Sorry It Just Does Not Sit Right With Me - BHS Mag

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Old age is part of buying an animal - if you dont want the responsibility you dont deserve their prime

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank goodness - I was beginning to think I was the only one that thought this!

I have no problem with euthanisia on medical / welfare grounds, but shooting a horse just because it can't work anymore makes me very uncomfortable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Life just is not that black and white. What if you have a competition horse not up to competing who is a terrible hack etc and does not settle to retirement in the field. Then what?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Old age is part of buying an animal - if you dont want the responsibility you dont deserve their prime

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank goodness - I was beginning to think I was the only one that thought this!

I have no problem with euthanisia on medical / welfare grounds, but shooting a horse just because it can't work anymore makes me very uncomfortable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't have put either of the above better myself.

Spottedcat: no it isn't always black and white. But what the two people I have quoted and myself are trying to say is not about how well a horse would settle to retirement. Its regarding the attitude some have of "If it can't work it can be PTS". IMO that attitude (to domestic leisure horses in particular) belongs in the dark ages.
 
QR.
Sorry I would far rather any horse was euthanised than trawled round a succesion of low end markets to end up being transported to an uncertain end God only knows where.
There are more horses out there then there are good homes -hence the BHS's Think before you Breed campaign.
Sometimes for whatever reason people can no longer keep their horses. If the horse in question is no longer able to work then the options are limited. We have all heard stories about horses loaned as companions being sold on through markets within days of their owners passing them on. If the animals future cannot be 100% guaranteed then owners must face up to their responsibilities & have the horse PTS. The BHS have no problem at all from a welfare point of view of horses being taken to abbatoirs to be euthanised. They consider it far better than the horse being passed from pillar to post because someone was too much of a coward to do the right thing by an older / unsound animal.
The welfare charities are there to rescue horses in trouble, not to provide free livery for life to elderly equines who's owners can't face doing what needs to be done for the best. All the charities get loads of phone calls each week from people demanding that they take their elderly/unsound horse in.
The surrogacy situation where the mares are either PTS or returned to their owners at the age of 15 may seem hard, but remember these mares have only been offered as surrogates because their owners had no other use for them & were unable to keep them themselves. What do those who think it is morally wrong suggest is done with these mares instead?
 
[ QUOTE ]

Sorry BHS - for me you have shot yourselves in the foot - can you imagine the outcry if they had allowed carrot and spud to be pts after a weeks being well looked after? And old saying is:- you cant run with the hounds and the hare, well BHS you need to decided if you are concerend with the equine welfare or are happy to sell your sole to the commerical devils amongst the so called "horse world" and shame on the editior for publilshing this article in this manner.

The BHS, through this article have now condoned the "its no use, shoot it" argument, and i for one am ashamed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you may have slightly misunderstood the article. I was at a talk given by Lee Hackett of the BHS Welfare Dept last week & that certainly wasn't quite the message they are trying to convey. Its far more along the lines that some posters on here are saying - that it's better to have the horse PTS than send it off to an uncertain future.
Why don't you ring the BHS & speak to them? I'm sure they will be able to put your mind at rest on this issue.
 
[ QUOTE ]
but using a mare for 4 + years as a breeding machine (not even her real babies) and then PTS!? come on dont we owe these horses something better.

How many embryos are being reared at anyone time from one "prolific mare" - to me it is playing God a little too much. Mares have a 11 month cycle, what is to stop unscurpulous people having heaven knows how many surogate mares in foal.


[/ QUOTE ]

If a mare is unsuitable for riding - and not of sufficient 'quality' to be worth breeding a foal from, then life as a surrogate mother gives her an option other than being PTS (not too many owners can keep 'useless' mares in retirement.) Better this than a few trips around the sale rings, going downhill each time, before getting an 'end'.

And what stops the vast majority of people doing ET is the cost. You need a TOP mare to make it at all viable - and if a mare is a top competition mare, you wouldn't be keeping her at an ET centre having embryoes harvested for months - that would somewhat defeat the purpose. The chances of getting more than 1 - or at the most 2 embryoes from a cycle is pretty slim.

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder what industry (within the horse umbrella obviously) is the highest user of this: racing, eventing, something else...? Is it allowed in Wetherbys?

[/ QUOTE ]

AI isn't allowed in TB breeding so I can't see ET being allowed!

[ QUOTE ]
i was told that the many of the top TB studs have a field full of half-bred mares, which they cover for free at weekly-ish intervals so that there is a regular crop of foals, and then if a TB mare rejects her very valuable foal (or dies, or has no milk) they take the 1/2 bred foal, kill it, skin it, and use the mum as a foster mother.

[/ QUOTE ]

A FEW of the big TB studs have a few mares that are bred as potential foster mums, but I've NEVER heard of their real foals being killed - it's just not necessary to have the skin to foster a foal. The foals that are taken away (if their mother is needed to rear a valuable foal) are either hand-reared or may be sold to people with a mare who has lost a foal. And there aren't lots of them available - I looked into getting one to keep an orphan company (thought it would be as easy to hand rear two as one) and couldn't find one of a suitable age.
 
^^^ What she said!

There are also people who have thriving businesses keeping a supply of mares that they foal once a year to provide foster mares, mainly to the racing industry. They usually have a supply of decent hand-reared foals available and at least one user I know of on here has one.

As for the "touching" story of the stallion and the aromatherapy oils - I thought it was a big no-no round stallions to wear perfume or scented products. Google "pheromones frankincense" for those who don't know.
 
And if it was sheep, no one would care.
tongue.gif
 
Just wanted to give my opinion as an owner of a mare who is on loan as a surrogate.
My mare is currently on loan to Twemlows stud farm, last year she had a foal for Headley Britania, however this year she hasn't taken and is having 12 months off living in a field with a herd of other mares, not a bad life in my opinion. She went on loan when all attempts to resolve her lamesness issues failed. It was suggested that I breed from her but I dont have the time or money to do that. Although I could have kept her in a field for the rest of her life, i felt it might be nice for her to have a purpose for a little while. Also at that time I was on threat of redundancy and was worried I wouldn't be able to afford to keep her, only other option would have pts cos I would never have subjectd her to being passed from piller to post. At Twemlows I know she is well looked after and I can visit her whenever I like.
As for when they no longer required her, I am now lucky to know she will be able to come home and spend the rest of her life with me for as long as she is comfortable.
Does the orginal poster think I should have just have abandoned her or just pts straight away.
I understand that a lot of indiscriminate breeding goes on but the decision for my mare was thought out long and hard and I discussed it with my vet and talked to the vet at the stud.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Booboos - i just dont think we are fair on these animals. Ok i agree you pay your money you want the best for it- but it still does not sit easy with me. Yes maybe i am lucky and can afford my old horses to live out there lives in comfort - but i knew when i brought them that they were here for the "long haul" and not just to use them until the were no longer useful to me.
Yes - I admire people who are so cut and fast and can let emotions evade them when the animal is no longer useful - but i love my horses with all my heart and i value that they trust me and like me enough back. I just think as the human race goes on we are becoming to clinical.

My mum and dad are now in their 70's - they will shortly retire from being useful - shall i have them pts? nought wrong with them - they have given me the best years of their lives, and are probaly going to cost me dear in time and resources over the next 10 to 20 years (hopefully) - same as my old girl. She gave me everything she could and more for 12 years - she now is "no use" to me - should i just have her pts? its one less stable to pay for, its one less horse to care for. Can you honestly imagine me putting a pro pts post for a healthy horse - no longer useful and the responses it would get.

Old age is part of buying an animal - if you dont want the responsibility you dont deserve their prime

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you feel this responsibility towards your horse only? What about the other horses that you could buy and retire instead of buying a new car, or paing your mortgage or going on holiday? If the horse's life has inherent value then all horses are equally valuable and the question of ownership is irrelevant to what care they deserve. You can certainly think this, but it is a very demanding view for you to hold (i.e. it demands a lot of you and most people do not want to accept that many responsibilities). Another problem with making horse life inherently valuable is that you will, for consistency's sake, need to extend the argument to all life, which would mean not only being a vegetarian, not wearing leather, etc. but taking steps to never take life, e.g. squating an insect, taking antibiotics.

Your parents do not belong to you and are not instrumentally valuable (unlike a horse which has a use and derives its value from that use), they have inherent value (in and of themselves) so the question of their usefulness does not arise.
 
The horse does not derive its value from its use and most humans have no use at all ! We are not even part of the food chain and live a completely parasitic existence on the planet. If anything it should be useless humans being euthenased then, all those who cannot contribute anything to society as we are unable to contribute anything positive to the planet ! We should be more demanding of ourselves and look after our pets until they are too old to live a reasonable quality of life or are in serious pain. I would vote my own euthenasia once my quality of life makes life not worth living.

I am opposed to artificial insemination in both humans and animals. I have even refused a blood transfusion as it was too alien to my mind to have someone else's blood in me. As you can see I am still alive and back to normal without the 'life -saving' transfusion.
 
QR

I work for an equine welfare charity so am well aware that we are not about to provide livery. As to the example of a competiton horse that won't settle to retirement - that would be welfare grounds! I too would much rather see a horse PTS than passed around. However I as an individual believe that if you take on a horse, you should have put some thought into what will happen if it can no longer work before it happens, and I, personally, am uncomfortable with the attitude that as soon as a horse can no longer work, it is to be got rid of, whether through sale or being PTS.

I am certainly in favour of more responsible breeding. Far too many people stick their mare in foal because they can't ride it any more, and they want it to have a job, without thinking of what the foal will be like or what future it will have.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The horse does not derive its value from its use

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it does - you only have to look at how many posts there are on here asking 'how much' for a horse which has done x,y or z, and that fact that if you have an Olympic level horse/top racehorse you can ask (and get) hundreds of thousands of pounds for it whereas you'll be lucky to get a few hundred for a shetland. Whether you think that is right or not is a different question, but a horse has minimal inherent value, and the majority of their value is derived from their use - if that were not the case then all horses would be for sale for the same price, whether they were a dog-lame cut-and-shut with conformation which would make you cringe, or Sea the Stars/Headley Britannia/insert top horse of your choice.
 
The other potentially very useful side to ET is to enable the survival of some endangered breeds.

The use of ET could enable mares to either have one or more foals a year or could enable a mare to have a foal when she cannot be spared from her work.

It could be very useful for suffolk punches, cleveland bays, etc etc.

Regarding the surrogate mares, I think often the surrogate job is a stay of execution for them, enabling a horse to have a happy retirement that may otherwise have to be put down. In an ideal world everyone would keep their horse until it dies but often people can't and this is much better than PTS or selling on an unsound horse.
 
I haven't read all the replies but thought I'd put my two cents in.

Although I value my horses as friends and both will have a happy retirement with me, this is not the way with most horses. If dairy cows don't produce calves..........they are put down. If sheep don't produce lambs............they are put down.

Animals to some are a hobby but to many they are a livelihood. Although it is not what I would do with mine, as long as the mare is kept well and looked after and ultimately humanely euthanised, I don't think it is really that terrible. There are plenty of much more pressing welfare issues in the horse world.
 
QR -

The problem is, that as nice an idea as it is to keep a horse forever until the day it dies of old age, its simply not practical for a lot of people.

Not so much a problem if you have loads of your own land and multiple horses and the retired one can just live out as a field ornament. What if you have a limited budget, you bought your horse to compete, its at livery, and when its still young it has an accident or injury that means it can never be ridden again? Can you really expect that person to spend the next 20 years or so spending a fair chunk of money every month looking after a horse that they can never do anything with again?

Of course, I'm not sure it would be easy for me in that situation to put down a healthy horse, as I'm quite sentimental, but I don't think there is anything morally wrong with it. In my opinion, if a horse has a happy life and is well cared for, then its no evil thing to have them put down in a humane way, and far better than many alternatives.
 
I'm trying to see what the issue is here for you, Gingerwitch.

First up, I'm afraid that is is a common fact of life in equestrian circles that many, many horses who cannot lead a useful ridden life are euthanised. Now that may seem strange to those of us who treat our animals as pets, but a lot of riders don't see them that way. Whilst they may care for them well in lots of ways, they see their animals as a means to an end, or often part of their business and have no interest in keeping pasture ornaments. Now I can quite understand why you might feel strongly that owners should take responsibility for their animals even after their useful life has finished, but on the other hand I can see the other point of view, especially in a culture where we view animal life as expendable for our needs - where animals are slaughtered for food, or killed as vermin, for example. If you feel that no-one should euthanise a horse that has no commercial value, then do you also feel that meat animals should not be slaughtered and dairy cows and chickens who no longer produce milk/lay eggs should be not be killed. If so, do you follow this through by not eating milk, eggs and meat so as not to be a part of this process?

As for the surrogate mares, are you opposed to the actual process of surrogacy? Do you feel it is cruel in any way?

At the end of the day, it all hinges on the mare owner. If they are not going to have the mare back at the end of the mare's breeding career, then it is very likely that they would have had it PTS if surrogacy was not an option. So the surrogacy part of it doesn't seem to really have any bearing on the matter at all - it just puts off the date of execution for a few years, and in some cases might actually result in the owner being more financially able to give the horse a retirement at grass when it does come back.
 
The point i am making is that this article published by the BHS reads like it is the norm to use a horse till it is of no use and then it is perfectally acceptable to have it pts. There was not one line, or comment about the process being unfortunate, for the poor animals. It is this inevitability that makes the industry so hollow, and false.

The article i am critisising never refered to the process as anything to even be thought about and that is not an industry i am proud of. If we were called horse farmers and did not pretend that we had feelings for our horses it would sit easier than this double standard, isnt so and so the best horse in the world, i would never part with him, to the oh so and so is now old he will have to go.

Many supporters of the BHS hopefully have a feeling of responsibility to their equine and i thought that the article was poorly written and showed no compassion or thought for the people like me or even the horses.
An article like this makes it so much easier to do what suits the owner, and almost exonerates the "guilt".

And yes i support the blue cross, i support and have for many years the WHW, Bransby home for rest - for the last 25 years - i also do a great deal of letter writing.

With the referances to cattle i dont see many people catching their individual cow in at night and fussing over its rugs or spending hours training it to do shoulder in or jump a course of fences. Now i know farmers care deeply about their livestock - but they know the buisness they are in, and yes some farmers will always get upset on market day - but they do not try and pretend they are doing "the right thing" by the animal they are blunt and say "yep i am doing this to make money"
 
Ah, so from your reply, it is OK to have your horse PTS for financial reasons when it is no longer of use, as long as you haven't fussed over its rugs or patted it in the preceding years!

I do agree with your point of the hypocrisy of those people who claim their animal is their 'best friend' or their 'baby' and how much they 'love' it, but when it is too lame or old to work have it PTS or worse, ship it off to the sales. However, this is a very different argument to the one about embryo transfer and surrogate mares!
 

[ QUOTE ]
The point i am making is that this article published by the BHS reads like it is the norm to use a horse till it is of no use and then it is perfectally acceptable to have it pts. There was not one line, or comment about the process being unfortunate, for the poor animals. It is this inevitability that makes the industry so hollow, and false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having the horse PTS is far kinder than sending it off to an uncertain future. Try & accept that there are only small percentage of horse owners able to support more than one horse, & an even smaller number of people who will offer a genuine long term home to a horse that can no longer work or who needs vast amounts of money spending on its long term treatment.

[ QUOTE ]
The article i am critisising never refered to the process as anything to even be thought about and that is not an industry i am proud of. If we were called horse farmers and did not pretend that we had feelings for our horses it would sit easier than this double standard, isnt so and so the best horse in the world, i would never part with him, to the oh so and so is now old he will have to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

The article calls for people to face up to their responsibilities at the end of their horses life, be that at a greatly advanced old age, or a younger age as circumstances dictate. That may well mean having your 8yr old 2/10 chronically lame horse PTS instead of fobbing it off as a 'companion' In the case of horses used for ET or the Equine Blood Bank they are well looked after until the time where their ages means they become unsuitable. In some cases they will have had over ten years of secure care that would not have been there for them otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
Many supporters of the BHS hopefully have a fin the case of a feeling of responsibility to their equine and i thought that the article was poorly written and showed no compassion or thought for the people like me or even the horses.
An article like this makes it so much easier to do what suits the owner, and almost exonerates the "guilt".

[/ QUOTE ]

So it should !! There are more horses suffering in livery yards because the owners are put under extreme emotional pressure from their fellow yard users not to do the right thing. Poor old walking hat racks who struggle to eat . Younger horses who can hardly walk. In the wild these horses would die. Either slowly from starvation/ dehydration or more quickly by being preyed upon. At least we should be able to make the end painless & quick.

[ QUOTE ]

With the referances to cattle i dont see many people catching their individual cow in at night and fussing over its rugs or spending hours training it to do shoulder in or jump a course of fences. Now i know farmers care deeply about their livestock - but they know the buisness they are in, and yes some farmers will always get upset on market day - but they do not try and pretend they are doing "the right thing" by the animal they are blunt and say "yep i am doing this to make money"

[/ QUOTE ]

Horses used for ET or for the EBB are donated. The owners get no money for them. They are assured that their animal will have a decent quality of life & they have the option of having it back at the end of the loan period. I think someone has already said when they donated their horse for ET they never thought they'd be able to have it back, but due to a change in circumstances that has altered.

As I have already said to you I think you have totally misunderstood the direction & intentions of the article. Did you do as I suggested & contact the BHS diretc to discus your concerns?
In a perfect world we would all have the money, space, & time to keep all our horses forever. They'd lie down on a lovely summers evening & slip away quietly at the end of their time.
However it;s not a perfect world, & hundreds of people are faced with this difficult decision every week. The BHS article set out to explain the options available to those who find themselves in this situation.
The long term (as well as the immediate) welfare of the horse should be at the top of the agenda every time, which may sometimes mean having to make that difficult decision far earlier than would have been expected. Unless the future of an elderly or unsound horse can be guaranteed 100% (as with those made over for ET or EBB) then being PTS may well be the best option. Those who face the reality of the situation are the best owners any horse could hope for.
 
Well there we go then!

Let us all stop pretending to love our horse- lets just use them until they are no longer "valuable" to us and kill em. We can pat ourselves on the backs then and say "well we did not pass them onto an insecure future"!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Well there we go then!

We can pat ourselves on the backs then and say "well we did not pass them onto an insecure future"!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well done !!
You finally seem to understand that genuine love for a horse may require you to do just that.
 
No i was being sarcastic about the alleged "genuine" horse owner being anything other than completley selfish and shallow.

The only genuine love in putting down a healthy horse because it no longer is upto the job - is a love of your money and self.
 
Let me give you a scenario. Genuine horse-loving lady has a horse called Matilda who she loves to bits and keeps at a livery yard. She rides Matilda for two or three years until Matilda develops an incurable lameness, which means she can't be ridden, although she is happy in the field. Lady keeps her in retirement, but suddenly is made redundant and due to the economic climate cannot get another job. She can no longer afford to keep Matilda - if Matilda could be ridden it would be easy to sell her, but no-one wants to buy a cripple. Lady can find no-one she knows who wants to take a big horse on as a companion. Her options are:

1. Have Matilda PTS
2. Advertise as a companion and accept that she will go to a stranger and she will have no control over her future
3. Bute her up and put her in the sales.

Which option would you choose?
 
Ah yes of course, it's far more genuinely loving to try to palm it off onto a charity isn't it? Or even to sell it or give it away to a companion home, takes all the stress and worry out of the situation and no need to check to make sure it's fine or anything like that. I suppose you might even donate a few quid to the charity every so often to assuage your conscience, not as much as the cost of keeping the horse though, I mean that's why it was got rid of in the first place - there aren't that many people who can afford to keep all their oldies, grown out ofs or just downright mistakes in having bought in the first place.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Let me give you a scenario. Genuine horse-loving lady has a horse called Matilda who she loves to bits and keeps at a livery yard. She rides Matilda for two or three years until Matilda develops an incurable lameness, which means she can't be ridden, although she is happy in the field. Lady keeps her in retirement, but suddenly is made redundant and due to the economic climate cannot get another job. She can no longer afford to keep Matilda - if Matilda could be ridden it would be easy to sell her, but no-one wants to buy a cripple. Lady can find no-one she knows who wants to take a big horse on as a companion. Her options are:

1. Have Matilda PTS
2. Advertise as a companion and accept that she will go to a stranger and she will have no control over her future
3. Bute her up and put her in the sales.

Which option would you choose?

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed one - "donate" it to a charity, thereby tying up money that the charity might have used to rescue genuine hardship cases.
 
[ QUOTE ]
No i was being sarcastic

[/ QUOTE ]

Really????................Well I never
shocked.gif
smirk.gif
smirk.gif


[ QUOTE ]
The only genuine love in putting down a healthy horse because it no longer is upto the job - is a love of your money and self.

[/ QUOTE ]

You simply seem to have no comprehension of (or compassion for) the situations people can find themselves in do you? Nor do you appear capable of modifying an ill informed opinion founded on a mistaken impression.

Read the above scenarios, & if you STILL find yourself unable to understand the full picture then for Gods sake phone the BHS welfare dept & ask them to explain where you have misinterpreted & misunderstood the excellent article British Horse, as everyone on here seems to have failed to do so.

You list your location as "on another planet". How apt
crazy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top