Riding or horses?

S

stormox

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 May 2012
Messages
3,411
Location
midlands
Visit site
It seems to me there are two groups of people who have horses. Those who love their horse as a pet (ridden or unridden) and those who have horses because they love riding, and the horse is a means to an end.
Im not saying either attitude is wrong, or right - just different and a lot obviously depends on the persons individual situation. What do others think?
 
definitely agree there are two separate groups of people.

I help out with a charity and we get horses surrendered to us with stuff like ligament and tendon issues/ kissing spine/si etc. people just want to compete and know they can't sell the horse, but choose not to give give the horse time off or rehab it. they just want to move on to the next animal to compete or ride. the irony is that they are usually surrendered with quotes like ' I just want what's best for him', while at the same time offloading the cost onto a voluntary organisation for an animal that requires medical attention and often remedial work by farriers and physios. I genuinely think people fool themselves into thinking they love horses, and they might actually like horses on some level but actually it's the personal challenge that competition/riding brings that is the basis of their core, not the relationship with a partner or particular animal.

on the other hand you see people paying full livery for elderly horses that require tons of vets bill, because they love the animal to bits regardless of what it can.
 
Last edited:
For me it's the horses. I love getting to know them and interacting with them. I'm lucky that I can keep them at home so they are part of the family.

I do take riding seriously in so much that I try to ride the best I can and consider regular lessons with an instructor who 'gets' my ponies as essential. Have also competed in a number of disciplines over the years , has been fun, but doesn't matter if can't compete as its well down 'the list' to just having horses about the place
 
I think we probably all know people on both sides of this.
I don't think it matters particularly so long as the horse's needs are met.
the ones that bug me are the people who "love" their horse so much that they can't make objective decisions for its welfare (e.g. keeping an unwell elderly horse going for too long etc).

I love riding, and I love my unridden horses too.
 
For me, I have horses to ride. That’s not saying that I don’t absolutely adore them and I certainly keep hold of them as pets even if they can’t be ridden anymore, but if someone told me I could never ride again, I wouldn’t go out looking for a horse to have as a pet.
I enjoy watching my horses in the field and all the other stuff that comes along with them, but what makes them different to me from my other animals is the riding.
That said, if I had my own land, it might make me think differently and I’d probably be content with a few little pet ponies.
I think when you have to factor in livery costs, it does make things a bit different.
 
There are definitely people on both sides of the fence - and as Scats says, for me it depends on the situation. If I had a spare field, then I would absolutely have a couple of old/broken horses or ponies as pets just to love - however I wouldn't take them on to have at livery. I am willing to take on the financial burden of a horse if I am able to ride them, and I am of course willing to continue paying out for that horse should they lose the ability to be ridden and either retire them, or keep them at DIY or whatever. However I wouldn't knowingly take on an unridden horse to keep at significant expense.
 
scats said:
That said, if I had my own land, it might make me think differently and I’d probably be content with a few little pet ponies.
I think when you have to factor in livery costs, it does make things a bit different.
Click to expand...
makes a big difference IME, the only reason i've ended up with so many is because i still only pay livery for 2.
 
blitznbobs said:
Both but then i never seem to build that magical bond until i ride them — its odd - once that bond is there it never goes and im lucky that they can stay with me for life even if not ridden but its the working as a team that builds that connection for me
Click to expand...
i have felt this way too, but my homebred has broken that rule! her 3yo pal is waaaaaay below her in the attachment stakes while she has rocketed to joint top of the list of MPs favourite ponies, haha.
 
I am in both, I love to ride but circumstances (either lameness or having youngsters) have at several times in my life put me in the non ridden/ have a horse as a pet camp. I quite like both tbh.
 
I don't think it is a side of a fence, more a spectrum, like a rainbow with people who just want to spend time with horses and don't want to ride in red and those who don't see the point of horses if you can't ride in violet.

Most of us fall naturally in the yellow/green/blue area, but circumstances, time and age can impact this.

Personally I love riding and I have a horse so that I can ride. That doesn't mean I don't adore her, or consider her a pet. I absolutely feel I would owe her a retirement now, and would be devastated to lose her so if she was injured or infirm I would keep her as long as she is happy, even if that meant being unable to ride. However I am on livery and keeping a horse is a big financial commitment. I have no issue with people responsibly moving on an unsuitable horse, and that includes having a young unrideable horse put down if it can't be rehomed safely.

Would I keep horses if I couldn't ride? I'm not sure I would. I enjoy being with horses and equestrian sport in general so depending upon circumstances I might consider getting into driving or breeding or owning a horse for someone else to compete but I don't think I would buy a horse just to have a pet unless I had my own land.
 
Last edited:
I do love riding and am lucky to have a ridden horse but I also seem to end up with a retired/ broken horse as well . I certainly wouldn't be passing them on anywhere and I know a lot of people who are in the same position so although I'm aware some people probably do pass on horses they are unable to ride I cannot say I know anyone who would do this. This maybe because I have my horses at home and so do the majority of people I know which makes a huge difference as opposed to people who are paying livery .
 
I've always loved the looking after of horses as much as the riding of them.

Even when I was a teenager, and home for the weekend from boarding school, I remember trying not to moan at my mum when she mucked out my horse's stable while I was out for a hack. I was looking forward to mucking the stable out!
 
Kat said:
I don't think it is a side of a fence, more a spectrum, like a rainbow with people who just want to spend time with horses and don't want to ride in red and those who don't see the point of horses if you can't ride in indigo.

Most of us fall naturally in the yellow/green/blue area, but circumstances, time and age can impact this.

Personally I love riding and I have a horse so that I can ride. That doesn't mean I don't adore her, or consider her a pet. I absolutely feel I would owe her a retirement now, and would be devastated to lose her so if she was injured or infirm I would keep her as long as she is happy, even if that meant being unable to ride. However I am on livery and keeping a horse is a big financial commitment. I have no issue with people responsibly moving on an unsuitable horse, and that includes having a young unrideable horse put down if it can't be rehomed safely.

Would I keep horses if I couldn't ride? I'm not sure I would. I enjoy being with horses and equestrian sport in general so depending upon circumstances I might consider getting into driving or breeding or owning a horse for someone else to compete but I don't think I would buy a horse just to have a pet unless I had my own land.
Click to expand...

Ditto this, really.

I absolutely adore my boy and love him so very, very much . He owes me nothing and I hope he can have a very long retirement after our riding days are done but I also won't blindly take out credit card after credit card for say, veterinary fees, like I've witnessed someone do for their unridden horse in the past.

I do lots of groundwork & non-riding stuff with him - so its not all about the riding by an means - as well as ridden stuff.


If I had my land and couldn't ride, I'd happily take on rescued companion ponies - but I wouldn't do that whilst on livery. I totally get that others might want that though :)
 
I think as Kat said above there are those two types of people but also those who straddle both camps, so more of a spectrum. I think it can sometimes depend on the individual horse too.

I couldn't exist without at least one horse, they are a massive part of my life an I enjoy spending at least a couple of hours with them every day, even if that just consists of mucking out the field in the pouring rain whilst they follow me around watching the hard work.

BUT riding means a lot to me too. I had to stop completely for two years pre one lot of surgery so took up carriage driving as a substitute. After surgery I was told that I would be very unlikely to be able to ride again (due to a surgical error), so I bought a horse to break to drive (was driving other people's before then). I really enjoy driving, and still compete other people's horses, but I realised how much I need to ride when I was luckily able to start again.

For me there is nothing better than riding on my own, just me and the horse, whether schooling, competing or hacking etc, it makes me feel incredibly close/connected to the horse. Riding is the only thing that completely clears my head, and I would struggle without it in the longer term, but I need to know and like the horse in order to get the most out of it, and looking after the horse contributes to this relationship. So both riding and caring for/loving the horse are intertwined for me.

I also agree with the point that too many (not all) people who go on and on about how much they 'love' their horses don't actually do the best by them, and love is no substitute for good care and high welfare standards.

ETA I do keep my horses if they can no longer be ridden, and whilst it doesn't change how I feel about them, I feel a loss at not to be able to ride.
 
Both. I drive as well though so if the day comes I can't ride I would hope to be able to drive. I guess I'd still have a horse even if I couldn't do either though.
 
I think it's is just one huge jumbled up spectrum that is also confused by a person's own attitude towards death. If death, to you, means an end to a lot of stuff you find difficult and you see no or little downside to it, and you believe that death for your horse means no possibility of pain or discomfort, hidden or obvious, current or future, then a decision to PTS a horse so you can have another to ride is very different from that decision for a person with a mentally stronger hold on life being worth it for life's sake.

I personally feel that fear/horror of death has grown and grown in the last few decades, while at the same time, the attraction to a horse of spending day after day in one field, especially through a UK winter, is possibly being over rated.

I get that some people love their horses so much they will not have them PTS until its absolutely necessary. I have yet to feel that depth of love for any horse I have owned, but my current spotty is coming close (or he was before he took 15 minutes to catch for his lesson today! )
.
 
I agree that it is a spectrum.

I also agree with Millypops that there does appear to be an increase in owners who "love" their horse so much that they can't or won't make the decision to have them euthanized.

There also seems to be an increase in people bemoaning not being able to ride when their horse has given the majority of their life to the owner and being ridden. If one is lucky enough to have a horse into it's old age then it seems only fair to ensure a good retirement rather than complain about a lack of riding.

Paddy22 raises good discussion points too about surrendering horses. Years ago I knew an acquaintance who "gave" her six year old to a sanctuary when it had to be retired with a tendon injury. She didnt think that it was fair to pts a young horse but equally did not want to pay for its care for possibly the next twenty years. She did not donate to the sanctuary, fund raise for them or even visit the horse. I do think that people should be very prepared to make decisions before taking ownership of any animal.

As said as long as a horse is well cared for it matters little if ridden or unridden IMO. Having said that I am saddened reading threads on here over the years that pose the question if people would continue to own their horses if they could not compete. I find it saddening that competing is the only way of finding happiness or satisfaction with horses and that external validation of sorts is needed.
 
some of the kids I grew up with were serious little showjumping kids and would change ponies every few years. they were definitely kind and fond of the horses they had each time, but they found it very easy to use them for a short time and then replace them. They never seemed to wonder what happened to them after they sold them. But their focus was on their craft and that kind of overrode an emotional connection to a particular animal, much as they liked them.
 
Both. I love owning and riding horses. Would I be gutted if my horse couldn’t be ridden anymore? Yes. Would i continue to keep them (if they could be field sound and not in pain and what not) Absolutely. (I still have my 30+ yr old pony). I wouldn’t ever turf a non ridden one out to make way for a ridden one though.

I think if I couldn’t physically ride for whatever reason, I would probably continue to own horses. I mean, the ones I have now are for life, but would I get more? If I had the time/space/ability to have some non ridden ones then probably yes - but not sure that answer would be the same if I didn’t have my own land to keep them on etc.
Edited to add: I am however not considered competitive. I attend local competitions etc but I’m not “going up in the world” with my competing!
 
I love both - but due to various ailments & not choice, I spend more time just looking after them & very minimal time riding. Yes its frustrating but I love them to bits & just having them around so regardless of the riding, I'd still keep them.
 
As much as I love riding, the horse is the no1 for me. If I owned a horse who had to be retired, and I couldn't afford another, I'd still want to get the occasional riding lesson/find a share horse, but the horse would be with me for life.

What I really find hard to relate to is people (especially teenagers) who buy a horse, call it their 'heart horse', and then sell it a year later when it can't jump the tracks they want it to. At that point you might as well admit you're in the sport for the sport, not the horse.
 
I love horses and riding but I lean towards riding. I'm not riding at the moment and I desperately miss it. But it's one of those things when you have a 3-year old and a 28-year old. At least (barring sh1t happening) I know I will ride the youngster some day in the not-wildly-distant future. And I'll give the old horse the best quality of life possible, until I can't anymore, but I also know that's a time limited thing. I doubt she has another winter.

If I had a young horse that became unridable and couldn't afford two, would I keep it as a field ornament? That's a tough choice, isn't it? I don't think I could face 10/15/20 years of not riding.
 
I retired my 14 year old highland at Christmas due to injury. I can’t really afford two so I currently have him as a pet. I do miss riding so I have lessons at the moment. I don’t know how this will pan out but vet agreed my pony is field sound currently so pts feels wrong for me for now. He is DNR should he get a serious colic though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top