RSPCA shoots 11 HEALTHY horses but claimed keep fees for months

[Meowy Catkin]

My views remain the same regarding those of us who have horses, no further use for them, and which are of no value. 'Fostering' 'loaning' call it what you will, unless we are certain that we can monitor our 'loan', then we really do need to think again, and question why anyone wants a horse which is either of no use, or no value. I understand that PTS is a painful decision, but it would be an option which I'd bet that those who loaned their horses to Peel heartily wish that they'd taken. As Evie91 has said, no one comes out of this, blameless.

Alec.

I am definitely pro PTS of unwanted horses. However in this case the horses were wanted, they did have value and they were useful.

If you as an owner, loan out a horse, what sort of keeping tabs on it is required to safeguard the horse? Weekly/monthly/bi-monthly visits in person? Email, texts, forum updates or phone calls? If the loaner mistreats the horse at all, should the owner forfeit ownership as they haven't kept a close enough eye on it even if they were lied to by the loaner?

 

[ester]

Presumably given the time lines he shot these before the livery horse issue?

Surprised DM missed that nice juicy connection!

 

[siennamum]

and one of them broke it's leg when he transported them to his yard. Sounds like a true horseman.

 

[Sadika]

Yes and Taragun who it was was well used to travelling ... I've not seen any explanation offered as to what happened but I am trying to find out - it's mentioned in all the emails I've sent out today to RSPCA Vice Presidents, MPs et al ...

 

[Bigbenji]

Someone should give the daily mail a nudge about him

Something is very off in his handling of situations. Trigger happy springs to mind and his position should be reviewed in light of his actions.

It's one thing to PTS an animal who is suffering or has no chance of recovery but that doesn't appear to have been the situation in this sad case.

 

[Flame_]

Were the horses aged?

I've just read some of the dead-horse-dumped-in-garden thread and there's no doubt something's extremely wrong with that operation but at the same time I think animal rescue staff must need to get quite hard hearted to stick at what they do.

It does sound highly plausible that the prosecution of the Peels has been compromised by these goings on afterwards and trying to keep them out of the public eye. Disturbing stuff that I hope is fully investigated.

 

[HashRouge]

I am definitely pro PTS of unwanted horses. However in this case the horses were wanted, they did have value and they were useful.

I'm not either but I really believe that it should be routine to scan the microchip of any animal seized and at least try to contact any previous owners listed to see if they would be willing to take them back. Because I bet a fair number would, you know, and surely that could only be a good thing for charities? It would certainly have saved some major heartbreak in this case!

 

[ester]

heron was 20
last crescendo 19
taragun 23
phaaraoh 9
nancy 22

though as the owner of a fit, functional 22 year old I'm not sure I see that as aged.

 

[ester]

Khoomi was 9

 

[Bigbenji]

Ester- was one of those the grey stallion?

 

[ester]

Sparky was Vlacq Tinwe - welshx arab and poss evie's first pony? - He is quoted as the one who started it all anyway.
He was 23.

 

[ester]

No, I'm not sure what happened to him. I have just taken those from the daily mail article.

 

[SO1]

I would expect in this instance the RSPCA to issue a press statement to explain their actions as the DM article is not good for their reputation. I don't like to pass judgement without hearing some reasons for the actions from the RSPCA.

With regard to the law I would expect the Peels to only be able to sign over horses in their ownership to the RSPCA. The loaned horses would have been seized and normally with seized animals where it is not clear who the owner is, the RSPCA would try and trace the owners with an attempt to prosecute them. With regard to the horses loaned I am not sure if the owners would be liable for the welfare of the horses even if they are out on loan and at risk of being prosecuted if formally identified. I have a feeling that even if the horses are on loan the owners are still responsible legally for any welfare issues?

I don't think the RSPCA have good relationships or a lot of trust with the breed societies. I think there was a similar case with a Dartmoor Pony Breeder. If the owners are held to be legally responsible for the welfare of the horses whilst on loan, then the RSPCA i expect would not be keen on returning the horses to the owners even if they were only indirectly responsible for the neglect in that they did not check the horses were being cared for properly whilst on loan.


It is a very sad situation these poor horses have been let down primarily by the Peels who were trusted with their care, by also partly by the owners of the loaned horses who did not check the on the horses to make sure they were being cared for properly whilst on loan, {though I appreciate in a hard winter a horse that is wormy and not being fed properly can lose condition within a matter of months so the owners may have checked them a few months before and they could have seemed ok} as well as the RSPCA if the horses where healthy enough to recover with the option of rehoming or care at a rescue center.

None of the people involved come across well or blameless, however I would say the RSPCA out of the three parties involved are the least responsible for the fate of these horses.

 

[Art Nouveau]

There's this in the telegraph, which seems to be the only paper since the DM to have run the story. Press release perhaps?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/118...ses-as-cases-of-neglect-hit-crisis-point.html

 

[ester]

I think that the RSPCA would have had a hard job in court getting a prosecution for any owners of loaned horses.

How are they the least responsible when one broke a leg and 10 others died in their care?

 

[ester]

The RSPCA spokesman said: “Equine experts did assess the welfare and temperament of the horses in this case and the realistic likelihood of them being rehomed, given that over 1,000 equines in the RSPCA’s care at that time were also needing new homes.
"Some of the horses were humanely euthanised on veterinary advice but others were euthanised because there was no realistic prospect of them being rehomed in the prevailing circumstances at that time.


The prevailing circumstances being that people were desperately trying to find out where these horses were....

 

[Alec Swan]

…….. ... those horses would have been safe today had the RSPCA used the passport info etc ... instead for some reason best known to themselves all but 2 were shot way before the case even got going in court ... the 2 "survivors" are not known at the moment …
…….. ...

The rspca prosecuting counsel are very well known for their dirty tactics. With a Court hardly being in a position to contradict 'Experts' and with little in the way of evidence to counter their claims, ANY Court is going to accept that the value of such a prosecution would hinge around the fact that the horses were in such a state that the only humane answer was their humane destruction.

A question; Do the rspca only destroy horses on the grounds of qualified veterinary advice, or do they rely upon the opinion of a pouting girl who cuddles terriers? Does anyone now? Are unqualified and biased Inspectors at the lowest of ranks, allowed to make such decisions? If they aren't, and if it wasn't an MRCVS registered Veterinary professional, then who was it, do you suppose? Was a qualified Veterinary Surgeon, one within the employ of the rspca present at the slaughter of these horses, OR present at the Court case?

Our Courts need to 'wise-up' and recognise when they're being hoodwinked.

Alec.

 

[Alec Swan]

"Some of the horses were humanely euthanised on veterinary advice ……. ....

That sort of answers my last question, except I wonder just who this person was who gave veterinary advice. I dish out veterinary advice regularly, but I'm not a Vet. Did the rspca rely upon the advice of a QUALIFIED equine Vet? If they did, I wonder who it was and how they can explain their opinion. The rspca won't respond to members of the public, but they would to a judge, should the owners of the unfortunate horses club together.

Alec.

 

[Flame_]

heron was 20
last crescendo 19
taragun 23
phaaraoh 9
nancy 22

though as the owner of a fit, functional 22 year old I'm not sure I see that as aged.

From a general rehoming POV I'd class over twenty as aged. The point made about the loan horses owners being indirectly responsible for their horses' neglect by not checking them is a valid one and if returning horses to them, or to former owners is not a supported policy, it is reasonable to put down these horses. On paper their value at that age, in that condition wouldn't be any higher than that of an unregistered gypsy cob , which people seem to be comfortable with them putting down. If you sell a horse on you have no right or claim to get it back if you find out where it is a few years later and it's not good news, it is very naive and a bit cheeky to think otherwise. If you loan a horse it is still your responsibility to oversee its welfare.

 

[be positive]

If you look at the animals on the rspcas rehoming pages they are nearly all small, young cobs a lot of 3 year olds that are two a penny, if someone wants a cob of that type they can buy one without going through a home check etc.
The arabs were far more likely to find decent homes probably all through known contacts, breeders and former owners, I think the prospect of finding homes for every single one was excellent, people were trying to find them and being stonewalled, did none of the messages get through or do they just not care?

 

[Alec Swan]

…….. and if returning horses to them, or to former owners is not a supported policy, it is reasonable to put down these horses. ……..

Would that be Former Owners, or if the horses were loaned, Current Owners? rspca 'Policy' cannot make decisions which contradict Law.

Alec.

 

[MotherOfChickens]

From a general rehoming POV I'd class over twenty as aged. The point made about the loan horses owners being indirectly responsible for their horses' neglect by not checking them is a valid one and if returning horses to them, or to former owners is not a supported policy, it is reasonable to put down these horses. On paper their value at that age, in that condition wouldn't be any higher than that of an unregistered gypsy cob , which people seem to be comfortable with them putting down. If you sell a horse on you have no right or claim to get it back if you find out where it is a few years later and it's not good news, it is very naive and a bit cheeky to think otherwise. If you loan a horse it is still your responsibility to oversee its welfare.

The community of Arabian horse keepers and breeders are remarkable when it comes to rehoming Arab horses in need-even had they not had owners asking after them, homes could have been found. Most rescues are full of tiny ponies or high maintenance companions whenever I've looked-I'd be far more likely to take on an Arab, even an aged one.
There is a valid point about loaners doing checks although surely legally, the horses were not the Peels to sign over ownership of? Regardless, fact was that owners were trying to find them, they just didn't appreciate how too late they were and then they were lied to. If the rspca are so damn quick to pts rescues of any species, doesn't it make a mockery of branding and chipping?

 

[Flame_]

Its true that if the RSPCA take the angle that in the cases of the loaned horses, the owners were at least partly responsible for the horses' condition, they ought to have been traced and prosecuted, not just not given their horses back or any information about them.

 

[SO1]

I am not saying that the RSPCA made the right decision but the horses were only in the care of the RSPCA because of the neglect the horses had suffered under the Peels.

I would say order of responsibility for deaths of horses are

1}Peels - if Peels had not neglected horses they would not have been with RSPCA and therefore not PTS by RSPCA

2} {For the horses that were not owned by the Peels - Owners of loaned horses but only if they never visited the horses to check all was ok}. It is not clear if the owners visited the horses or not. It the owners did not visit the horses whilst under the care of the Peels to check they were ok then had they done so they may have noticed the horses condition and taken them home again before the RSPCA intervened. However I appreciate in a hard winter a horse's condition can deteriorate in a couple of months if the horse does not have adequate feed and worming so it maybe the owners did visit the horses and they seemed well and the neglect happened very quickly in which case owners did there best by visiting at regular intervals. l have to say if loaned my pony out and did not check on him and he ended up PTS by RSPCA due to neglect from the loaners, i would feel responsible for this for not checking he was ok.

3} RSPCA - if they could have cared for the horses and the horses were not suffering they should not have PTS

I think that the RSPCA would have had a hard job in court getting a prosecution for any owners of loaned horses.

How are they the least responsible when one broke a leg and 10 others died in their care?

 

[be positive]

From a general rehoming POV I'd class over twenty as aged. The point made about the loan horses owners being indirectly responsible for their horses' neglect by not checking them is a valid one and if returning horses to them, or to former owners is not a supported policy, it is reasonable to put down these horses. On paper their value at that age, in that condition wouldn't be any higher than that of an unregistered gypsy cob , which people seem to be comfortable with them putting down. If you sell a horse on you have no right or claim to get it back if you find out where it is a few years later and it's not good news, it is very naive and a bit cheeky to think otherwise. If you loan a horse it is still your responsibility to oversee its welfare.

So if a loan horse gets into a home where it becomes "neglected" through no fault of the owner who may check regularly but have through no fault missed a visit or two, then it gets seized by the rspca it can be destroyed because the policy is to not return to the owner, the rspca is not above the law the loaner should be able to have property returned or at least have the chance to fight for it's return, these owners had no chance, they were told the horses were safe all the way through the court proceedings, even the judge was told they were safe and well, if they can lie in court on this what else goes on that they are not held accountable for.

 

[Alec Swan]

Its true that if the RSPCA take the angle that in the cases of the loaned horses, the owners were at least partly responsible for the horses' condition, they ought to have been traced and prosecuted, not just not given their horses back or any information about them.

Wrong. The Law takes the view that it's the 'Keeper' who is responsible for the welfare of an animal, and that may or may not be the owner. Whilst in the care of another, then that person is deemed to be The 'Keeper'.

Alec.

 

[Flame_]

So if a loan horse gets into a home where it becomes "neglected" through no fault of the owner who may check regularly but have through no fault missed a visit or two,

Neglect like this does not happen overnight, I don't think you could claim the owners aren't at fault

then it gets seized by the rspca it can be destroyed because the policy is to not return to the owner, the rspca is not above the law the loaner should be able to have property returned or at least have the chance to fight for it's return, these owners had no chance, they were told the horses were safe all the way through the court proceedings,

No, you're quite right, it does seem a case of "shoot first, ask questions later"

even the judge was told they were safe and well, if they can lie in court on this what else goes on that they are not held accountable for.

Yeah, this is a quite separate problem and one they stand to be in serious trouble for, I think, especially if it is in order to pretty much have committed fraud.

 

[cbmcts]

There's this in the telegraph, which seems to be the only paper since the DM to have run the story. Press release perhaps?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/118...ses-as-cases-of-neglect-hit-crisis-point.html

God, that's a mealy mouthed article if there ever was one!

But there were homes for these particular horses...Arab people were clamouring for them and the RSPCA lied about what had happened to them for the best part of 2 years. If they were so certain that they made the right decision - and I'm not saying that PTS isn't a viable alternative in many cases, so no fluffiness here - why weren't they upfront about it?

There is also the issue that the identity of the pure breds and registered part breds was easily verifiable, the AHS has been DNA typing and microchipping for many years now so there is no excuse for PTS as quickly as they did unless BVA guidelines were met. Vets are on record as saying that it wasn't the case here and there the queries over legal ownership of the loaned horses. I thought that was the whole point of passports/microchipping and freeze marking? AFAIK if you or I were to unwittingly buy stolen property we would be liable to lose it to the true owner without compensation?

What is most shocking here is that an organisation that uses the law to prosecute others doesn't appear to feel that it needs to follow the processes of the law. Double standards and hypocrisy or what? And I won't even mention the questionable attempt to claim keep for dead horses - again if you or I ran a business whose account keeping was so sloppy especially during a prosecution I doubt that we would get a 'Oh dear, that's a bit careless' from a judge. Some would even call it fraud.

So personally speaking I would hold the RSPCA secondly responsible in this fiasco but the big difference is that they had the had the resources and time if they wished to give it to allow a different outcome. They made no effort whatsoever to save these animals once they had the reports and video to allow prosecution because that was their only interest not the ultimate welfare of the animals. And they lied again and again. There is no excuse IMHO. The Peel woman is the person who neglected these poor animals and has no excuse so has to be ultimately responsible. I have no doubt that the owners, former or current of any of these horses are already tearing themselves apart and yes, they probably could have done more in hindsight. But they were duped by a well known and respected member of their world who, at any time could have asked for help and would have received it. As I said before the Arab world is well known for stepping in and assisting any of their own. However it appears that she treated these horses as commodities and once they were no longer of us to her they were left to rot. How is her evilness the owners fault?

 

[SO1]

Not sure about this as I think there is dual responsibility and under the animal welfare act if a horse is on loan as "a person who owns an animal shall always be regarded as being a person who is responsible for it"

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/3

Wrong. The Law takes the view that it's the 'Keeper' who is responsible for the welfare of an animal, and that may or may not be the owner. Whilst in the care of another, then that person is deemed to be The 'Keeper'.

Alec.

 

[Alec Swan]

……..

What is most shocking here is that an organisation that uses the law to prosecute others doesn't appear to feel that it needs to follow the processes of the law. Double standards and hypocrisy or what? ……..

Which calls in to question the ability to prosecute, which has been passed on to the charity. The power to prosecute should be returned to the CPS, and very soon. The rspca are not fit for purpose in this roll, or many others from what we can see.

Alec.