So to carry on - responsibility for horses - who SHOULD be responsible

G

Gingernags

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 August 2004
Messages
5,785
Location
She's behind you... heh heh heh!!!
Visit site
As far as I am concerned, my horse is my horse. I am her legal owner, all paperwork is in my name. As such, even on a livery yard, my passport would not be handed over under any circumstances as it is intended as a legal document and I took it out to comply with the law or personally face a fine, and in the same vein, I would not expect the welfare of my horse to be anyones responsibility but mine.

However, if I was on a livery yard, I would expect to sign a contract stating that should I be unreachable, that the YO could call a vet/farrier etc in my absence and bill me for any urgent treatment, and that should I neglect the horse and fail to turn up and fail to provide adequate feed/water and care for the horse as now covered by the legislation, then the YO could act and again charge me reasonable fees that are agreed in advance, for doing so.

I can't see why my neglect of my horse would be someone elses fault? I can see that in the case of an absentee owner, why for humane reasons a YO would then get involved to ensure the horse was fed/watered but I think that for the buck to be passed to landowners and YO's is wrong as they are not the ones neglecting the animal in the first case.

Surely the responsibility is the owners and no-one elses UNLESS they have signed an agreement such as a loan/lease or full livery contract to state specifically that the YO/loaner/leaser is responsible?

Where we keep our neds - they know practically bot all about horses and why on earth would it be his fault if I neglected my horses? Surely his only responsiblity as the land owner, would be to report me if he thought the animals were neglected, as he'd have no clue how to feed or care for them?

Whilst I am really pleased we have now got some decent legislation in place, I think it needs some tweaking, as does the passporting scheme, so we can get everyone working together and really turn welfare around in this country.

What are everyone elses thoughts?
 
In my eyes, it should always be the owner unless they have a written contract with someone passing responsibilty over to them- eg loaner or full livery manager/owner
 
As far as I am concerned as owner of my horse I always have responsibility for that animal's welfare. My horse is on full livery. So I expect certain things to be done for my horse by the proprietors in keeping with the livery agreement. But even if the YO failed to care for my animal properly I do believe that I should be overseeing his treatment and that the ultimate responsibility in making sure that my horse is cared for lies with me.
 
I agree that its the owners responsibility. But if a livery dumps a horse, then I think it becomes the YO's responsibility to either care for the horse or hassle the owner until they care for it themselves.
 
Perhaps it will make everyone think a little. If I am making money running a livery yard I think I should know the BASICS at least of horse care. Maybe more YO will have a contract drawn up stating that if the owner has not arrived to see to horse by say 6p.m he/she will muck out, feed and water the horse (or whatever) and charge the owner x amount of money per day for doing so. OBVIOUSLY if someone is usually very reliable or rings and says for instance, held up in traffic, you would cut them a bit of slack.
 
I think this is where the insurance/litigators will get involved again as if a YO is prosectued for lack of care of a horse say on DIY then the YO will try and shift the responsiblity to the owner of the horse (or the YO insurer's will ......)

so up will go the liability insurance premiums again

btw - in regard to passports - the passport is supposed to remain with the horse at all times, therefore it should be at the livery yard - but kept in a locked cabinet under the auspices of the Data Protection Act to avoid non-relevant disclosure of personal information contained therein (i.e. the owner's name and address).

However there is an anomaly there as how do you keep the passport with the horse when the horse lives out 24x7 in a field in the middle of nowhere with no secure buildings ?

I do think that there have been a good few (discussed on here) cases where YOs have ignored welfare cases because the animals have been DIY. At least this bill means that the YO has to take an interest in the animals on their property and not just collect the cash.

I read the bill as also meaning safe and proper housing/conditions means that sagging dangerous barbed wire fencing is 'contrary' to this bill......might be a lever to use against anyone with a YO allergic to fence repairs ;-))
 
Airedale - OT but just wanted to say WRT your sig comment about coloured horses: I bought my horse on his merits as a riding horse. The fact that he was coloured was not why I bought him: I was not looking to buy a coloured horse. So not everyone that has a coloured buys them for 'fashion'. I also would not refer to him as a 'coloured nag'. I don't really like the word nag it implies poor quality to me. It's a disrespectful term. Just making my views known!! My horse is Irish if that makes it any better?!
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]

I do think that there have been a good few (discussed on here) cases where YOs have ignored welfare cases because the animals have been DIY. At least this bill means that the YO has to take an interest in the animals on their property and not just collect the cash.

I read the bill as also meaning safe and proper housing/conditions means that sagging dangerous barbed wire fencing is 'contrary' to this bill......might be a lever to use against anyone with a YO allergic to fence repairs ;-))

[/ QUOTE ]

It is also a case against YO's that they should be made to appoint a manager in the case as you quoted, whereby a YO just takes money and does nothing else with no comeback. I think you'll never stop YO's just taking the money but if they are prepared to lease their premises then they should be made to have someone that knows what they are doing to be in charge and always available too. Just who you would get to police it, God alone knows cos you wouldn't want little Hitlers left right and centre being Big Brothers. At the same time, if you own a horse, as GM says, you ARE responsible for it and should take the can if anything goes wrong.

I know so many on here have no other option but to use DIY, but even so, I would be loathe to leave one of my neds at any yard that didn't have experienced responsible care whenever I couldn't be there. I wouldn't sleep at night, but I don't know how some of you can do it any other way, particularly if you are on a shoestring budget. Don't get me wrong, I'm not slating anyone that has to do this but it is a problem with some yards taking advantage of the situation and fleecing people that have no choice when there is no need, it's just greed, which in turn stops those on a tight budget being able to use those yards that do have good facilities and take care for your horses even if you are a DIY.
The YO at Joules' yard I find very hard to forgive. No animal should have been left to suffer as that mare did; they should have over ridden the owner and called the vet for attention asap IMHO; the owner obviously hadn't a clue but ignorance is no defence when an animal's life is at stake. I hope they both get canned for it.
 
I think this bill should make it easier for the good people on DIY yards who know who is "neglecting" their horse and rather than see a horse in a bad way these kind people tend to the horse that is being ignored by it's owner. YOs do seem to rely on the fact that most people love ALL horses if they have a horse and therefore won't see any horse knowingly neglected.

At least now DIYers (and others) who see a horse being 'ignored' by it's owner in the sense of welfare - have the ability to 'remind' the YO that the YO carries the can for all the horses on the yard.

I just hope that it doesn't become an abused piece of legislation that means that vast damages can be claimed when YOs have done "everythign reasonable"
 
The Welfare organisations are only too aware that there are a number of owners of Livery Yards etc that have little or no knowledge of horses. In some cases when the horse owner goes away they become responsible for the horse which they may not look after correctly. In these cases the welfare organisations need the law so that they can prosecute them where clearly it was not the owners responsibility.
 
Haven't read the other posts but my feelings are as follows:

Yard Owner has a responsibility to offer a safe environment for the horse - ie Stallions kept separately, safe fencing etc.

It's the owners responsibility to look after the horse (depending on the livery type).

I do think that if a YO feels the horse is in considerable distress then it is their responsibility to talk to the owner and if that fails call in authorities.....
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is where the insurance/litigators will get involved again as if a YO is prosectued for lack of care of a horse say on DIY then the YO will try and shift the responsiblity to the owner of the horse (or the YO insurer's will ......)

[/ QUOTE ]

But end of the day, surely if its MY horse, I should be prosecuted for neglect first and foremost, and the YO surely secondary for letting it continue?


[ QUOTE ]
btw - in regard to passports - the passport is supposed to remain with the horse at all times, therefore it should be at the livery yard - but kept in a locked cabinet under the auspices of the Data Protection Act to avoid non-relevant disclosure of personal information contained therein (i.e. the owner's name and address).

However there is an anomaly there as how do you keep the passport with the horse when the horse lives out 24x7 in a field in the middle of nowhere with no secure buildings ?

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is where in my case as owners not horsey, not available 24/7, nd its not their document to hold, mine stays with me and I'll fight my day in court if its ever necessary. But its another silly part of the legislation, it *should* say the passports stays with the horse IF the owner lives on site, if not it stays with the owner and should be available within 7 days (like a producer if you are pulled over when driving - its not as if I'd leave my MOT and insurance and driving licence IN the car!)

[ QUOTE ]
I do think that there have been a good few (discussed on here) cases where YOs have ignored welfare cases because the animals have been DIY. At least this bill means that the YO has to take an interest in the animals on their property and not just collect the cash.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that I DO agree with as long as the bottom line is the owner gets the worst of the punishment as the owner, and the YO for not taking action to avert suffering

[ QUOTE ]
I read the bill as also meaning safe and proper housing/conditions means that sagging dangerous barbed wire fencing is 'contrary' to this bill......might be a lever to use against anyone with a YO allergic to fence repairs ;-))

[/ QUOTE ]

And good, I agree if that works, barbed wire is the devils work!
 
[ QUOTE ]


I do think that if a YO feels the horse is in considerable distress then it is their responsibility to talk to the owner and if that fails call in authorities.....

[/ QUOTE ]

If you take any mare to a reputable stud you will have to sign an agreement whereby the stud owner/manager has full rights to bring in veterinary care at any time if necessary and this should be the absolute minimum required of livery yards IMO.
An animal's welfare is far more important than an owner's ruffled feathers and any YO/YM that does not do this out of humanity alone, does not deserve to even be in that job. Everyone is entitled to make mistakes but as Airedale said, even Pony Clubbers are taught the signs of good and bad health; it behoves any horse owner/keeper to know them well too and act appropriately.

I don't have liveries as such, I look after friend's horses here for them and last year one did not look right as I gave it breakfast; tried to contact owner without luck, still wasn't at all happy so called vet. Sadly, the horse had had a stroke, had lost all co- ordination with the ability to eat and drink so we had to put it down; it was the only action we could take. If I hadn't called the vet when I did, that horse would have suffered a lot more and I would have been negligent to him but how could I, as a horse lover, have lived with myself for not doing what was right, even though the owner had been uncontactable?
That's all we're asking of YO/YM, to do what's right for the horses in their care, that's not such a hard thing to ask, surely?
 
I totally agree with you in principle that if you own the horse and the horse is on DIY then it is your responsibility. However, the issue arrise when (as happened earlier this year at my yard) someone wasn't feeding/mucking out/haying their horse every day. Horse was left for 2 days w/out water
shocked.gif
mad.gif


BO's reaction when informed was to say 'well that isn't my responsibility what goes on in the livery barn'. this was pretty frustrating to the rest of us who were left to double check this horse every day 'just in case' the owners hadn't bothered again.

I think as a BO of a livery barn, they have a certain responsibility to at least talk to these owners and tell them that a complaint has been raised and if they don't sort it out they will be out on their ear or similar.

If, on the other hand, you are a land owner who has rented out a field but has not involvement, I think the situation becomes more complex.

Just my opinion
 
On a similar theme, if you are getting your friends to look after your horse/s while you are away, it helps to give them written permission to seek veterinary treatment, even euthanasia if you are not contactable.
I always make a point of this since, when a student in Essex, I drove past a horse which had been hit by a car lying in a pool of blood with broken leg/s. There were people with it, and I assumed they would deal with it. When I returned, about 4 hours later, it was still alive and suffering. Apparently its owner was abroad and no-one would make the decision to have it put down without contacting her first.
Horrific. In the end a passing knackerman dispatched it saying 'Sue me' when the bystanders protested.
So always give full permissions when you leave your horse.
S
 
the new animal welfare bill puts the responsibilityy LEGALLY onto the carer of the animal and the DEFRA website gives a specific example of a neighbour looking after a cat whilst the owner of the cat is on holiday

i.e. the neighbour then becomes legally liable for the prosecution if the cat is mistreated/neglected and NOT the owner

this is the same reason why YOs are now liable and not the horse owner. The horse owner has placed the care of the horse into the hands of the YO and is 'absent' from the scene
 
[ QUOTE ]
the new animal welfare bill puts the responsibilityy LEGALLY onto the carer of the animal and the DEFRA website gives a specific example of a neighbour looking after a cat whilst the owner of the cat is on holiday

i.e. the neighbour then becomes legally liable for the prosecution if the cat is mistreated/neglected and NOT the owner

this is the same reason why YOs are now liable and not the horse owner. The horse owner has placed the care of the horse into the hands of the YO and is 'absent' from the scene

[/ QUOTE ]

In that context in my opinion (and b.t.w. I am a lawyer) I would read it as applying to full/part liveries only and not D.I.Y. - the role of D.I.Y. livery is to supply facilities rather than the service of 'looking after' the animal - the owner continues to fulfill that role.

No doubt it will be argued in court - if a case ever gets that far.
 
very interesting point....

wonder how the 'care' provided by well meaning other DIYers to a neglected horse would be viewed if it 'went wrong' ?

as you said - it'll all be down to case law and let's hope that we don't get the stupid ruling in the mirvahedy (sp?) case and get some sensible case law instead !!
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is where the insurance/litigators will get involved again as if a YO is prosectued for lack of care of a horse say on DIY then the YO will try and shift the responsiblity to the owner of the horse (or the YO insurer's will ......)

so up will go the liability insurance premiums again



[/ QUOTE ]


confused.gif
But if they are prosecuted under this new Act, then surely it would be a criminal prosecution?? Or no?!

Criminal responsibility is not something that you can transfer. Liability, insurance and litigation as you mention are matters of civil law.
confused.gif
 
I just can't get my head round the idea that if I have my horse at a livery yard - if I don't turn up and feed/muck out etc... that the YO gets the blame and gets prosecuted!

OK I see the point if a horse is on full livery as I work or am away etc. then in my absence the YO is responsible, but if I am on part or DIY and abandon the horse - its my fault too, though a YO shouldn't allow suffering to be ongoing if they cannot reach the owner...

It just seems like they have made some things difficult again, just like allowing ANYONE to bring a prosecution - and some may be malicious, rather than having bodies like proper welfare organisations, that can assess the situation and only prosecute genuine cases - not ones where say someone has only just bought/rescued a bad case, or idiots who think grazing muzzles are cruel when the pony may be a lammi case etc etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top