So: if no PTS, what should we do with useless valueless horses?

[olivia x]

I've had a look back to the start of this thread. Op referred to "useless and valueless" horses. A lot of us have been talking about things like horses being in pain, quality of life etc... but the starting point was about whether they were useful or had a value, and just because a horse is neither of those things, it doesn't follow that the horse is suffering in any way. The two aren't always linked.

Others are talking about animals that are being unwanted getting passed from hand to hand and into an uncertain future. That's a horrible prospect, but of course we're not talking about that situation here are we? Most, if not all of us, are referring to our personal circumstances and what we would do. So I'm sure nobody here is going to admit that they'd send a useless or valueless horse off into the unknown when we couldn't use it any more.

Then we have the "unable to afford/justify/sacrifice other areas of our lives..." to keep said horse. I'm assuming that when we buy that horse as a fit and possibly valuable animal most of us foresee being able to afford to keep it. So what changes when the horse suffers a mishap, or just gets old? Does the bank account suddenly shrivel and vanish? Of course sometimes finances have changed, but more often the owner needs to get rid of the horse because they are never going to be able to ride it again, they might want to replace it with a useful model and can't afford to keep both.

As I said before, I'm not judging anyone. I think we should all accept that this is a matter of our own personal choice. In most cases an owner who has been paying for and caring for a healthy horse could continue to do that for a retired one. It might mean they can't afford to keep another to ride, but that's a different argument. And in all cases the owner has the choice about whether or not to send that retired horse off down the "food chain". So this isn't really about all those horses who would be better off being put to sleep is it? It seems to boil down to me as a simple question - if one of our horses was no longer useful or valuable, would we keep it in retirement or have it put to sleep?

Really hard one to face I think.

Well said. Nicely sums up the crux of the dilemma. As you say, a hard situation to face, and so much of the decision doubtless rests on circumstances of the person at the time, financial and otherwise.

 

[Hedwards]

I'm very much of the opinion if you bought a horse, and its no longer useful for its job (ie long term lameness etc.) its your responsiblity to look after it, there isnt an alternative requirement, either pts or look after the horse until the end...

 

[Kallibear]

Thank you. Tinypony. I know lots of people would sacrifice things (time and money and being able to ride) to keep a horse with no use or value (other than as a pet). So the question should maybe be 'How much should be we willing to sacrifice to maintain a pet horse? ' That differs from person to person. And then what should we do when we feel we've sacrificed enough? I suppose the answer for those very anti-PTS is that you can never sacrifice too much to maintain a pet horse.

. So I'm sure nobody here is going to admit that they'd send a useless or valueless horse off into the unknown when we couldn't use it any more.

Interestingly, only one person has suggested this. Giving a useless and valueless horse away, even if you think it's a safe and caring home. How many homes good homes exist for a difficult/unridable/high maintaince horse? Are these people kidding themselves or are we just cynical?

 

[s4sugar]

In Holland, all useless, homeless, valueless horses go to the horse slaughter, to serve as dogfood or burgers etc. I don't see what the problem is with that. We don't have a huge overhorsing problem over here, because of the slaughter. Sometimes even more humane than putting a horse to sleep! One shot through the head and its done and over with, no nonsense that the horse falls over while slowly slipping away into a deep sleep and hurting itself, while still alive and fully aware. Some horses tend to fight against it, making it even worse for owners.

The horse slaughter over here isn't cruel or terrifying. I have visited a horse slaughter and watched them "slaughter" a few horses. All horses were taken in very calmly, the "slaughterer" pats them and gives them the last bit of love. Then he put his "gun" on the head, horse doesn't even know it's coming and within 1 second its all done and over with. Horse has a purpose, it's meat, bones, hair and therefore has a value. They pay money for horses to be slaughtered. Not much, but 300-400 euro's a horse isn't bad.

If more people would see it this way, the slaughtering horses wouldn't be such a "bad and terrible" thing. Then a market could exist in horse slaughtering in England and the overhorsing would be surely history.

Not all are slaughtered -a fair few destined for slaughter find there way here via bin end dealers!
I do agree that we should have more abatoirs and no horse should be transported far to slaughter. I have a mare rising 19 who is a pet - she is sound but I don't have chance to ride her & she is far from a novice horse. As I have land & fodder I have no problem keeping her. If push came to shove she would be PTS rather than passed on.

 

[Wagtail]

There are only three things that you can do with useless, worthless horses that will guarantee a future without suffering:

1. Retire at home
2. Send to the blood bank
3. PTS at home

 

[Buddy'sMum]

There are only three things that you can do with useless, worthless horses that will guarantee a future without suffering:

1. Retire at home
2. Send to the blood bank
3. PTS at home

Not sure about the blood bank option, thought they only took younger horses? And isn't it only putting off the inevitable for a couple of years?

 

[armchair_rider]

I'm very much of the opinion if you bought a horse, and its no longer useful for its job (ie long term lameness etc.) its your responsiblity to look after it, there isnt an alternative requirement, either pts or look after the horse until the end...

I agree entirely.

I think that part of the problem with this discussion is that it covers a huge range of circumstances. A 25 year old horse that you've had 15 years with a nice temprament but starting to find being ridden a bit much is a very different proposition to a 6 year old you bought a year ago which has just sustained an injury that makes it unrideable. A ten year old which is sound but has serious behaviour issues is different again. Throw in the enormous variation in people's cirumstances (time, money, riding ambitions) and there really can't be a single right or wrong answer.

Personally I think that over-breeding at the basement end of the horse world is largely a seperate problem to this. If somebody has their 20 year old horse PTS because it's no longer fit to event they aren't going to replace it with a badly put together coloured cob.

 

[Wagtail]

Not sure about the blood bank option, thought they only took younger horses? And isn't it only putting off the inevitable for a couple of years?

There are a lot of untrue rumours going round about the blood bank. These are some of them:

They PTS horses when they reach 15 years old. Untrue, they will take horses in up to the age of 15 years, but they will keep them for as long as they have a good quality of life. Fact is, most of the horses there are aged 25 - 30 years, so have had at least 10 - 15 years retirement there already.

They send them to Potters once they cannot use them any more. Untrue. If a horse becomes very ill, or sustains a major injury, they are PTS on site. They never get shipped off to slaughter.

They bleed them until they wobble on their feet. Untrue. Horses can give up to 6 litres of blood without suffering detrimental effects. Blood bank horses give 3 litres (so half of that amount) once a month.

 

[baran]

Luckily for me my job is very secure. In that case I would move them to the cheapest grass livery I could find and take whatever job I could to keep them. I would fight to keep them. Or I would let my OH pay for their keep until I was in a position to afford them again. There's things I could sell to pay for their keep for at least a year. I'd just do whatever I could to keep them.

Well, lucky old you! A friend thought like that until she split from her husband, lost her job (financial sector) then became disabled. Horse was an unsellable waste of space. In the end a group of us clubbed together to have it put down.

 

[Wagtail]

Horse was an unsellable waste of space.

Nice.

 

[Janesomerset]

Horse was an unsellable waste of space.

As wagtail said, nice.
Let's hope no-one ever says that about you.

 

[Buddy'sMum]

There are a lot of untrue rumours going round about the blood bank. These are some of them:

They PTS horses when they reach 15 years old. Untrue, they will take horses in up to the age of 15 years, but they will keep them for as long as they have a good quality of life. Fact is, most of the horses there are aged 25 - 30 years, so have had at least 10 - 15 years retirement there already.

They send them to Potters once they cannot use them any more. Untrue. If a horse becomes very ill, or sustains a major injury, they are PTS on site. They never get shipped off to slaughter.

They bleed them until they wobble on their feet. Untrue. Horses can give up to 6 litres of blood without suffering detrimental effects. Blood bank horses give 3 litres (so half of that amount) once a month.

Thanks for that. But still, isn't it correct that the few equine blood banks in the UK do only accept well-mannered horses over 15.2 and under the age of 15 years? So not a viable option for many.

 

[baran]

Well, if you know of a market for an arthritic nappy traffic shy 11 year old which had been so overweight for so long that it had developed acute arthritis, let me know! At least we had the decency to take care of the problem for our friend/

 

[Wagtail]

Thanks for that. But still, isn't it correct that the few equine blood banks in the UK do only accept well-mannered horses over 15.2 and under the age of 15 years? So not a viable option for many.

Of course. I think that some take them in at 15.2hh, others at 16hh. But I have listed it as an option because there are many horses that WOULD fit into that category and it is a very nice retirement for the right horse. Especially as once there, the horse will never leave the premises. This is something that in my eyes is better than loaning or giving away a horse. Even horses that are sellable cannot be guaranteed such a cast iron future. And that includes those that have significant value.

 

[Janesomerset]

Unsellable maybe, but the waste of space comment was OTT. Not the horse's fault he had arthritis, by the sound of it.
A good friend of mine has bad arthritis; maybe I should take care of the problem for him?
My friend's elderly horse has arthritis but she manages him so that he is comfortable.

 

[Wagtail]

Well, if you know of a market for an arthritic nappy traffic shy 11 year old which had been so overweight for so long that it had developed acute arthritis, let me know! At least we had the decency to take care of the problem for our friend/

I wasn't referring to having the horse PTS. I was referring to the disgusting term of phrase you used.

 

[MotherOfChickens]

Not sure about the blood bank option, thought they only took younger horses? And isn't it only putting off the inevitable for a couple of years?

yes, to me I'm afraid its still passing the buck-even though the life they have is fine, if the horse takes to it.

 

[baran]

My friend's elderly horse has arthritis but she manages him so that he is comfortable.

Great, but the owner was unable to afford to keep the horse and certainly couldn't afford vet bills.
Which is why the horse was PTS!

 

[Wagtail]

yes, to me I'm afraid its still passing the buck-even though the life they have is fine, if the horse takes to it.

Actually, it's not passing the buck. I will be sending my gelding there this year. He WAS down to go last year but I pulled out having rethought my management plan of his condition. Basically he has to be out 24/7 or he completely seizes up and is in a huge amount of pain even with bute. I had taken him on LWVTB 4 years ago (aged 8 at the time) but immediately found lameness in both hocks and severe kissing spine. When I spoke to his owners they said if they took him back they would have him shot. So I spent thousands having him operated on, both his hocks and his back, but although the operations brought him field sound, he was still unrideable. But I decided to retire him as he was a very happy chap and a lovely horse. Then just over a year ago, he stopped being the happy, playful boy I knew and in the winter took a turn for the worst. It was being stabled that was the cause of it and that is why he was put down on the waiting list for the blood bank.

But when it came to the time he had to go, he was then out 24/7 here and was back to his old self (without bute), so I took him off their list and decided I would try my best to give him 24/7 turn out all year round and retire him here. Unfortunately, the recent wet weather meant I had to close the fields and even though he is going out in the sand for 17 hours a day, even the 7 that he is stabled have seized him up again. The BB have them out 24/7 in the summer and in big free range barns with their established herds in the winter. So I have the choice of PTS at home or send him to the BB. I have chosen the BB. I know he would absolutely relish the life there because I know him well. He is great with vets and needles and excellent to handle.

Also, horses have a useful life at the blood bank. How do you think horses would get blood for transfusions if no horses gave it? How about the serum used for medical research etc? It's hardly passing the buck if it is the best choice for a horse. I would always choose to retire a horse at home ideally, but sometimes, even when someone is willing to do that and has the resources, it is not always possible if the facilities don't suit the horse's condition.

 

[Janesomerset]

I am not arguing with what you did. I thought the phrase "waste of space" was a horrible thing to say about any creature.

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

In Holland, all useless, homeless, valueless horses go to the horse slaughter, to serve as dogfood or burgers etc. I don't see what the problem is with that. We don't have a huge overhorsing problem over here, because of the slaughter. Sometimes even more humane than putting a horse to sleep! One shot through the head and its done and over with, no nonsense that the horse falls over while slowly slipping away into a deep sleep and hurting itself, while still alive and fully aware. Some horses tend to fight against it, making it even worse for owners.

The horse slaughter over here isn't cruel or terrifying. I have visited a horse slaughter and watched them "slaughter" a few horses. All horses were taken in very calmly, the "slaughterer" pats them and gives them the last bit of love. Then he put his "gun" on the head, horse doesn't even know it's coming and within 1 second its all done and over with. Horse has a purpose, it's meat, bones, hair and therefore has a value. They pay money for horses to be slaughtered. Not much, but 300-400 euro's a horse isn't bad.

If more people would see it this way, the slaughtering horses wouldn't be such a "bad and terrible" thing. Then a market could exist in horse slaughtering in England and the overhorsing would be surely history.

I would be quite happy for that as an option, but it seems that we are not sure that the slaughter houses here are good places, and a problem in the UK is that poor animals go through markets first, maybe several times, which is not good.
In Scotland one has to ask the knackerman to call and uplift, he will also shoot if asked. There is a charge.

 

[Flame_]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I doubt the people against PTS unridable horses would be alright with slaughtering them instead, they're both healthy-ish horses' lives cut short, so if they were it would be a major double standard!

 

[minesadouble]

I haven't finished reading all the threads yet so sorry if you've posted more. I assume that you have the space/funds to have another mount for your daughter or has a promising young rider had to give up until the retired pony dies of old age?

She had a year of not competing when she was out of 13.2 classes as she said (despite her love of competing) she would rather give up competing altogether than part with him (pony was sound and saleable at this point in time). It took over a year to raise the funds for a 14.2 , to be perfectly honest it really made me admire her commitment to the pony who had given her so much pleasure. But yes, ultimately, we did have the funds.

However, had it been a choice of PTS or give up riding there would be no question of putting him down. I myself have only ridden 'borrowed' horses for the last 5 years due to my own elderly mare being retired. She's feeling her age now and I think this could be her last Summer, in which case I will be in a position to buy another riding horse. I couldn't live with myself if I ended her life purely and simply because I missed riding. But each to their own.

 

[MotherOfChickens]

Also, horses have a useful life at the blood bank. How do you think horses would get blood for transfusions if no horses gave it? How about the serum used for medical research etc? It's hardly passing the buck if it is the best choice for a horse. I would always choose to retire a horse at home ideally, but sometimes, even when someone is willing to do that and has the resources, it is not always possible if the facilities don't suit the horse's condition.

I am very familiar with the equine blood bank thanks, at least the one up here, and I work in scientific research so know exactly what the blood products are used for. As I said, its not a bad life for those who take to it although a far cry from being kept well at livery.

Quite often on here the blood bank is offered up as some sort of heaven for unwanted horses. To me for some of these people, it looked as though they couldn't make 'that' choice and would rather someone else did it eventually. You really don't have to justify your choice to me as each is obviously different and if you're happy with it, that's what counts.

As you rightly pointed out, alot of the 'myths' are untrue but they are also PTS as soon as they aren't useful to the business that is farming them and that reason can be that they just aren't doing well in that environment-to think otherwise is nonsense.

I am not for blanket PTS of anything, I don't take on animals that I can't do right by. I retired one at 9 pretty much and unfortunately had to have him PTS at 11 last year for something unrelated. I have another retired pony who's owner passed the buck on to me. I work very hard to give them all what they need and I've had nearly 3 years of doing that with very little riding and paying livery for them, because of it. But the economy has changed and I'll not judge someone else for their choice if they decide to PTS humanely.

 

[hnmisty]

I saw an ad for a horse for sale the other week.

"Has been diagnosed with kissing spines but I can't afford the surgery". £400. It was a nice horse, in the pre-diagnosis photos it was obviously talented enough for most amateur riders to compete to a reasonable level.

Who was going to pay thousands for the operation given they don't even know that horse? Insurance surely wouldn't cover it, as it's a pre-existing condition.

I saw two options: No one buys it, or someone buys it and decides to ignore the KS issue as they've seen the photos of what the horse can do. This would most likely result in significant pain for the horse, and probably serious injury for the rider.

The owner either needed to keep it, or have it PTS.

 

[soulfull]

Always going to be controversial and dependant on individual feelings and situations


I've done all scenarios. Retired he's now 18 bit retired for 4 yrs. Despite him spending a lot of time lame i felt i owed it to him. Had 8 yrs of fun inbetween his physical problems

I gave one away that was suitable for me
I had one pts as couldn't be fixed and would have sore and miserable retiring
Sold one

Current mare is a dream. Only had her 3 months. I missed out on a lot of riding and especially RC shows over the last 8 yrs due to lameness, both mine and horses

I don't want to miss out on much more. I can not afford anymore. I don't have many years left in
Me to ride. Horses are my life. Due to illness the riding keeps me supple enough to do the looking after
God forbid current horse broke and could not be healed I would not keep her

I would do all I could to see if she could be useful to someone else but if not I would pts

Selfish YES!!! So shoot me for wanting a life where I can do what matters more than anything. Ride!!

However ask me the same question in 5 or 6 yrs time when hopefully I will have at last been able to ride for more than a few months at a time and my answer will be different. I will owe her her retirement and not be so desperate to have some fun.

 

[Goldenstar]

I am very familiar with the equine blood bank thanks, at least the one up here, and I work in scientific research so know exactly what the blood products are used for. As I said, its not a bad life for those who take to it although a far cry from being kept well at livery.

Quite often on here the blood bank is offered up as some sort of heaven for unwanted horses. To me for some of these people, it looked as though they couldn't make 'that' choice and would rather someone else did it eventually. You really don't have to justify your choice to me as each is obviously different and if you're happy with it, that's what counts.

As you rightly pointed out, alot of the 'myths' are untrue but they are also PTS as soon as they aren't useful to the business that is farming them and that reason can be that they just aren't doing well in that environment-to think otherwise is nonsense.

I am not for blanket PTS of anything, I don't take on animals that I can't do right by. I retired one at 9 pretty much and unfortunately had to have him PTS at 11 last year for something unrelated. I have another retired pony who's owner passed the buck on to me. I work very hard to give them all what they need and I've had nearly 3 years of doing that with very little riding and paying livery for them, because of it. But the economy has changed and I'll not judge someone else for their choice if they decide to PTS humanely.

I would not send one of mine to the blood bank that's my choice .

 

[Marydoll]

I know of at least one case where an elderly thoroughbred mare was turned loose in the New Forest after the owner decided they didn't want it any more :frown3:. People truly think it's an option.

I'm looking forward to seeing what ideas there are for dealing with other people's horses. Apparently I'm trigger-happy, but I'm open to other ideas.

I would personally see that as the worst form of lunacy ever, i love my hrse to much to pts as itll fare much better on a moor abandoned !!

 

[EllenJay]

As I see it there are a limited number of options for an old, unrideable horse. These are:-

1. Continue to look after it, the way you always have
2. Send it to a blood bank (if suitable)
3. Send it to a retirement home for someone else to look after it
4. Sell it or give it away to someone else to look after it
5. Put To Sleep

Option 1 is obviously the ideal, but sometimes this isn’t possible, whether it is financial problems or time problems or another reason.
Option 2 is only suitable for a very few horses, and obviously only a limited amount of places available.
Option 3 is good if you are sure you can afford the livery costs on-going and that you know your horse can live out in all weathers.
Option 4 is dodgy – too many crooks out there to be able to guarantee a happy home for your old companion
Option 5 – if all other options are not suitable, then this is all that is left.

 

[Marydoll]

I saw an ad for a horse for sale the other week.

"Has been diagnosed with kissing spines but I can't afford the surgery". £400. It was a nice horse, in the pre-diagnosis photos it was obviously talented enough for most amateur riders to compete to a reasonable level.

Who was going to pay thousands for the operation given they don't even know that horse? Insurance surely wouldn't cover it, as it's a pre-existing condition.

I saw two options: No one buys it, or someone buys it and decides to ignore the KS issue as they've seen the photos of what the horse can do. This would most likely result in significant pain for the horse, and probably serious injury for the rider.

The owner either needed to keep it, or have it PTS.

I think this is spot on