STAMFORD HORSES - new WHW response

A

andy7418

Member
Joined
2 September 2009
Messages
22
Visit site
Hi everyone

Just in case you are interested, here is an email I received earlier today from the WHW Deputy Head of UK Welfare:

"Thank you very much for your email regarding the horses in Stamford. I am aware that the horses have been removed to a place of safety, which is very positive news and will hopefully conclude the matter. However, I thought you might appreciate further detail on our involvement in the case to date.



We were first alerted to the horses on 16th July this year and our Field Officer visited the following day along with an RSPCA Inspector. Both were concerned about their condition so tried to make contact with the owner – they were unable to get hold of the owner so left cards for them to respond to. Our Field Officer revisited the horses on 21st July and tried once again to contact the owner. At this stage the owner made contact with the RSPCA. Our Field Officer was away for two weeks until 10th August so the RSPCA visited the location a number of times in his absence and reported no change in the horses’ condition. As a result, our Field Officer and the RSPCA arranged for a vet to visit the horses on 14th August to provide a full report on their condition. The report from the vet stated that, although the horses were very thin, they were not suffering, so the vet wasn’t prepared to support a prosecution unless their condition deteriorated. We and the RSPCA didn’t seek a second veterinary opinion as this could make any potential prosecution more difficult – if one vet has stated that an animal is not suffering, it is extremely unlikely that a prosecution will be successful on the evidence of another vet unless the condition of the animal in question has changed significantly between assessments. Because of this, the only option available to our Field Officer and the RSPCA was to continue to monitor the horses and alert a vet as soon as the situation deteriorated. This kind of situation is incredibly frustrating for all involved, but we have no option but to work within current animal welfare legislation. As already stated, we are aware that the horses were removed to a place of safety yesterday and we hope this will conclude the matter."

Still not quite sure what to make of the various official responses....
 
well that is interesting, and I can understand the not getting a second vets opinion from a prosecution point of view but from a horse welfare point of view?

So they hadn't visited since the 14th of August, which is 3 weeks ago today. Thats quite a long time to not check if they had deteriorated which they clearly did.
 
It seems odd that they couldn't seek a different vets opinion, couldn't contact the owner, and couldn't do anything about it untill, thanks to you Andy, it was made public. Funny how when enough people and press new about it the problems went away
crazy.gif


Either way everyone involved did a great job and the ponies are safe now, so the result was achieved in the end.
 
Interesting!

I didn't think about the prosecution side of things, and I appreciate that, however, if I was in a position to get these horses help, I would rather have got a 2nd opinion and got them removed and lived with the fact a prosecution is unlikely
frown.gif


That's just me though, and I do see where they're coming from.
Still think/wish they could have been helped sooner!

Just glad they're out of there now though
smile.gif
 
These horses were first recognised in July, theey shouldn't of been ALLOWED to get thinner
frown.gif
At the end of the day they should of got another vet out. Im sure a lot of us would of much rather prefer the horse didnt get in this state, without a conviction. Than have the horse so unbelievably thin and *hope* for a conviction
frown.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think the vet in question should be required to make a statement as to how he deemed that these horses were not suffering...

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree with this. A horse who is thin,elderly and has missing teeth is going to be suffering and I can not see how anyone could have said otherwise. I do understand the WHW letter and can see how their hands were tied,but I still can not see how the horses were carefully monitored up til the middle of August and no mention has since been made of any further visits.
 
Mmmm, Seems alittle like they are trying to explain why they didn't remove the horses and all seems know to point to the vet from a certain practice?. It would be nice if they put a statement forward especially the vet and not the practice. Explaining and I would have assumed that pictures were taken when they visited.

Andy who said the last piece on your post? Was it on the email ? or is that was you are asking about the officials?
 
I'm speechless. I think I'll leave a full reply until I've calmed down and recovered my sense of reason!

Thnaks so much for posting this!
 
Yes, but don't forget that if a prosecution had failed those horses would have been returned to their owner and all hope would have been lost. Also don't forget a judge wanted some of the Amersham horses to go back to JG - if they can order this (thankfully not carried out) who knows what they can do?!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting!

I didn't think about the prosecution side of things, and I appreciate that, however, if I was in a position to get these horses help, I would rather have got a 2nd opinion and got them removed and lived with the fact a prosecution is unlikely
frown.gif


That's just me though, and I do see where they're coming from.
Still think/wish they could have been helped sooner!

Just glad they're out of there now though
smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree B-2-B - I think the priority should have been the immediate welfare of the horses; a prosecution is obviously highly desirable but surely secondary?
 
yes, that part was my own addition - I just get the impression from the tone of the letter that are trying to absolve themselves of responsibility ... but then again, I understand that certain procedures have to be followed. Its just a shame that red tape sometimes has to be waded through before suffering can be alleviated. SURELY that should be the most important thing.
 
Excuses excuses - sounds like someone wants to try and dig themselves out of a very big hole.

My message to them would be:
The next stage of deterioration for these horses would be DEATH........what use would you be then? probably a bit more use than you have been to date i should imagine by organising the removal of carcasses.
 
The sad thing is that wading through the red tape was necessary to ensure a successful conviction, but not to remove the horses. A second vet opinion would have allowed them to do this -this surely should have been their primary aim?

As already said, sounds like they are now trying to absolve themselves from blame
 
Thing is without a prosecution the owner is able (and likely) to do it all again.

He said when he turned up yesterday that the horses were fine, unbelivable to us, but if he thinks they are fine or just dosnt give a dam then I do wonder if he will have more horses in the same condition in the future.
 
Andy can you put this guys contact details up or pm me them? I think i need to write him a letter. I am pretty pissed off with what he has said so need a few hours to calm down first!

God help the RSPCA if they manage to poke their heads out of their massive hole and send a press release or statement. I think i would have them for breakfast if i had a chance to write back to them!
 
I accept that Pinkpeeper but you can't allow two animals to suffer so badly just in case you need to prevent suffering to other animals in the future. I still maintain that the first aim should have been to take care of these two - if that could be done without jeopardising a prosecution then great, but if not then they should have removed them regardless.

I also find it incredible that a prosecution brought in relation to two animals in this state could fail - if that is the case then legislation needs a serious looking at!
 
I find this really quite terrifying! I cannot see how any vet could say a horse that emaciated was not suffering? I mean the pictures the RSPCA are doing at the moment of the very thin dog saying something like 'Gracie can't call the RSPCA' would a vet look at that dog and say 'Yeah it's thin but it's not suffering'? I wonder how many other horses there are in the UK in similar condition (not sure they could be worse) that the WHW or RSPCA are fully aware of but unable/unwiling to do anything about. I don't give a sh!t about prosecution if it's being done at the welfare of the horse. Surely they should be looking after the horse then trying to prosecute if possible rather than worrying about prosecution then thinking about whether the horse will survive long enough. Or do they want the horse to die which will make it easier to prove suffering in court? Sorry for the rant but I think it's disgusting and it's the last time either of the charities will get a penny from me.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The report from the vet stated that, although the horses were very thin, they were not suffering, so the vet wasn’t prepared to support a prosecution unless their condition deteriorated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot believe that chestnut horse would have deteriorated that quickly. IMO that vet needs to be struck off, or named & shamed, for I certainly wouldn't want her/him near my horses. My god that really is quite frightening that a vet holds that much power and doesn't even use it correctly.

Re BHS, WHW, RSPCA and the likes, I'm still not sure what to think, THE LAW on animal welfare needs another good look at because it's just not working as well as it could be, as it is one organisation can't do anything without this persons say so, or that person can't do anything until this person is present, it's way too complicated.

I'm not interested in slagging off the RSPCA but I do feel they should step away from equine welfare and leave it to the likes of BHS and WHW. I had no idea that even BHS & WHW had to have the RSPCA present.

Anyway, enough of my ramblings, thank you Andy for posting.
 
From the facts that I know (from HH forum) I am also really pissed off with the lack of action from WHW and RSPCA. I was under the impression that we now have an 'improved' Animals Act which states that animals don't actually have to be almost dead before they can be rescued, that there is an important, new clause that it now only needs to be that animals are 'likely to suffer' if not removed or their conditions immediately improved. This wording was going to, according to animal charities, transform their ability to stop suffering by allowing them to intercede earlier. Doesn't seem to have worked. Or am I mistaken on this?
 
Quite frankley this is a bloody farce

WHW state they/RSPCA were unable to get hold of the owner - strange how that didn't seem to be a problem yesterday!
 
Well talk about pass the buck!
Very much "he said she said" but not a lot of anything else going on.....at the expense of poor Carrot and Spud!
To the vet who 1st saw them.....I hope you never have another good nights sleep. May the image of Carrot keep you awake for many nights. Never in my life have I seen anything quite so obvious as the nose on your face, as the suffering of those two ponies.
I hope one day you are in need of a good samaritan, and in your case I hope he walks on by!
mad.gif
 
Another thought. Should we be looking at the the definition of 'suffering'. Although clearly the majority of people would think being on a condition score of say 1 or 2 (which is a standardised, accepted way of defining the condition of a horse) would cause the horse to experience unnecessary discomfort bearing in mind the nature of horses being trickle feeders and needing something in their gut through to lying down on bones with only a covering of skin etc etc) it would appear that this particular vet had only his own opinion (!?) to go on when saying they were not suffering.

What I am trying to say is, it should be more formalised so that if a vet condition scores a horse at 1, for instance, that is deemed as suffering no matter what the vet's personal (bizarre) opinion might be. At 2, 'likely to suffer' etc. This needs to be tightened up so it can't happen again. The RSPCA and other charities would then not be dithering about whether to wade in and do something.

What do other people think?
 
I would like to add these horses havent deterioted! They look awful fullstop. We were the ones that discovered them in July and the RSPCA were [****]! They said they would send someone out and let us know and they never did! We then rang again and they said the same and we go back to see if they are still there and they are. Their condition hasnt changed its been as bad as it is now from day 1! These charitys actually need to listen and act when they have a call from the public. I also think its awful how many houses overlook these horses fields and not one person had bothered to report them!
 
Tam that may be a little unfair. From what has been said by others, it sounds like lots of people DID complain and report the ponies condition, but appropriate action was not taken until yesterday

ETS and that was by the BHS, who responded without any delay
 
Well I think its ridiculous saying they were monitoring the horses to see if the condition deterioated. I dont think it could get any worse. We took pictures of these horses and showed them around and every1 was horified. Someone has mentioned that oakham vets said they were eating and nothing they could do. we had 2 of oakhams vets to our yard and showed them the photos and they were horrified and said how it wasnt acceptable and the horses were ill. I just wish it didnt take so long to move the horses. I think what has been on here is amazing but it took alot of people to finally get something done. When we rang up they werent intersted, i understand they probably get loads of calls a day but they didnt want to help they were quite rude on the phone. When they hear from 3 different people about horses undercondition alarm bells should be ringing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top