STAMFORD HORSES - new WHW response

If you have photographs from the time the vet was originally called out, I would say they would go a long way as supporting evidence to a complaint to the RCVS about the vet. Perhaps you could share them with the person who said they were going to write the letter of complaint?
 
We didnt call the vet out they are a friend of our that works for oakham vets that we just asked for their opinion and they said they looked awful and it wasnt right
 
QR
The trouble is that it was warm and the horses were still alert and friendly so technically i suppose they were not 'suffering' except from hunger and doubtless a massive worm burden but the WHW people are right about one thing, you wont get a prosecution if the animals are not deemed to be 'suffering' and while being 'monitored' that was unlike to occur.
However in my professional opinion as a horse person of 25 years experience, if those horses were not actually 'suffering' at the moments of inspection they soon would be (as they did when Andy found them cold and wet) and surely a vet should be able to establish wheter their condition was rising or falling and if the latter, be able to act before actual suffering 'ala james Grey stylie' started.
Pity it seems our laws seem to mean animals have to die to prove they are in need and allow people to help them. That seems rather terminal to me, for the animals anyway.
 
I have been following the story of these horses but this is the first post ive done on it.
Firstly: Well done to everybody involved in the rescue of these horses which will at least have now know what a caring human is!
Secondly: If, for the sake of a prosecution, they could not immediately get a second opinion, as they didn't seem to worry about leaving these horses where they were, why not, a few weeks after the first vet said they weren't suffering, contact a different vet saying they had deteriated (sp) in that time? Still to long to leave these poor animals imo but at least things could of happened sooner.
 
No, sorry, what I meant was if you have photos from around the time the RSPCA first came out, those photos could be used to demonstrate the condition the horses were in when the first vet saw them (in real life) and thus that vet reported to the RCVS - someone on one of the other threads mentioned that the vet should be disciplined and your photographs could help with the letter of complaint.
 
Just to put a little perspective on this:

Things to remember
There are 16 WHW Field Officers for whole of UK
Their duties include regular checks on loan horses in their area
Try to imagine how many cases they could be dealing with at any one time and how many miles spent just driving
http://www.worldhorsewelfare.org/about-us/field_officers

RSPCA and SSPCA have more officers on the ground but lots of their time is spent with every other kind of domestic and wild animal rather than horses

From accounts of the owners demeanour on the day he was not going to sign over the horses in lieu of prosecution--so to take the horses on the 14th Aug they had to be declared as ''suffering'' which in this instance the vet did not do.

The definition of ''suffering'' is perhaps the topic needing discussed.

My experience of elderly horses in this kind of situation is that they can be starving even in a 'sea of plenty' once the teeth start to become loose/fall out/have gum disease and softened feeds must be provided.
If Carrot is found to have severe teeth problems then I think the vet should have been able to declare that he was suffering without provision of a suitable diet
 
[ QUOTE ]
Letter ha knees breaking more like. Bastard probably can't read

[/ QUOTE ]

he couldn't read your reply anyhow.....
 
I didn't realise that the RSPCA will only act if they are sure of a prosecution, I had assumed that they acted on the animal's welfare first and foremost.

When I read the BBC's internet site about the stud in Wales, it said that they had previously taken 17 ponies from the lady (so surely without prosecution) and then given her advice notices. When they finally went in and took the rest, one officer was quoted as saying "when we took the coat off Mist I couldn't believe my eyes" ie saying how emaciated she was and then they successfully prosecuted.

My point being, that they had taken ponies previously without prosecuting immediately - so this seems to contradict that statement.
 
I just dont understand at all. The vet who said they were not suffering needs to be investigated, even a blind person would have seen with their hands they were just skin and bone. It was also reported that the chestnut had no teeth when the said vet said they were not suffering, how on earth did he think the chestnut would put weight on????

I would like to know if the RSPCA and WHW were happy with the vets finding and whether or not they questioned it?? And will they be checking up on the 2 ponies that were left to make sure they dont get into the same state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top