Should lame/companion horses be PTS if you cannot guarentee them a home for life?

Z

zoeshiloh

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 January 2006
Messages
2,771
Location
Suffolk
www.stowmarketanddistrictridingclub.com
I was pondering this today as I have heard of so many cases of people thinking that horses are advertised as companions just because the owner can't be bothered/is too nervous/is exagerating etc...

A few years ago someone turned up at our yard with a broodmare, they had been told had problems with her back and one of her tendons, but they were adamant that the previous owner was exagerating, and proceeded to ride said horse. Despite being thrown off numerous times, they continued to stick to their guns, that horse could be ridden and anyone who said otherwise was an idiot! YO had to kick them off yard before there was a huge accident (they would have been just the type to sue YO claiming it was somehow her fault).

I bred a horse some time ago that was born with a deformed hindleg. The vet advised we have her PTS as she would never be ridden. In hind sight I should have done, but we decided to let her live out a life as a companion. She is now field sound, and you wouldn't know there is a problem, but my vet saw her a year ago (about May time) and, after felxion tests etc, said the problem remains and she will never be a ridden horse. I had split with my ex, who was extremely fond of said horse, and so I allowed him to keep her, on the proviso she was to be a companion only - he knew of her leg problem, and that she should not be ridden. It now seems his new partner is intent on riding her, which will lead to pain, discomfort, and lameness. Thankfully it seems this girl doesn't really know one end of the horse from another, so I doubt she will get very far, but it has made me realise that perhaps sometimes, if you cannot guarentee you will always have the horse, the best thing to do is to have them PTS before they fall into the wrong hands.

I thought I was being considerate letting the horse have a happy life, but it now seems she is in for one of pain and misery.

So, the debate is, is it better to have a permanently injurred horse PTS to prevent them falling into the wrong hands?
 
I know this is an emotive one, but because so few people have the actual facilities required to provide a horse a true home for life, then yes, I think it can be the best thing for the horse to be PTS. I feel that we owe it to them to ensure that they don't find themselves in a situation where they will be in pain or distress. If you own plenty of land and can ensure that the horse will live out its natural life with you to ensure it is ok - then brilliant. But how many of us have that luxury? I don't.
 
It is a personal choice imo. If YOU can guarrantee a home for life and said horse is in no pain,then no reason to PTS. Unfortunately,ppl's situation changes,as yours has,and that is where the problems start. I am a great believer in the PTS option,if the horse is in danger of having to lead a life it's not designed for.

Shame your ex had to take horse really. x
 
zoeshiloh said:
if you cannot guarentee you will always have the horse, the best thing to do is to have them PTS before they fall into the wrong hands.

I thought I was being considerate letting the horse have a happy life, but it now seems she is in for one of pain and misery.

So, the debate is, is it better to have a permanently injurred horse PTS to prevent them falling into the wrong hands?
Click to expand...
You've already explained perfectly why it is most responsible to PTS lame horses if you don't want to keep them. Loaning is a better option than selling/giving away but still not without risks.
 
If the owner cannot safeguard the horse's future then the only responsible thing to do is to have it pts to prevent future suffering. Broken down horses - broken for temperamental or physical reasons - tend to get passed from pillar to post and eventually end up in the worst possible circumstances. I recently saw a decrepid 25-year-old mare put in foal and then up for sale. Talk about wringing the last ounce of profit from an animal....
 
Cazza - I gave her to him, as I thought he had a heart. He seemed to dote on her, and I thought he would always put her welfare first. He knew she should never be ridden, the vet told him as well. He had a small amount of his own land (about 4 acres) so assured me he would give her a home for life, where she could poodle about - he doesn't ride at all, just a shame his new partner thinks she can. But what is done is done I guess, I just know for the future what I would do now.
 
yes - pts is the right thing unless you can (unlikely these days) obtain a place for the horse at a reputable rescue center or have pts written in your will

the same applies to healthy horses future on the death of their owner - you should make provision in your will for your horse and think about the long term
 
If you can guarantee a caring him for life then no there's no need to PTS,
if you can't then far better to PTS than have the horse passed from pillar to post in the wrong hands.

The other issue for me is that I can guarantee a home for life as I have my own place and I've kept a 16'3 TB going / retired for 12 years and I wouldn't do it again. He's too much expense and time to be a passenger. He's a lucky boy as everyone else would have had him PTS years ago.
 
People's circumstances change, so if you want to ensure their future I suppose you need to loan them, and monitor them as a responsible owner. If you sell them then you can never be sure that they will have a good home for life, so pts might be the best option. If someone wants an elderly or unsound horse as a companion though, normally they are happy to take them on loan.
 
I agree. My old boy is here, has been retired since he was 14 with front feet problems, KI am lucky as we have our own land. But if circumstances were to change and I could not keep him he would be PTS.
 
Yes PTS rather than sell if you really cannot look after them. But I do have a prob who sell or PTS their broken horse so they can get a new working model of horse, to me if you take a horse on it is for better or worse for life.

And am especially mad at some peeps! Do not advertise broken horse with an ad that demands 'home for life' when you havent, have enjoyed the good days, horse injured in service of your wishes and enjoyment and then ask someone else to provide a home for life.......!!!!
 
lachlanandmarcus said:
Yes PTS rather than sell if you really cannot look after them. But I do have a prob who sell or PTS their broken horse so they can get a new working model of horse, to me if you take a horse on it is for better or worse for life.
Click to expand...

Im sorry my horse broke 18 months ago, and was in serious pain and the vet advised PTS as he was never going to be pain free although he could have been retired to the field and im very sorry I went out and found another one straight away. That is a harsh statement!
 
lui23456 said:
Im sorry my horse broke 18 months ago, and was in serious pain and the vet advised PTS as he was never going to be pain free although he could have been retired to the field and im very sorry I went out and found another one straight away. That is a harsh statement!
Click to expand...

I agree! It is something I am having to consider with my own horse. He was diagnosed with A-fib in November and although my vet says it's ok to ride him, he is too keen and lively for his own good and he ends up exhausting himself. For this reason I have stopped riding him altogether.

But the problem is if I want another, which I do, he will have to go, my OH is being quite strict about that. I don't feel I can risk giving him away, so he would have to be PTS.

I have always said that if you cannot look after your unrideable horse yourself, you should PTS, but when it comes down to it, it's easier said than done, not helped by comment like that of Lachlanandmarcus.

And if I do have my horse PTS, I will have provided him with a home for the rest of his life, just not his natural life.
 
Last edited:
I have 2 horses in this situation & i garenteed them both a home for life they live just as my working horse does so get every luxury. If for any reason i couldnt do that as much as it would hurt & it really would hurt i would PTS no other option as far as im concered with my own horses.

1 of my horses has heart conditions & is perfectly sound so if he ended up in another home i bet someone would try to ride him, not only does riding him endanger him but also the person riding as he could just drop dead & potentially kill someone i could never live with that.

Ive already made it clear to my family that if anything happens to me that the retired boys are to be PTS.
 
I have no problem with any in pain animal or one with serious behavioural issues being put to sleep, but I stand by being troubled by the practice of PTS or loaning out horses because they are not able to be ridden just so rider can get one that can be. To me its treating a horse like a car or a stereo and I dont see them as disposable in that way.

The questioner asked for views, thats my view, it shouldnt trouble or offend you if you have a different view.
 
I totally agree, its in there best interest to be pts if you are worried about there future, or can not afford to look after an elderly horse, look at the adverts all accross the internet, owners are trying to rehome horses up to 28 years old! i feel in my opinion if that was my horse it would be the kindest thing, i wouldn't want mine to be passed to piller to post at that sort of age. Or ruined, hurt, and placed in the wrong hands.
 
I agree. PTS would be my choice and people who have to make that choice should not be chastised about it either by others.
It's a hard decision to make at any time particularly if the horse still looks well but unable to do anything other than eat grass and still cost you money. But owning horses should be a fun hobby not a noose around your neck although I'd be the first to suggest turning away for a year to see if that aids recovery; if it doesn't, then you need to think about your options and not only yours but the horse's as well in that is it one that would accept retirement, do you have the facilities for possibly 20 years or more, do you have a continguency plan if you are suddenly thrown out of work/divorce etc; it all needs to be taken into account.
Nobody, unless they have the ability of money no object, can guarrantee things won't change for the worse and sometimes it's better in the long run if PTS is done immediately in case things happen outside of your control.
Sadly, I've seen a 32 year old on a sale site looking for a home; how can someone be so cruel to a pony that age? Would any of you like yours in the same position, I know I wouldn't?
 
There are so many factors involved in this situation that there can never be one black and white view. Most of us have to go without other things in order to have a horse at all, and we are happy to make that sacrifice. Imagine having, say, a 10 year old gelding that suddenly does something to itself which makes future riding impossible but it is an otherwise healthy animal (and relatively young) . At least with a mare you could CONSIDER breeding. Assuming you say it has a home for life, that means at least 10 years of expense for no real benefit. And since you buy a horse to ride it, do you wait the 10 years before having another to actually ride? Keeping an unridden horse is only a little cheaper than a ridden one. That is a horrible decision to have to make. I retired my mare at age 23 (27 this year) and decided that as my body is steadily falling to pieces, I would retire myself as well, so it wasn't any hardship for me to think I wouldn't ride again. She does have a home for life with me and I still enjoy caring for her as much as when I rode her, but lets face it - she doesn't exactly earn her keep. She was already being treated for a long-term condition when I retired her, and so I suppose I was used to shelling out bucketfuls of money for her but alot of people would say I was absolutely mad to basically tear up £10 notes year in year out. I am satisfied that she has a good quality of life and that is all that matters to me. However, there is no way anyone would take on the expense and time committment if something happened to me, and therefore my friends at the yard know that in that event, she is to be put down immediately. The silly old moo would be lost without me anyway.
 
In a word, yes.

Having had a very similar experience to the OP I would have no doubts about PTS in future. unfortunately my experience says that you can't believe a word of what suposidly genuine people say and I would rather save myself the anguish and pain as well as the horse from a life of being asked to do something it is not physically capable of doing.
 
I would pts, but as I have my own land, have kept them going as long as no pain, in over 40 years I've owned 11 horses and I've always had them pts at home, when time came, could never pass on as companion, love them too much
 
Personally I haven't owned a horse of my own, I own dogs and cats and though my cats are pets, if they can't climb their cat trees, I fix them or euthanise them. My dogs are also pets, but if they can't walk on walks with me, I fix them or euthanise them.

If I did buy a horse to ride or drive and something happened that meant they could no longer be ridden or driven, I would most likely give them some quality time and then euthanise them.

I feel that temporary time to have a chance to recover is one thing but since we can't ask them about how much they enjoy life or if they are in pain and since I don't believe they know how long they could have lived, I don't see anything wrong in choosing to euthanise instead of keeping them as a paddock ornament or risk them ending up in the wrong hands.
 
I always said at first that if we couldn't keep our ponies for any reason then I would loan them out.............then I read posts like this! I made my mind up about 5 years ago that I would have them PTS regardless of how healthy or young they are and I will stick to my guns. PTS is not that bad, a quick injection or loud bang, pain that is gone before they even know it is there as opposed to being dragged around from auction to auction or home to home. I couldn't bear for any of mine to suffer the horrors that I have witnessed at sales and I can guarantee not one will end up there. They will be safely asleep and I will know for the rest of my life that nobody is hurting or abusing them! I also think this applies if you don't WANT to keep them if they are no longer any use to you, I wouldn't be in this position but many people are and they are brave and responsible enough to make the decision that is right for both them and the horse rather than passing it on to an unknown future!
 
I agree with lachlanandmarcus. I wouldn't be able to put down a horse that wasn't in pain and was fairly happy just because I couldn't ride it. I can understand why people may be tempted to if their horse cannot be ridden and they can't afford two, but I still think it would be wrong.
 
Hadn't finished last post! ..I know it must be difficult and it obviously depends on your life situation but unless it's impossible to keep them I wouldn't put a horse in this situation to sleep. I think if this happened to my horse I'd probably move her to a cheaper livery yard and look for a share so I could still ride and so that I could still keep her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top