The PTS society

Hate coming to a long thread late as it's virtually pointless to reply but had to here as OP I am totally with you on this one.

I have just come to the decision to buy a 2yo as my horse is now 13/14 and I do need to think about his successor. First thing I did was finances, second thing was time and doing them both justice.

I have thought it through very carefully and also every eventuality - that if I can't afford them both either money- or time-wise, the youngster will be sold as it will have a CV and prospects and the utmost done to find him an excellent home. I will have had fun and experience to boot. The older horse will absolutely not be shot if he does not require it as he would have if he'd remained my only mount!

Yes PTS is better than either passing it on because it has issues, mental or physical, or because it is no longer a contented animal. My lad is a work addict, I have concerns about how to manage a retirement for him but if I can do it, i.e. he is happy, he shall have that for as long as he needs.

I think the key is, PTS is right when it is the best option for the HORSE, and not the best option for YOU.

Also totally with you on the "it's quirky (hate that word. What exactly is wrong with it? What haven't you fixed or what have you caused?) so I couldn't possibly pass it on, noone else will understand/manage/treat it like I do". Incredibly egotistical and not in the horse's best interests.

At risk of sounding like a sycophant also with you on the twisting words/not reading properly thing. It's made me take a hol from here recently, it's so irritating when you pose a question, readers see what they want to see and post a response to a different issue, other readers read their responses and take their view of what you have said as what you have said...and it descends. But that is less important than the constant forum cry of "PTS!!" in so many situations where the animal is NOT genuinely at risk of ending up as a Spindle's Farm case.
 
skewby said:
Hate coming to a long thread late as it's virtually pointless to reply but had to here as OP I am totally with you on this one.

I have just come to the decision to buy a 2yo as my horse is now 13/14 and I do need to think about his successor. First thing I did was finances, second thing was time and doing them both justice.

I have thought it through very carefully and also every eventuality - that if I can't afford them both either money- or time-wise, the youngster will be sold as it will have a CV and prospects and the utmost done to find him an excellent home. I will have had fun and experience to boot. The older horse will absolutely not be shot if he does not require it as he would have if he'd remained my only mount!

Yes PTS is better than either passing it on because it has issues, mental or physical, or because it is no longer a contented animal. My lad is a work addict, I have concerns about how to manage a retirement for him but if I can do it, i.e. he is happy, he shall have that for as long as he needs.

I think the key is, PTS is right when it is the best option for the HORSE, and not the best option for YOU.

Also totally with you on the "it's quirky (hate that word. What exactly is wrong with it? What haven't you fixed or what have you caused?) so I couldn't possibly pass it on, noone else will understand/manage/treat it like I do". Incredibly egotistical and not in the horse's best interests.

At risk of sounding like a sycophant also with you on the twisting words/not reading properly thing. It's made me take a hol from here recently, it's so irritating when you pose a question, readers see what they want to see and post a response to a different issue, other readers read their responses and take their view of what you have said as what you have said...and it descends. But that is less important than the constant forum cry of "PTS!!" in so many situations where the animal is NOT genuinely at risk of ending up as a Spindle's Farm case.
Click to expand...

Good post Skewby.
Shils also - brilliant.

I disagree with the notion that if a horse is no longer able to do the job it was purchased for and cannot be found a good home, the owner is entitled to PTS, not because of poverty, but because it is useless to them and therefore have the right to take its life away and replace it with a working model. Thankfully Carl Hester does not share this view.
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/307414.html

Many decent riders with limited funds value their horses in retirement. For those in difficult unforseen circumstances, no criticism, when life takes a turn for the worse, choice is the first luxury to be lost.
 
Not read any replys, so sad you lost a horse you loved, I understand you not wanting to go through not only the cost ( above your insurance ) the pain of losing your horse again.
Yes, horses do get PTS, as no pennies for treatment costs.
You cant sell on as who wants to buy a horse that is going to cost them lots of money in vet bills.
I would love an equine insurance company who would pay for lifelong treatment ( quality of life applies) other readers might know one.
If you are not buying your own, going to a local yard at least you would still get to ride.
 
Ah but Amymay knows that's not what I said, doesn't she? Thanks Amymay, cheque's in the post :)

Can someone point me to the threads containing the "constant cry" of people are recommending a poster to put a healthy and behaviourly sane horse to sleep? I have never seen one.
 
Last edited:
... but you did say this:


cptrayes said:
I am not ashamed to say that I keep my horses to ride. When they cannot be ridden to the standard at which I want to ride, I owe them either to find them a good home, or if that is not possible, to have them humanely killed. I don't feel that I owe them a home for life if they can't do what they were bred to do.

...You are simply saving one horse that you know and condemning another that you don't to death. Meanwhile you are depriving yourself of the absolute joy of riding a horse that you are at one with. Where is the special merit in any of that?
Click to expand...

... and have failed to answer, when questioned, why the hell by retiring a horse that has worked for me for 20 years ... I am directly responsible for condemning another horses death? The notion is ridiculous.

As I've already mentioned, I know the kindness a well placed bullet can bring... however I don't chose to throw my horses away as soon as they reach retirement. The fact that you do, is down to your own (selfish) reasons, but as long as it is done humanely... there isn't much to be said on the matter.

I just find it quite bizare that by allowing my horses to live out their days in comfortable retirement, you believe I am responsible for the deaths of many others?
 
Last edited:
Just read the first few posts on this thread - every case is different in my opinion. I don't believe you can live your life on "what ifs" - or you would never do anything and never have any fun in life. If a horse is no longer useful to the owner in any way, shape or form, then there must come a point where you have to either give it away to someone who can keep it in a field for the rest of its days at little expense, or have it PTS. No way should you pay livery for it for the rest of its days if it is causing you financial difficulties - that could go on for years. And where are these people who have a few thousand put aside for the "what ifs"? In this day and age, most people are struggling financially. Horse insurance surely is there to cover the "what ifs" and anything over and above that would surely be an extreme case. On the other side of the coin, I know of someone who has had a horse for 3 years, and only ridden it twice when she first got it. It is an ex racehorse and has since then had about £30k in vets bills spent on it (which the rest of us are supplementing by our insurance fees). It will never be ridden again, it is bad tempered, angry and in pain yet she wont PTS - now that is wrong!
 
DragonSlayer said:
What mobile phone, oh...the one that never has credit? Sky? WTF is that? We havent had a holiday in 3 years, the house is up for sale.

You talk out your arse my dear. Who can predict redundancy? Can you? Jolly good, you will save people alot of heart-ache.

Are you daft? He is NOT the only one I have for sale. Read that as you wish.

Last time we we had a meal out?

Can't remember.

So get off your high-horse Sunshine, telling me to 'suck it up' when you know jack s**t about what people have gone through to get to this point., I fully know my responsibilities, and to have him PTS is a far better action than allowing the poor devil to suffer at the hands elsewhere.

When it comes to feeding my son or my horse, my son will win.
Click to expand...

***applauds***

Same here....I love my horses- I can afford to buy and keep them and look after them PROPERLY....if my circumstances changed then I'm afraid my husband and children come first. I wouldn't deprive them of food / roof over their head/ chance of Uni etc etc to put the horses first. And if the horses were aged/tricky/injured etc and if I thought PTS was the better option then I would do it without a shadow of doubt and I wouldn't give a stuff what anyone else thought- because until they'd been me in my circumstances then they wouldn't have the right to judge.
 
Spudlet said:
I would sooner see a horse PTS that passed on and on and on in a downward spiral, because I have seen the bottom of that spiral and it ain't pretty. I've no wish to see horses shot. But I would rather that than see some of the other stuff I've seen - and still see, some nights when I'm asleep.

Horses are kept safe from harm because they have financial value, and sentimental value. Sadly, an unrideable horse with ongoing health or behavioural problems has little financial value, and unless it's your horse, that you love, it has little sentimental value either, at least not to anyone else. So what keeps those horses safe when they're given away? You are really shoving them out there into the cold. When you take on an animal, you take on the responsibility to keep it safe and protect it from harm, to the best of your ability, for the rest of its life. That means you feed it, and water it, and care for it, and make it well when it's sick, and if you can't do that any more you find it a good and trusted home, and if you can't do that, you face the fact that actually, death is not the worst fate that animal can suffer. And you cry your tears and you live with the guilt, because that is the deal. That's the bargain. They give us everything, and they ask for so little in return - but part of our half of the bargain is a peaceful ending, without fear or pain.

And I'm sorry if people don't like it. I'm sorry if people think I'm a horse killing psycho. But I will carry on saying what I do, because I believe it to be right.
Click to expand...

This has to be one of the best posts of the whole thread, although I agree with AmyMay too that cptrayes has made some excellent replies as well and given this thread a better balance.

Whatever your thoughts on this, only one thing must be common to all, that you do your best for your horse at all times. It's all that they need and deserve.
 
Whatever happened to the notion of caring for a good and faithful servant, as many horses have been ?

To have a horse shot because no one else offers a good home, when the owner has the means to keep it, is surely abhorrent ?
 
How many of you have secured your horses futures for after YOU die?

I watched five horses be neglected for many years, not badly enough to call the RSPCA because they had food and water. They were in pain, wormy and uncared for, exposed to the elements 24/7 on a barren Peak Park hillside. The young woman who owned them died. Her non horsey parents could not bear to let them go, they were the last reminder of their daughter. Those horses suffered until finally four of them were put to sleep and the last taken to a rescue centre.

You love your horse so much that you keep it alive. Someone else is not going to have that emotional bond and may take it to an abattoir and sell it for meat, or send it through the auctions.

Make a will securing your horse's future before you congratulate yourselves on doing the best for your horses. That will probably mean that you need to leave at least £300 to someone to have the horse put to sleep, or thousands to keep it alive to feed it AND the £300 to eventually have it put down. I hope you have that saved in the bank?
 
Last edited:
I actually agree with a lot of what you say, Cptrayes
... but you still haven't explained to me, why I am directly responsible for another horses death when I chose to retire my own? Sorry to sound like a broken record, but I still haven't had an answer?

Also, I dont think anyone is disputing the fact that having a horse PTS in many of these circumstances, is a bad thing. We all know there are far, far worse fates out there for our horses...
 
Last edited:
I think a lot of people forget about the fairly common circumstances which arise with young but useless horses. For me, ethically it is a very different thing to pts a twenty odd year old horse which has worked for you for fifteen years and now needs to retire, but what about when a twelve year old you've had for five years can't work, or a six year old you've had six months? I can understand why to some people the second set of circumstances is worse, but to me its just not realistic to spend most of my wages on a horse to be a pet all its life.

Skewby, you've got it all figured out. What if your new youngster's hocks pack up aged about eight and its only field sound, just when your other horse needs total retirement? Buy a third horse? Stop riding any horses of your own until the oldest is ready to euthanize then get a new riding horse and keep the other retiree all the rest of its natural life as a pet? Lucky horses if you are in a situation and are prepared to do that, you are talking about many, many years though.

For me that would be too much money to spend on my hobby, which is riding :eek: not looking after horses although of course there is some overlap, when I wasn't actually getting to do the hobby!
 
Lady La La said:
... but you did say this:




... and have failed to answer, when questioned, why the hell by retiring a horse that has worked for me for 20 years ... I am directly responsible for condemning another horses death? The notion is ridiculous.

As I've already mentioned, I know the kindness a well placed bullet can bring... however I don't chose to throw my horses away as soon as they reach retirement. The fact that you do, is down to your own (selfish) reasons, but as long as it is done humanely... there isn't much to be said on the matter.

I just find it quite bizare that by allowing my horses to live out their days in comfortable retirement, you believe I am responsible for the deaths of many others?
Click to expand...

I stand by what I wrote and I believe that many people would write the same if they did not get attacked the way I am being attacked by you and other people.

I have never said you are directly responsible for condemning another horse to death, but the fact remains that if you go and buy another horse today, there is a horse somewhere which will not end up in a tin of catfood. This is true for any of us. I could afford more horses, but I do not feel that I am responsible for condemning any horses to death for not buying more, and neither should you.

But what I do not think you should do is condemn me because I choose not to keep an unsound horse alive as a paddock ornament and I would buy a new one. We are both keeping the same number of horses alive, I just don't personally know the horse who is alive because I replaced mine. And the one who is dead does not care.
 
Last edited:
cptrayes said:
I stand by what I wrote and I believe that many people would write the same if they did not get attacked the way I am being attacked by you and other people.

I have never said you are directly responsible for condemning another horse to death, but the fact remains that if you go and buy another horse today, there is a horse somewhere which will not end up in a tin of catfood. This is true for any of us. I could afford more horses, but I do not feel that I am responsible for condemning any horses to death for not buying more, and neither should you.
Click to expand...

I certainly haven't attacked you... merely asked you a question. :rolleyes:

& you DID say I would be responsible for condemning another horse to death if I retired my own.
Your reasoning here makes no sense, either. My retired horse will, eventually, be PTS - and no doubt replaced with another. By your reasoning, I have 'saved' another horse from death - just a few years later.

Dont try and paint you having your horses destroyed when they are no longer rideable as anything other than selfish. You certainly aren't 'saving' any more lives.
 
Last edited:
Lady La La said:
I certainly haven't attacked you... merely asked you a question. :rolleyes:

& you DID say I would be responsible for condemning another horse to death if I retired my own.
Your reasoning here makes no sense, either. My retired horse will, eventually, be PTS - and no doubt replaced with another. By your reasoning, I have 'saved' another horse from death - just a few years later.

Dont try and paint you having your horses destroyed when they are no longer rideable as anything other than selfish. You certainly aren't 'saving' any more lives.
Click to expand...

I have checked and I did not use the word responsible, never mind "directly", that I can find. That came from you.

I am not "saving" a life. But I am replacing one life with another. You are no better than me in what you do. You can believe it if it makes you feel better about yourself, but for the horse population our actions are the same, except that no horse of mine has even the remotest possibility of being left in low grade, chronic pain life the horses of my friends that I see all around me.
 
Last edited:
DD I'm sorry but I do think you are self righteous

I have horses as I love them AND they are what gives me a reason to get up in the morning.

I lost my teenage daughter some 10 years ago, she was everything to me. Her horse was what gave me reason to go on with my life, not just go to pieces and curl in a corner

I have had horses ever since

Then 6 years ago my husband of 23 years up and left.

I have RA and ankle replacement has reduced my income drastically

However I still bought a new horse!! TO RIDE not to pet. I would not keep a horse I could not ride. I love riding and it is why my RA is better than ever. I honestly believe without the riding I would not physically be able to look after a horse for long. It is the riding that keeps me moving.
If I had to I think I would PTS a horse that I could not ride or rehome properly. whether I could actually do it on the day is another matter BUT it would be what I intended to do, right or wrong it is MY life and I feel I owe it to my daughter to have as good a life as I can because hers was cut short so tragically

So despite the fact that horses are my life you are telling me that because I couldn't afford £xxx for vet fees I shouldn't have them. just how much should someone be able to afford before 'you' think they should have a horse?

Sorry but stuff you!!!!

My horse is insured and I could scrape £500-£2000 if I sold my lorry over night for silly money. but not without selling it. I only have £300 in the bank

He has shoes EVERY 6 Weeks
chiro 3 times already this year
Dentist twice a year
jabs are up to date

Vet was called for a minor swelling (no lameness) just because it was near a tendon
 
Last edited:
Lady La La said:
I certainly haven't attacked you... merely asked you a question. :rolleyes:

& you DID say I would be responsible for condemning another horse to death if I retired my own.
Your reasoning here makes no sense, either. My retired horse will, eventually, be PTS - and no doubt replaced with another. By your reasoning, I have 'saved' another horse from death - just a few years later.

Dont try and paint you having your horses destroyed when they are no longer rideable as anything other than selfish. You certainly aren't 'saving' any more lives.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Also, the more people who PTS horses so that they can get a shiney new one, the higher the demand and threfore the more horses are bred. The whole cycle goes round again.

I also asked why I should put my mare who I adore PTS in order to save a new horse that I don't even know? She is my horse of a lifetime.

If more people kept their horses until they needed to be PTS for humane reasons then far fewer animals would be bred and therefore suffer at the hands of unscrupulous owners or go for meat.
 
cptrayes said:
I am not ashamed to say that I keep my horses to ride. When they cannot be ridden to the standard at which I want to ride, I owe them either to find them a good home, or if that is not possible, to have them humanely killed. I don't feel that I owe them a home for life if they can't do what they were bred to do.
Click to expand...

M_G said:
At no point did CPT ACTUALLY say that.
Shils implied that they did.
Click to expand...

I think he did.
 
cptrayes said:
Yes I said you would be responsible, in that another horse would be saved if you did buy a replacement for yours. But this is a LONG way from being "directly" responsible, which is what you said I had accused you of, and I did not.

I am not "saving" a life. But I am replacing one life with another. You are no better than me in what you do. You can believe it if it makes you feel better about yourself, but for the horse population our actions are the same, except that no horse of mine has even the remotest possibility of being left in low grade, chronic pain life the horses of my friends that I see all around me.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that mine are?
'Responsible' means just that, whether directly so or otherwise... I am not responsible for the death of another horse by allowing mine to retire.
Also, you say I'm 'no better' than you - at what point was I trying to be?

Yet another post from you that leaves my questions unanswered.
My horse will be PTS eventually, just not the very minute that she ceases to be of any ridden use to me. When this happens, another will be bought - somewhat dissproving your theory that, by putting your animals down as soon as they need to be retired, you are helping the equine world... :rolleyes:
 
Wagtail said:
Exactly. Also, the more people who PTS horses so that they can get a shiney new one, the higher the demand and threfore the more horses are bred. The whole cycle goes round again.

I also asked why I should put my mare who I adore PTS in order to save a new horse that I don't even know? She is my horse of a lifetime.

If more people kept their horses until they needed to be PTS for humane reasons then far fewer animals would be bred and therefore suffer at the hands of unscrupulous owners or go for meat.
Click to expand...

Oh Wagtail please don't be silly. No-one has ever suggested that you should have your own horse put to sleep! It doesn't make you a better person than me if you don't though.

HE is a SHE. There are women who can think as logically as men do :)
 
Lady La La said:
Are you suggesting that mine are?
'Responsible' means just that, whether directly so or otherwise... I am not responsible for the death of another horse by allowing mine to retire.
Also, you say I'm 'no better' than you - at what point was I trying to be?

Yet another post from you that leaves my questions unanswered.
My horse will be PTS eventually, just not the very minute that she ceases to be of any ridden use to me. When this happens, another will be bought - somewhat dissproving your theory that, by putting your animals down as soon as they need to be retired, you are helping the equine world... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This is just stupid now. I did not use the word responsible. You did.

I am not helping the equine world and I never claimed to be.

But get off your high horse please, by keeping your horse alive and me having mine put down, the effect on the equine world as a whole is identical.
 
cptrayes said:
This is just stupid now. I did not use the word responsible. You did.

I am not helping the equine world and I never claimed to be.

But get off your high horse please, by keeping your horse alive and me having mine put down, the effect on the equine world as a whole is identical.
Click to expand...

Quite - so dont try to paint a positive spin on your selfish actions.

(& no you used the word 'condemn' - perhaps worse? ;) )
 
Well I think that's the end of any sensible discussion, eh folks :)

Just off outside to feed the horses I selfishly want to ride :) Ooh, better feed the paddock ornament too or he might bite my knees.
 
Wagtail said:
Exactly. Also, the more people who PTS horses so that they can get a shiney new one, the higher the demand and threfore the more horses are bred. The whole cycle goes round again.

I also asked why I should put my mare who I adore PTS in order to save a new horse that I don't even know? She is my horse of a lifetime.

If more people kept their horses until they needed to be PTS for humane reasons then far fewer animals would be bred and therefore suffer at the hands of unscrupulous owners or go for meat.
Click to expand...
That's a very good point too and one I hadn't considered.

Shooting a healthy older horse who's served you well just because you want a different one, selling it on when you know its useful life is truly in doubt and its prospects are poor, and keeping a horse alive beyond when it is comfortable because you don't have the balls to PTS or face your grief afterwards, are all despicable and I don't believe that anyone is truly advocating any of those things on this thread.

Lovely lovely story about Carl Hester too, just terrific news.
 
If one has a horse and it is older than say fourteen ,then I believe that it should stay in a secure home for however long that owwner chooses.I absolutely hate seeing old horses on "the merrygoround" .However if someone chooses to keep horses for the love of them,has their own land and keeps them well..then why not?
It is a totally different thing if an owner has to pay livery fees,and I do sympathise .I have two horses,my own land .On average they cost me no more than (tops) £1000 a year,to include foot care ,hayledge ,everything. Not moaning at that,and both girls will live out their lives here.Both are rideable ,and occasionally are,but the pleasure of having two charming mares far outweighs that for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top