

It was aired on a public forum, and so people will give their opinions. FWIW, I do think that YO's should have the right to refuse PTS on their property if they conscienciously object. Just as the owner has the right to put down a healthy horse for no reason at all if they want to.

 

[AmyMay]

FWIW, I do think that YO's should have the right to refuse PTS on their property if they conscienciously object.

Then, like the OP - they're in the wrong business.

 

[Moomin1]

Whether it met the BEVA guildeines had nothing to do with them. It is an owners right to have their horse destroyed for whatever reason.

How dare this person behave in the manner they did. Absolutely shocking and quite disgusting imo.



I suggest you re-think your career choice in that case.



You've spoken to all vets have you? Because this is not a fair assessment of opinion.



Good for them!

Agree with this. If people realised that euthanasia is an option even for healthy horses where rehoming either isn't suitable or possible, then we wouldn't be over brimming with unwanted horses in rehoming centres or dealing with masses of neglected horses day in day out. PTS is a welfare tool.

 

[elliefiz]

In which case why did the YO give an alternative of a field and then lock out after?

Still don't agree. If a horse is to be pts it is the owners choice and if backed up by a vet, no one elses opinion matters.

A yard should be accommodating right through to the end or they shouldn't charge for when it's going well.

I'm sure a pts decision was not taken lightly.

Completely agree with the above. If I recall correctly the horse ended up being put down on the side of a public road. That really shocked me.

 

[111ex111]

Is this sort of post appropriate?

totally agree

 

[Blue2006]

We are all going to disagree over when it is prudent to put a horse to sleep. It is an extremely emotive topic however the deliberate and vitriolic defamation of character that went with this particular post was totally inappropriate.

 

[Jesstickle]

Agree with this. If people realised that euthanasia is an option even for healthy horses where rehoming either isn't suitable or possible, then we wouldn't be over brimming with unwanted horses in rehoming centres or dealing with masses of neglected horses day in day out. PTS is a welfare tool.

Yep. WHW even tell you to bl00dy do it FGS.

OP, which charity do you work for? I'd like to speak to them

 

[Bigbenji]

If I remember rightly the original OP of the thread in question actually named the yard, in which case they have every right to come on here and put their point across as far as I am concerned.

It should of been kept between the two OP's in the first place or the yard kept anonymous if it was only advice that was being sought

 

[AmyMay]

We are all going to disagree over when it is prudent to put a horse to sleep. It is an extremely emotive topic however the deliberate and vitriolic defamation of character that went with this particular post was totally inappropriate.

Disagreeing and preventing are two different things.

If you are the YO - you are bang out of order.

And the YO wasn't defamed, because it would appear that the poster said nothing that was inaccurate with regards to the prevention of destruction.

 

[AmyMay]

Yep. WHW even tell you to bl00dy do it FGS.

OP, which charity do you work for? I'd like to speak to them

The RSPCA, the WHW plus other charities have just advised the destruction of two very healthy TB's posted about on here recently.

So yes, I'd love to know which charity you work for - especially if they have a non kill policy and open doors to anything that needs a home.

 

[Moomin1]

Where is the original thread and what went on?

Personally I think any YO who refuses to allow a customer's horse to be pts on their yard is a YO worth avoiding like the plague.

People need to realise the bigger picture and toughen up a bit with regard pts.

 

[Moomin1]

The RSPCA, the WHW plus other charities have just advised the destruction of two very healthy TB's posted about on here recently.

So yes, I'd love to know which charity you work for - especially if they have a non kill policy and open doors to anything that needs a home.

It always concerns me greatly to hear of charities with no pts policies.

 

[asommerville]

i think OP came on after the original post to stick up for YO and say all was sorted? tbh if i had made the horrible decision to pts my horse then had the added stress of doing it at the side of the road id be shouting from the rooftops healthy horse or not!

very inapropriate post imo!

 

[Mardy Mare]

I completely agree with AmyMay.

The owner of the horse was being responsible- something which is sometimes severely lacking in the equine community.

The horse should (and I hope was) PTS in surroundings it was familiar with and with as little stress as possible.

Unless the YO was to offer a guarenteed home for life- I don't see what the problem is personally?

I am an animal lover, but I see no problem with healthy or unhealthy animals put to sleep.

What I do have a problem with however, is animals being cruelly treated, not being cared for and needs not met when they are alive.

 

[hayinamanger]

What does it matter? It's no one's business but the owners as the reasons why the horse was put down.

I've had three horses put down. None met the BEVA guidelines. All were happy and 'well' at the time of their destruction. And I still made the right decision to destroy.

^^^^^^^

Totally agree with this

 

[TeamChaser]

Agree with this. If people realised that euthanasia is an option even for healthy horses where rehoming either isn't suitable or possible, then we wouldn't be over brimming with unwanted horses in rehoming centres or dealing with masses of neglected horses day in day out. PTS is a welfare tool.

Don't disagree with the sentiment but the reason we have such a welfare issue is indiscriminate breeding (why on earth this isn't licensed I cannot understand ... we're not talking about hamsters here are we?!?) and too many who don't take responsibility for their animals and find it perfectly acceptable to just have a change of mind and to hell with the consequences for the poor horse


I don't know the background to this and my post probably seems like a hugely sweeping generalisation, maybe it is, but I get so pissed off with those that think it acceptable to treat a horse as a completely disposable posession. I would also far rather a horse is put to sleep than face an uncertain future but my preference would be for people to take some bloody responsibility for the horse they presumably bought when said horse was the love of their life and they were never, ever going to just get bored/tired of it!

Clearly I'm a complete fluffy bunny hugger, but mine are with me for life I may have to remind them just how lucky they are! I could not countenance having either of them put to sleep because I had no further use for them

 

[Moomin1]

Don't disagree with the sentiment but the reason we have such a welfare issue is indiscriminate breeding (why on earth this isn't licensed I cannot understand ... we're not talking about hamsters here are we?!?) and too many who don't take responsibility for their animals and find it perfectly acceptable to just have a change of mind and to hell with the consequences for the poor horse


I don't know the background to this and my post probably seems like a hugely sweeping generalisation, maybe it is, but I get so pissed off with those that think it acceptable to treat a horse as a completely disposable posession. I would also far rather a horse is put to sleep than face an uncertain future but my preference would be for people to take some bloody responsibility for the horse they presumably bought when said horse was the love of their life and they were never, ever going to just get bored/tired of it!

Clearly I'm a complete fluffy bunny hugger, but mine are with me for life I may have to remind them just how lucky they are! I could not countenance having either of them put to sleep because I had no further use for them

Completely agree. My girl was taken on for life, and she will stay with me for life (unless of course I was in a dire position/change of circumstances where all avenues had been exhausted and I couldn't afford/physically ensure all her needs were met). There are days when I could well do without forking out money, or faffing about at midnight after a gruelling day at work (dealing with the delightful irresponsible owners/breeders you talk about!) mucking out, but I took her on, she is my responsibility, and it will always stay that way!