The 'Grand' National?

[Birker2020]

tess1 has conducted her argument with good manners and without resorting to name calling .
Those who find this irritating should perhaps consider withdrawing from the thread themselves if they can't cope with debating an issue without resorting to being unpleasant and rude .
I don't agree with tess1's point of view but I understand where she coming from and she has every right to express it and spend as much time as she likes doing so.

This forum is starting to become a bitching platform for certain people who hide behind user names and feel that they are at liberty to insult others as they see fit. Of course the more the upset their 'target' becomes, the more joy they get out of it. When their victim starts to retailiate they turn it around on them and accuse them of being aggresive or rude. Pathetic and sad.

 

[fburton]

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, and TB's brought up in a different environment where they have a one to one with someone on a day to day level would I imagine have a different behaviour than those who live in stables 23 hours a day on a racing yard. What I meant is that an Arab, TB or WB is obviously 'hotter blooded' that an Irish cob, Welshie, or a Shire and would therefore be more problematic with regards rehoming to people not used this type of horse.

Point taken. The same argument applies to entires vs geldings. I think training can go a long way to offset the natural tendency for the former to be 'difficult', but the tendency to be hotter can't be ignored.

Personally I have always believed that the 'nurture v nature' debate is about 70% / 30% anyway.

Yup, I reckon the balance is somewhere close to that.

 

[tess1]

You didn't understand my post correctly. Read again what I wrote, and you may come away with a better understanding.

Whilst not being aimed specifically at you tess1, it still amazes me that so many sit in judgement and base their often theorised twaddle around what they've read, rather than their own experiences.

Alec.

well I asked you for clarification Alec, and I read it several times before I asked for that, so I feel it would be more helpful to simply write clearly what you mean rather than make personal jibes at people.

 

[Indy]

Sadly, the re-homing of ex racehorses isn't generally the answer. A few can be got round, but the bulk of them are damaged goods and the horror stories are legion.

If Tess1 didn't understand it, neither did I because I more or less read it the same way. The particular paragraph above I don't agree with - purely through my own experience of rehoming/schooling ex racehorses.

 

[Maesfen]

I'd suggest that you look at the website of Lucinda Russel and you will see just how many of their retired animals are put in to well considered homes; 'Well Considered' being the operative words. There certainly are those horses which with a careful and with a well thought through rehabilitation plan, can be absorbed back in to the happy-hacking way of life, but rest assured that there are many which have become so damaged by the racing industry, generally flat bred horses, and to let them go to anyone but THE most experienced, would be irresponsible at the very least. Most responsible owners choose to put their horses down when their racing days are over. The highly successful may well go on to a pampered retirement, but the bulk of race horses aren't successful, and equally, they can be a frightful liability. I've bred a good few TBs, over the years, and not one has ever been racing. Every one of them, brought up as we would bring up any horse, has been no more difficult than any other youngster, and they've all gone on to live useful lives.

I know, I know, there can be 100 posts advising that 'I've got a friend" etc etc, but the 'bulk' of those flat bred horses, which are sold on and all so often fillies, go from pillar to post, they're bought by the inexperienced and simply because they're cheap, and having been owned by syndicates, the instructions are to simply get rid of the horse, and again, all so often the kindest thing to do is to send the horse off to heaven. Sadly, the re-homing of ex racehorses isn't generally the answer. A few can be got round, but the bulk of them are damaged goods and the horror stories are legion.

My arguments are considering what is 'generally' in the best interest of the horse itself. I'd very much like to be wrong, but I fear that I'm not.

Alec.

What is so difficult to understand in this Tess?

 

[tess1]

What is so difficult to understand in this Tess?

well, pretty much the same thing that Indy pointed out ... that according to Alec the vast majority of racehorses are so badly damaged their best off shot ... reading between the lines the take away message (for me) was that it was pretty pointless trying to do anything with all but a minority of them. Which is why I asked for him to clarify his thoughts on the RoR scheme. I did look at the website he directed me to and all I could see was clear descriptions of horses that a trainer was trying to find homes for ... which seemed to contradict what he was saying in his post, that appropriate homes for ex-racers are so few and far between that it is pointless to bother.

 

[Maesfen]

Well, I do happen to agree with him that a lot of them are not suitable for rehoming which is proved time and time again by seeing many of them re-advertised all over again very shortly after the often novice owner has been frightened to death of them. Many of them are former shadows of what they were because they have not been fed properly because the person couldn't cope with them so you get the added problems of neglect by misjudgement of capabilities.
I think a lot of it is down to riders not being totally honest with themselves in the first place and asking if they are really able to cope with them, not just the riding and retraining needed but the additional upkeep of something not long out of training and all the mental and physical issues that go long with that.
I honestly do believe that if a horse is known to be quirky, either to handle or to ride, then in the best interests of that horse, it is better put down than allowed to go down the slippery slope of being passed from pillar to post if circumstances should change and we have all seen that catch phrase in adverts 'owing to change in circumstances'. Yes, it can be true but in many cases it is a get out after having bought something totally unsuitable for that rider and many don't actually care where that horse will end up which to me is shirking responsibility for a living animal.
I also believe that many of them can go on and lead useful safe lives out of racing; I've had many here that were just that, sane, sensible and safe with their odd moments at times; I personally loved to ride a TB, they are the Rolls Royce of horses when you find the right one but they are not for everyone, particularly some of the newer riders about today.
The problems seem to lie in neither the owners or trainers being perfectly honest about each horse as an individual and what sort of life it could safely lead out of racing in a possible novice environment. If there is the slightest doubt as to suitability and acknowledging that most syndicates/owners just want rid, then in all fairness to the horse, do the responsible thing, don't just wash your hands of it. That is the responsible side of horse ownership for anyone whether it be a Shetland or a TB.

 

[ester]

I think it kind of agrees with what I said earlier, that owners should be responsible and put those not suitable for the general public down and rehome those suitable for rehab and rehoming?

 

[Maesfen]

Yes, and I think I agreed with you earlier too when you said it!

 

[tess1]

so am I right in thinking that you both think that the work done by RoR schemes and specialised TB charities is a waste of time as well? And therefore the most responsible thing that any owner can do, if a TB is anything other than the most placid (???) is to have it shot.

Just to reiterate, I don't think that at any point on this thread anyone has suggested that sending TBs to inappropriate homes is the way forward. I certainly don't think that sending them out to 'novice' homes or the general public has ever been suggested.

 

[Optimissteeq]

I think it kind of agrees with what I said earlier, that owners should be responsible and put those not suitable for the general public down and rehome those suitable for rehab and rehoming?

So this I agree with - and is something that I do myself. By re-homing I personally prefer the route of going via the route of using the recognised charities that track the horse and vet the prospective homes. that is not to say we should rule out re-homing to suitable individuals. My own view/worry is that if owners were forced to pay for their retirement for the rest of their lives, then some owners would put the horse to sleep as a default option.

I'd also like to see more funding for the re-homing charities but that's a thorny topic.
My next comment is not made at anyone in particular
I feel the racing industry has come a long way to improving things - yes there's more to do (isn't there always?) but this may be achieved if more constructive ideas were suggested without quite so much emotion. Difficult to do when someone feels very passionately.

 

[Optimissteeq]

so am I right in thinking that you both think that the work done by RoR schemes and specialised TB charities is a waste of time as well? And therefore the most responsible thing that any owner can do, if a TB is anything other than the most placid (???) is to have it shot.

Just to reiterate, I don't think that at any point on this thread anyone has suggested that sending TBs to inappropriate homes is the way forward. I certainly don't think that sending them out to 'novice' homes or the general public has ever been suggested.

Hello Tess,
I do think here you are twisting the words slightly. I understood this as re-homing suitable horses but the unsuitable ones should be PTS. At no point was it stated that suitability meant it had to be placid only. As a point of interest, what would you consider the best option for a horse that bit/attacked people to be?. I do know of one that came to a yard local to me, that had broken several bones in various lads/lassies, would bite at every opportunity and also take chunks out of his stable mates when turned out. I do not know the history of the horse so can't comment on why he was the way he was (I can guess). What would you suggest could be done with this horse? Said horse was ten years old by the way

Edited to add - horse had a series of x-rays and checks for back/foot/teeth problems. Vets concluded it was not pain causing the issue

 

[Maesfen]

Lol Tess, you really do try to twist words to your way of thinking.

I don't think anyone has decried the rehab centres or the RoR premise but you must be able to admit surely, that NOT EVERY HORSE will actually be suitable for rehoming and those that aren't, if a guaranteed permanent safe home is not available with experienced people, then they are surely better off put down so that they don't cause damage to others or suffer themselves.
The rehab centres do a grand job (in the main) but they can't take them all even if owners/trainers were willing to pay due to space and labour constraints, surely you can admit that. Better that they can take the ones that are suitable for retraining than waste resources on something that is a lost cause from the start which is where Ester and I (plus others) say if the horse is not suitable for retraining/rehoming, then do the responsible thing and put it down but we are not saying put all ex-racers down, far from it so don't twist our words.

That's the last I can say, I really must get on and finish a Thomas the Tank engine jumper for my grandson now!

 

[tess1]

if owners were forced to pay for their retirement for the rest of their lives, then some owners would put the horse to sleep as a default option.

But that is not the same as saying "what if everyone were charged a little more". I am not suggesting that an owner should fund a horse for the rest of his life after retirement ... I am saying that, if a revenue was gathered from owners, trainers, punters and bookies - then there would be a 'pot' that could fund each horse's retraining/retirement if they were assesed as being suitable. The severely damaged ones that cannot cope outside the institutionalised environment of racing, then yes, sadly, there is only one option ... but lots of horses could be eased into an enjoyable retirement in various guises. The involvement of bona fide charities, with appropriately experienced staff would ensure that each horse is given either the best retirement option, or, if at any stage it becomes clear they are not going to be safe to handle, a swift and humane end. Homes could be checked and track kept of where horses are. This must surely be better than the current option where the decision rests with the owners, and, if they have no attachment to the horse, shooting will be seen as the easiest (not, necessarily, to my mind) the most responsible choice. To decide to have a horse shot is the most responsible choice if that horse is a danger to himself and possibly those that handle him outside a racing environment, and it is deemed that a process of retraining by experienced folk is not going to improve that situation. Having a horse shot who could lead a useful and happy life after racing is not the most responsible choice, it's just the easiest one for a lot of owners who do not want to be bothered with worrying about their animals once their racing days are over. With a decent system in place the owner would not even need to be involved in the decision making - unless they wanted to be. What is so bad about the racing industry as a whole stepping up and taking responsibility for the fate these animals?

By the way ... if you want to call me over-emotional or under-informed go right ahead, don't pussy foot around by saying "this isn't addressed to anyone but ..." ... at least I haven't compared the plight of racehorses to dumping your granny in the street like the Chief Exec of RoR.

 

[bonny]

What happens in the real world is always going to be different to what happens in an ideal world on a forum ! A lot of owners wouldn't know one end of a horse from another, let alone have the experience to make a decision about a horses future. Also a lot of racehorses are owned by syndicates, who makes the decision then ? I think the situation at present is fine, there are 100's of horses coming out of training every year and some of them will go on to lead useful lives and some won't. The 2 year olds, nearly all colts and fillies who haven't the potential or soundness to race really have no where to go unless their breeding is good enough to warrant going to stud.

 

[Optimissteeq]

if owners were forced to pay for their retirement for the rest of their lives, then some owners would put the horse to sleep as a default option.

But that is not the same as saying "what if everyone were charged a little more". I am not suggesting that an owner should fund a horse for the rest of his life after retirement ... I am saying that, if a revenue was gathered from owners, trainers, punters and bookies - then there would be a 'pot' that could fund each horse's retraining/retirement if they were assesed as being suitable. The severely damaged ones that cannot cope outside the institutionalised environment of racing, then yes, sadly, there is only one option ... but lots of horses could be eased into an enjoyable retirement in various guises. The involvement of bona fide charities, with appropriately experienced staff would ensure that each horse is given either the best retirement option, or, if at any stage it becomes clear they are not going to be safe to handle, a swift and humane end. Homes could be checked and track kept of where horses are. This must surely be better than the current option where the decision rests with the owners, and, if they have no attachment to the horse, shooting will be seen as the easiest (not, necessarily, to my mind) the most responsible choice. To decide to have a horse shot is the most responsible choice if that horse is a danger to himself and possibly those that handle him outside a racing environment, and it is deemed that a process of retraining by experienced folk is not going to improve that situation. Having a horse shot who could lead a useful and happy life after racing is not the most responsible choice, it's just the easiest one for a lot of owners who do not want to be bothered with worrying about their animals once their racing days are over. With a decent system in place the owner would not even need to be involved in the decision making - unless they wanted to be. What is so bad about the racing industry as a whole stepping up and taking responsibility for the fate these animals?

By the way ... if you want to call me over-emotional or under-informed go right ahead, don't pussy foot around by saying "this isn't addressed to anyone but ..." ... at least I haven't compared the plight of racehorses to dumping your granny in the street like the Chief Exec of RoR.

Hi tess,

Just a couple of points here - I actually agree that if owners, trainers and bookies etc were charged a small fee to support the charities then this might work. Your earlier posts seemed aimed soley at owners - hence my response.
Secondly - I am not pussy footing it around as you call it - I was not inferring you specifically with my comment - if you take the thread in it's entirety then there are quite a few emotional responses from both sides. I have not commented on the accuracy of the information shared.
However, your latest response to me does demonstrate that you are being emotional

 

[tess1]

@ Maesfen and Optimisteeq - I don't think I've ever said every horse was suitable for re-homing ... see my post above ...

I am not twisting words ... I am trying to understand the line of thinking on this forum. Here's what I am getting from various posts:

There is no need for the BHA and all that it encompasses (owners, trainers, bookies and punters) to take responsibility for the horses that the entire industry is built on, once they are retired, despite the fact that the racing industry is massively wealthy, and would not exist at all if it weren't for the horses.

It seems that many folk who work in racing have taken on horses, and either kept them themselves or retrained and re-homed them - which is brilliant ... but it should not, and cannot always be down to caring individuals to take responsibility for the welfare of these animals. How many stable staff have felt despair at watching their charge go off to an uncertain future, or untimely death (or both) and not been able to do anything about it? (Sorry if that is a bit 'emotive' for some of you).

According to some, charities are to blame, they are a money making concern, there's not much point in rehabbing horses, most of them aren't rehomable anyway as there aren't enough experienced homes around.

Some people have told me that RoR is a fantastic scheme - now there are changes to that scheme in the offing, but nobody can enlighten this thread as to whether those changes will be better or worse for horses - more money, more horses transitioned through a viable system, or less money, less horses through the system, and more chance of problems.

At no point have I ever said that OTTBs should be rehomed to inappropriate or inexperienced homes; all OTTBs are suitable for rehoming. And yet almost every poster seems to bring that up without fail. I think it must be the 'stand-by' clause now that we have moved the debate on from 'racing is bad but riding schools/coloured cobs/laminitis/numpty owners/fly grazing is worse'.

When people run out of arguments they just make personal attacks on me. I have (I think) answered every question that people have put to me - if I have missed anyone out, I apologise. When I ask for clarification I am told to 'read it again' or that I am 'twisting words'. I have been accused of unsubstatiated twaddle but pretty much every point I've made I've backed up with reference to an article that quotes RoR, WHW, BHA. The Chief Exec of RoR is on record as saying that the plight of race horses currently is akin to throwing your granny out on the street because she is too old, and owners and trainers have got to step up and take responsibility. Because I've found these things out, and quoted them, with links, I've been accused of constructing an argument a politician could be proud of. Talk about shooting the messenger.

 

[tess1]

I think the situation at present is fine, there are 100's of horses coming out of training every year and some of them will go on to lead useful lives and some won't.

There are approximately 5000 horses coming out of training every year.

 

[Alec Swan]

so am I right in thinking that you both think that the work done by RoR schemes and specialised TB charities is a waste of time as well? And therefore the most responsible thing that any owner can do, if a TB is anything other than the most placid (???) is to have it shot.

Just to reiterate, I don't think that at any point on this thread anyone has suggested that sending TBs to inappropriate homes is the way forward. I certainly don't think that sending them out to 'novice' homes or the general public has ever been suggested.

Para 1. Of course not, but honestly now, how many are there out there who have the vital experience and ability to work with those horses which are unable to fit in with the average rider? Even those who have the abilities to get inside the most recalcitrant will have those horses come in, out of training, and though they 'manage' them, the truth is that many of those which the racing industry has discarded will never fit in with anyone but the most experienced. When these unmanageable horses are then re-homed, what is their future?

You also need to bear in mind that all so many horses leave racing at a comparatively young age, and they've simply been worn down by their daily routine. They turn up at a yard, often in a rather poor state. The new owner seeing their pitiful state makes their first serious mistake; they feed them and get them looking well, TOO well often, and then once the animal is fully recovered, that's when the fun and games start! Very few horses have the ability to say 'Thank you', or to be appreciative of being rescued.

Now consider the number of race track misfits. They're in their thousands, annually.

Para 2. Far too many ex-racehorses are released on to the market place, and with predictable results. I'll say it again, the responsible Owner considers the animal and its suitability for a 'pet' home, and then should it be likely that it will live in a mud bath, or as an ornament, and be kept by someone better suited to the more stayed horse, then there is a responsible action to be taken. I've had a good few TBs over the years, and every single flat bred AND raced mare, has arrived with issues and some of them were serious. I have never 'sold-on' any of these horses. NOT so much because of the buyer, but because of the life which the poor creature will have to endure.

Finally!! I don't like the situation any more than you do, but attempting to offer wholesale rehabilitation, will never work; Those with suitable experience are limited, and even when they've worked their miracles, the market for their 'corrected' horses simply doesn't exist, at least not for the number of race-course rejects which there are. As with greyhounds, once their racing days are over, all so often the kindest thing to do for the animal is to put it down, and again, I don't like it any more than you do.

Alec.

ETS; just found your last post; 'There are approximately 5000 horses coming out of training every year.' You've just supported my post. There aren't really the knowledgeable facilities for 10% of that number.

 

[tess1]

Hi tess,

Just a couple of points here - I actually agree that if owners, trainers and bookies etc were charged a small fee to support the charities then this might work. Your earlier posts seemed aimed soley at owners - hence my response.
Secondly - I am not pussy footing it around as you call it - I was not inferring you specifically with my comment - if you take the thread in it's entirety then there are quite a few emotional responses from both sides. I have not commented on the accuracy of the information shared.
However, your latest response to me does demonstrate that you are being emotional

You haven't read my posts clearly ... never have I put the sole responsibility onto owners, I have always talked about the racing industry overall, including the punters, ... the whole point is to take the responsibility off owners, as, unless they have an emotional attachment to the horse slaughter will almost inevitably be the outcome irrespective of the horse's temperament. They should contribute financially, but in a way that is not personal - ie, contribute to a retirement fund via revenue collected through a percentage of trainer's fees, for eg, but not be left to make the decision regarding the horse's future once his racing career is ended ... unless of course they want to.

 

[tess1]

As with greyhounds, once their racing days are over, all so often the kindest thing to do for the animal is to put it down, and again, I don't like it any more than you do.


Seriously?

OK. Thanks for your clarification. Although I am still confused as you start your reply with "of course not" and then tell me how pointless the whole exercise is.

 

[Maesfen]

Well said Alec.

 

[Optimissteeq]

@ Maesfen and Optimisteeq - I don't think I've ever said every horse was suitable for re-homing ... see my post above ...

I am not twisting words ... I am trying to understand the line of thinking on this forum. Here's what I am getting from various posts:

There is no need for the BHA and all that it encompasses (owners, trainers, bookies and punters) to take responsibility for the horses that the entire industry is built on, once they are retired, despite the fact that the racing industry is massively wealthy, and would not exist at all if it weren't for the horses.

It seems that many folk who work in racing have taken on horses, and either kept them themselves or retrained and re-homed them - which is brilliant ... but it should not, and cannot always be down to caring individuals to take responsibility for the welfare of these animals. How many stable staff have felt despair at watching their charge go off to an uncertain future, or untimely death (or both) and not been able to do anything about it? (Sorry if that is a bit 'emotive' for some of you).

According to some, charities are to blame, they are a money making concern, there's not much point in rehabbing horses, most of them aren't rehomable anyway as there aren't enough experienced homes around.

Some people have told me that RoR is a fantastic scheme - now there are changes to that scheme in the offing, but nobody can enlighten this thread as to whether those changes will be better or worse for horses - more money, more horses transitioned through a viable system, or less money, less horses through the system, and more chance of problems.

At no point have I ever said that OTTBs should be rehomed to inappropriate or inexperienced homes; all OTTBs are suitable for rehoming. And yet almost every poster seems to bring that up without fail. I think it must be the 'stand-by' clause now that we have moved the debate on from 'racing is bad but riding schools/coloured cobs/laminitis/numpty owners/fly grazing is worse'.

When people run out of arguments they just make personal attacks on me. I have (I think) answered every question that people have put to me - if I have missed anyone out, I apologise. When I ask for clarification I am told to 'read it again' or that I am 'twisting words'. I have been accused of unsubstatiated twaddle but pretty much every point I've made I've backed up with reference to an article that quotes RoR, WHW, BHA. The Chief Exec of RoR is on record as saying that the plight of race horses currently is akin to throwing your granny out on the street because she is too old, and owners and trainers have got to step up and take responsibility. Because I've found these things out, and quoted them, with links, I've been accused of constructing an argument a politician could be proud of. Talk about shooting the messenger.

Ok Tess,
as you have addressed me specifically, I will demonstrate why I think you were twisting words.
Ester stated 'I think it kind of agrees with what I said earlier, that owners should be responsible and put those not suitable for the general public down and rehome those suitable for rehab and rehoming?
You replied with 'so am I right in thinking that you both think that the work done by RoR schemes and specialised TB charities is a waste of time as well? And therefore the most responsible thing that any owner can do, if a TB is anything other than the most placid (???) is to have it shot.

Where was it said the horse had to be the most placid? Also where was it said the charities were a waste of time? That is why I said you were twisting words.

You will also note that i have agreed with you on some points and it is only in later posts that you have expanded on your view point about making more people accountable and clarifying more the role charities such as RoR can play.

You may not have said that TB's should be re-homed inappropriately, but when people state not all can be-rehomed, you then seem to use this to say people want horses shot when they say not all horses can be re-homed. As evidenced in the above quotes.

I don't thnik anyone is shooting the messenger, they are replying to your posts.

Could you please highlight the post that actually says there is no point in re-homing/re-habbing horses? I don't think I saw that specifically.

 

[whiteroom]

I have already commented on a FB page about this.
A friend phoned me at the end of the race saying that the scenes had persuaded her to campaign against the race. She has no first hand knowledge of horses, unlike the posters on this site or on the Facebook page.
The scenes will have done much to reinforce some of the arguments of Peta and Animal Aid. Yes we know the horses are not whipped to exhaustion and know about whips having used them ourselves, casual once a year watchers maybe do not. Don't forget many, many people will watch to see how the horse they drew in a workplace sweepstake did and they will have seen the overheated winner staggering about. It was an ugly scene.
I really do think the "mike on a pole" should go, I am certain this held Leighton Aspell up in dismounting, prevented the horse being properly cooled and could have led to a tragedy, that would have been viewed by millions. I was screaming at the TV!
I also thought that Oliver Sherwood was very controlled when they prevented him going to the horse, I think I would have told them where to go!
I thought that the Channel 4 coverage was mainly poor. I don't think many people are that interested in fashion and it's hardly Royal Ascot. The coverage of the runners before the race was minimal and the parade only part shown; I never saw Many Clouds before the race. There were too many interviews and a real sense of the commentators getting in the way of pre race preparations.

Thank you - the reason I posted in the first place!! Less Gok, more time to see each horse, less time watching a horse struggle to recover which I felt was leading to possible collapse then sensationalism.

 

[Optimissteeq]

You haven't read my posts clearly ... never have I put the sole responsibility onto owners, I have always talked about the racing industry overall, including the punters, ... the whole point is to take the responsibility off owners, as, unless they have an emotional attachment to the horse slaughter will almost inevitably be the outcome irrespective of the horse's temperament. They should contribute financially, but in a way that is not personal - ie, contribute to a retirement fund via revenue collected through a percentage of trainer's fees, for eg, but not be left to make the decision regarding the horse's future once his racing career is ended ... unless of course they want to.

I was looking at post #313 for example where you quote
So maybe the racing industry should look seriously at tightening up accountability of owners - ie, those that owned the horse at the time their racing career ended.
I now realise that I had the wrong quotes in my head - so apologies as this was not referring to funding retirement
I do note that you have also said others in your posts.

I am not sure this is getting us anywhere though - I agree with some of the things you have said and offered my opinion. I do not agree with your synopsis of the responses, I still believe some are taken out of context but that is my perogative

 

[tess1]

'I think it kind of agrees with what I said earlier, that owners should be responsible and put those not suitable for the general public down and rehome those suitable for rehab and rehoming?

I can't see any reference here to the role of charities/RoR etc. It just seemed to be the owner's decision - end of. A TB leaving the 'system' is likely to be 'quirky' for all but the most experienced - hence my 'placid (???) comment. Given some time off to be a horse and gradually and carefully introduced to a less institutionalised way of life, changes can occur. Then some retraining can begin and decisions made as to the kind of situation this horse would thrive best in. For some horses pts will clearly be the kindest option, and that may well be obvious at the time they are ready to leave the yard ... but it is amazing what time and good handling can heal for a lot of horses. But if the owner is soley responsible for the horse, and he is not likely to want to fund x months of rehab and retraining, then pts will be the default option for a lot of owners. So your viewpoints seemed to not take into account the possibility of a 'safety net' for horses to be assessed objectively, just an owner's decision which will ultimately rest on willingness to financially commit to the horse once the horse's racing days are over, unless that horse is so well-balanced that he will transition easily from race yard to 'normal' life.

I really have no idea what role RoR has in racing now, or in the future, seeing it is in flux, and no one has clarified the repercussions for horses. I'm interested to see the BHA calling for owners and trainers to take responsibility - as I have said previously I feel that should encompass the wider racing industry including bookies and punters. I think, that without financial support though, the role of owner responsibility will be an increase in horses sent directly to slaughter - which may well relieve them of some suffering, but also negates any possibility of any kind of retirement. Contrary to popular belief on here an untimely and unnecessary death is not really a 'responsible' decision to my mind - but neither is sending that horse out into the world ill-prepared and with no safety net. So the BHA are either genuinely determined to increase the financial support to help horses, or they just want to reduce their own support to these horses and are trying to pass the buck to owners/trainers, but have no intention of bringing in legislation to support it ...

I am really astounded that you think I have been suggesting the whole way along that every horse can be saved. I can only assume you have not read or remembered correctly what I have written. I know how badly the racing industry damages horses - for some pts is by far the kindest thing. I have said that, for example, in my reply to Alec - last night I think? I do find it quite astonishing how accepting/apathetic people are of the level of damage a racing life can do to a horse, but that is for a whole other thread.

Alec seems to be the one saying that most horses cannot be rehabbed to the point where it is safe to rehome them. Have a look at some of his past posts.

Personal attacks aren't really valid replies to posts though, are they?

 

[Maesfen]

I do find it quite astonishing how accepting/apathetic people are of the level of damage a racing life can do to a horse,

I'm sorry but it's pointless for us to get hot under the collar about something it is not in our power to change because we are not the ones responsible for any racehorse and what goes on with it either in or out of racing; the owners and the trainers are. They are the ones who can change things.

 

[tess1]

I was looking at post #313 for example where you quote
So maybe the racing industry should look seriously at tightening up accountability of owners - ie, those that owned the horse at the time their racing career ended.
I now realise that I had the wrong quotes in my head - so apologies as this was not referring to funding retirement
I do note that you have also said others in your posts.

I am not sure this is getting us anywhere though - I agree with some of the things you have said and offered my opinion. I do not agree with your synopsis of the responses, I still believe some are taken out of context but that is my perogative

yes, I think that's the only post where I have referred to owners alone, and that was in response to someone else's comment.

I think everyone will have a different synopsis depending on their point of view.

I did notice that you were in agreement with a couple of points.

I don't think this ever gets anyone anywhere, but sometimes it's interesting to explore a topic and see where it goes, see what people really think, what they will defend. I've learnt a fair bit, both from other posters and my own research from this which is always useful. Good way to pass the time for a few days when you are laid up with a badly sprained ankle and can't get about much.

 

[tess1]

I'm sorry but it's pointless for us to get hot under the collar about something it is not in our power to change because we are not the ones responsible for any racehorse and what goes on with it either in or out of racing; the owners and the trainers are. They are the ones who can change things.

Wow, I'm so glad not everyone in the world thinks like this about every topic.

 

[ycbm]

I'm sorry but it's pointless for us to get hot under the collar about something it is not in our power to change because we are not the ones responsible for any racehorse and what goes on with it either in or out of racing; the owners and the trainers are. They are the ones who can change things.

Burglary is not stopped by burglars