The PTS society

[Lady La La]

While I agree with some of this post, the argument about which horse gets killed doesn't quite work.

Quite.

 

[AshTay]

Will you buy another when he's gone? If not, OK. But if you will get another, and you do not have your elderly fellow put down tomorrow, then somewhere in a market a perfectly sound horse will go for meat, who would not have gone for meat if you bought a horse to replace yours.

If goes like this:

My horse can't do anything but light hacking any more so I have him put down and buy a Grand Prix baby prospect from someone who can't manage his sharp temperament.

The person who sold me the one with the sharp temperament that they could not manage buys an ISH that someone else finds too strong.

The person who had the too strong ISH buys a gentler ISH from someone who thinks the horse is capable of much more than they are.

The person with the talented ISH goes to the market and pays £500 for a lovely traditional cob in poor condition who was heading for the meat market, loves it and turns it into a super horse who wins local showing competitions.

You see??

But doesn't that shift the blame from the irreponsible person who bred the unwanted cob in the first place (or the person who bought the cob originally but couldn't afford to keep it so sold it on and it ended up at market). If there wasn't this fear of passing a horse on to an uncertain future (i.e. if all futures were favourable) then you could have sold your light hack on rather than pts.


To me, to be PTS is the last option (if there's no suffering, if there's suffering it's the first option). In your scenario above, a non-suffering horse was destined to die either way but you argue that your light hack should go because he was no use to you (but may have been of use to someone else). If you'd kept him, the cob would have gone. Was that fairer?

 

[cptrayes]

While I agree with some of this post, the argument about which horse gets killed doesn't quite work. If everyone kept their horses into retirement and it was unacceptable to pts horses past use, less riding horses would be being bred to meet the reduction in demand. It only works in so far as, replacing your old horse with a young horse destined for slaughter in the current market. Most people are more likely to buy a horse from the "bred to be someone's new young riding horse" market, IYSWIM.

Unfortunately I live in the real world and not in cloud cuckoo land.

Life is not fair folks, and I am not trying to tell anyone what to do. I am simply pointing out that those people who choose to keep paddock ornaments are no better or worse than those of us who choose not to. The end result is the same, other than which horse it is which dies, so there is no point in those with a different point of view claiming a moral high ground.

If we could stop indiscrimate breeding, (I just saw a pink pig fly past my window ) the result would then be that for every paddock ornament kept alive, another young horse that could have been born and had a life will not get that life. How is that any fairer?

 

[AshTay]

If we could stop indiscrimate breeding, (I just saw a pink pig fly past my window ) the result would then be that for every paddock ornament kept alive, another young horse that could have been born and had a life will not get that life. How is that any fairer?

??! I think I've just changed my mind about you again. lol. What a load of horse poo.

 

[Shilasdair]

I love the idea that by retiring my 22yr old Tb mare, I am suddenly responsible for someone else's decision to PTS a riding horse. No, the owner is responsible for that decision, entirely.

I also disagree with the point that because I retired my horse, I don't like riding - I do and am probably not the worst rider on this forum .

However, it's not really a choice about whether you ride, or retire your horse, is it? If you are a decent enough rider, people will offer you rides, and perhaps even pay you to do so.

To raise another point - perhaps it is breeders like Maesfen who are responsible for healthy horses being PTS - if the studs aren't over-supplying a marketplace with diminishing demand, then who is?!

S


PS Nothing personal, Maesfen, just you are the only breeder I remembered on this thread.

 

[Spotsrock]

Sorry, someone seriously thinks that by letting Lottie have a happy relaxed retirement I am killing a horse somewhere at some point in a series of barely connected incidents???

Lottie has been with me through awkward teenage years, 1st relationship, exam stress, skintness, kidnapping, house moves etc. I OWE this little mare my mental health, job, house, relationship and generally contented life, the least she deserves is her retirement.

She is very happy being a field ornament and will still step up and do the odd beginner 20 min lesson for friends kids or OH on half a bute. Technically if I PTS yes I may need a quiet plod for OH but he rides about 20 mins a fortnight, I would not buy one, simples.

I know PTS is not the end of the world and horses live in the moment but Lottie's 'moment' is very happy.

Agree maybe dangerous or seriously ill PTS is kinder if insufficient funds or ability to fix it but insurance is a basic requirement of ownership costs.

Sorry, I don't normally get draw too far into these heated attempts at provoking each other but HOW DARE someone suggest that Lottie should be PTS as she is costing another horse it's life, in what way has the other horse earned it's reprieve more than Lottie????

 

[cptrayes]

??! I think I've just changed my mind about you again. lol. What a load of horse poo.

Tell me which bit you don't understand and I'll explain it again.

If we bred exactly the number and type of horses for which there is demand, and if people replace a horse once it is put down, then for every horse which is put down another will be bred. So if yours is put to sleep, it will have provided a "space" if you like, for another to be born. If you don't put yours to sleep, that horse won't get born.

It's an academic point only, of course, because with all their careful breeding programs even the Dutch and Germans manage to breed surplus unwanted/bent/unfit horses.

 

[cptrayes]

Sorry, someone seriously thinks that by letting Lottie have a happy relaxed retirement I am killing a horse somewhere at some point in a series of barely connected incidents???

Lottie has been with me through awkward teenage years, 1st relationship, exam stress, skintness, kidnapping, house moves etc. I OWE this little mare my mental health, job, house, relationship and generally contented life, the least she deserves is her retirement.

She is very happy being a field ornament and will still step up and do the odd beginner 20 min lesson for friends kids or OH on half a bute. Technically if I PTS yes I may need a quiet plod for OH but he rides about 20 mins a fortnight, I would not buy one, simples.

I know PTS is not the end of the world and horses live in the moment but Lottie's 'moment' is very happy.

Agree maybe dangerous or seriously ill PTS is kinder if insufficient funds or ability to fix it but insurance is a basic requirement of ownership costs.

Sorry, I don't normally get draw too far into these heated attempts at provoking each other but HOW DARE someone suggest that Lottie should be PTS as she is costing another horse it's life, in what way has the other horse earned it's reprieve more than Lottie????

Oh for goodness sake calm down. I simply pointed out that you should not get on some moral high ground if you keep your horse alive, and look down on me if I decide not to. I was not trying to provoke anyone, though clearly it's very easy to do so from the level of offense you managed to find in my post!

I understand why you don't like the idea, but the fact is that if you had Lottie put to sleep tomorrow and bought another horse on Friday, then another horse somewhere will not go for meat in a Friday market, it will be bought as a riding horse. I understand completely why you want to keep Lottie, but just don't look down on me because I would make another choice. If you would not replace Lottie, ever, then this argument does not apply to you.

 

[AshTay]

Tell me which bit you don't understand and I'll explain it again.

.

The bit about it being unfair for a horse to never be born in the first place being just as unfair as a horse being PTS for whatever reason (because it's owner didn't want it or because someone else's paddock ornament was allowed to linger on)??

They're not lining up somewhere patiently waiting for their time to be born!! (and if they were then they'd just have to wait a bit longer wouldn't they.....?)

 

[Lady La La]

. So if yours is put to sleep, it will have provided a "space" if you like, for another to be born. If you don't put yours to sleep, that horse won't get born.

That has absolutely nothing to do with a horses ability to be ridden.

...My horse will be PTS eventually, and no doubt replaced.

 

[DragonSlayer]

Oh sorry missed this little tarade. So sorry I don't know your full life story..must try harder to keep up with a busy forum. But you quiet obviously like to play the woe is me card. You got all these horses you are trying now to sell/kill when you had money I take it..therefore did you make provision for the future???? Guessing that's a no. Which was the OP's point originally incase you missed it?

Sympathy for you not having a holiday in 3 years...pah try 10 years sweetie. Sympathy for trying to feed you son... never met a really poor person in this country with kids, child benefits so don't pull that one. It's your fault the horses that you carelessly bought when you thought you knew it all and had money pouring in are suffering and to expect other people to be sympathetic and understanding is just damn right funny.(if it wasn't so sad that a perfectly healthy horse is being threaten to die)

If you couldn't afford them come what may then you shouldn't have got them in the first place...simple really when you think about it. I can't afford a 5 horse lorry with living and luxury holidays, so guess what? I don't get them.

You made your bed and now your unforunate horses are suffering for it. Greedy selfish people.

Oh and before you pen your witting clever rely don't bother cos opinions of people like you really don't matter so I'll be putting you on ignore..got to love that ignore button.

You really are a strange one, aren't you?

You put me on ignore because you know i'm right.

The question was asked by the OP about the situation, so I put forward a scenario I am facing, and you come out with complete bullshit.

You keep calling me clever, I am, and obviously you don't like my witty replies to the pathetic answers you come back with, so you chose the ignore button. I've done that with people like you before, who cannot stand the fact that someone elses opinion might just hold more water than their own.

Did I say, anyone? It WAS going to happen? I SAID it was a thought, because the horse is in a dilemma....

 

[Shilasdair]

Oh for goodness sake calm down. I simply pointed out that you should not get on some moral high ground if you keep your horse alive, and look down on me if I decide not to. I was not trying to provoke anyone, though clearly it's very easy to do so from the level of offense you managed to find in my post!

I understand why you don't like the idea, but the fact is that if you had Lottie put to sleep tomorrow and bought another horse on Friday, then another horse somewhere will not go for meat in a Friday market, it will be bought as a riding horse. I understand completely why you want to keep Lottie, but just don't look down on me because I would make another choice. If you would not replace Lottie, ever, then this argument does not apply to you.

Actually, I do think I have the moral high ground compared to those who view horses as disposable utensils.
You have the right to PTS any horse that you own that you don't maybe like much, or you can't sell on in the current market. Even one that is a bit stiffer when ridden than it used to be, or whose colour you've never particularly liked.
It's not a welfare issue, but to me it's a moral/ethical issue, and I have the right to think less of you for your choices.
S

 

[Sadiemay]

As has been said MANY times before there are much worse things that can happen to a horse then being PTS humanely. An uncertain future is one of them in my humble opinion. And a horse with issues/quirks is extremely vulnerable

Only us humans know the reasons why it is happening, be it out of necessity or dare I say it, convenience. The horse doesnt know a thing of what is coming or why. All they think "Oooh yummy polo's!, biiiig bucket of feed YUM YUM!" and then bang!, goodnight....god bless. Or they just fall asleep/unconcious if given the injection. They have no concept of the fact they are being PTS. What is so morally wrong with that.

Of course I wish things like this didnt happen and all horses could live their whole lives loved and cared for even after they cannot be ridden and they have no "use" to mankind BUT this is the real world and life just cant always be like that.

What about the millions and millions of just as equally sensitive and intelligent mammals who are rasied for food and live tortouous unatural lives and are killed in the most abhorrent manner? Now THAT is something to campaign about and get angry about IMHO.

Anyways I digress...I peronally dont feel particularly strongly about someones reasons for PTS their horse but I do feel strongly that if thats their choice its done in a fashion that has the horse best interests at heart.

For example if the horse is a stress head/nervous cough up the the extra and have it PTS at home in familiar surroundings rather than transporting to the hunt/abbatoir. I think that kind of consideration is the least one can have for the horse.

I can understand people saying they would rather PTS than risk selling the horse on, especially if it has health issues or behavioural issues. I would not judge them for their choices. But in the same breath I wish people would not judge me on mine for keeping my horse for life. Live and let live people.

As long as a horse is PTS humanely and in a calm manner where the horse has no concept of what is about to happen whats the problem here really?
Sadiemay

 

[cptrayes]

The bit about it being unfair for a horse to never be born in the first place being just as unfair as a horse being PTS for whatever reason (because it's owner didn't want it or because someone else's paddock ornament was allowed to linger on)??

They're not lining up somewhere patiently waiting for their time to be born!! (and if they were then they'd just have to wait a bit longer wouldn't they.....?)

And they aren't standing in the field counting the days til you have them put to sleep either. I see it as very much the same, depriving one actual horse of life it never new it was going to have and will not miss as depriving a theoretical horse of the possibility of life it does not yet know. When you don't actually know either horse, it's easy to see it as days of life missed and it not mattering which horse missed it. Not if you know the horse, of course, I understand that.

Of course it's an entirely academic argument, there will always be an oversupply of horses as long as there is a meat market, and there will always be a meat market.

 

[Muchadoaboutnothing]

Actually, I do think I have the moral high ground compared to those who view horses as disposable utensils.
You have the right to PTS any horse that you own that you don't maybe like much, or you can't sell on in the current market. Even one that is a bit stiffer when ridden than it used to be, or whose colour you've never particularly liked.
It's not a welfare issue, but to me it's a moral/ethical issue, and I have the right to think less of you for your choices.
S

Spot on Shils.

 

[DragonSlayer]

'Reputation'????? Lol sorry but I didn't realise this was a popularity contest. Jeez now that is funny. I actually thought this was a public forum for people to air their opinions, and if DS want's to air their dirty laundry too then why not expect those with a voice to use it????

I really really really couldn't care less what anyone else thinks of my views, all in all my opinion is if you cannot afford an animal then don't get it. Same as those who continue to breed children then complain they can't afford them? I have what I can afford and pay for my own life with MY money earned from working in a shitty horrible job and if that job goes (which it very much might) then I'll deal with it cos it's happened before and it might happen again but the one thing that won't happen is my animals will die because of it. End of.

~gets the violin out~

'oh, poor ickle jsr......who is so broke, but so moral to give up everything it owns....in a shitty job......and has a chip on it's shoulder the size of Mount Everest.......it's such a shame, everyone else is evilllll....~

~sings in a sing-song voice~

 

[Spotsrock]

Oh for goodness sake calm down. I simply pointed out that you should not get on some moral high ground if you keep your horse alive, and look down on me if I decide not to. I was not trying to provoke anyone, though clearly it's very easy to do so from the level of offense you managed to find in my post!

I understand why you don't like the idea, but the fact is that if you had Lottie put to sleep tomorrow and bought another horse on Friday, then another horse somewhere will not go for meat in a Friday market, it will be bought as a riding horse. I understand completely why you want to keep Lottie, but just don't look down on me because I would make another choice. If you would not replace Lottie, ever, then this argument does not apply to you.

I do realise that I am fortunate to be in a position to allow Lots this retirement, she has already been replaced as a working horse and I understand not everyone can do this while their original horse is still costing.

It is (IMO) a responsible decision not to pass on or fob an old horse off on someone and a brave decision to make which I would not judge.

My point was that the horse being potentially pts somewhere as a result of an old horse not being is in no way more entitled to it's life than the old horse. Yes it's sad that it is possibly young and not had a big shot at life but similarly older horses often earn the privelege in ways younger ones haven't.

And how damn sad is it that as a society, our horses right to life has been forced to become a privalege(sp)? Gone are the days where you could easily find a couple of acres to retire your aged hunter to for a couple of years for little or no money and cash crops (and wrong weather) have priced hay out of the equation for many too.

 

[jsr]

Actually, I do think I have the moral high ground compared to those who view horses as disposable utensils.
You have the right to PTS any horse that you own that you don't maybe like much, or you can't sell on in the current market. Even one that is a bit stiffer when ridden than it used to be, or whose colour you've never particularly liked.
It's not a welfare issue, but to me it's a moral/ethical issue, and I have the right to think less of you for your choices.
S

Oh I like you!! You say things so much better than I can. Nice to have a voice of reason and sense.

 

[jsr]

~gets the violin out~

'oh, poor ickle jsr......who is so broke, but so moral to give up everything it owns....in a shitty job......and has a chip on it's shoulder the size of Mount Everest.......it's such a shame, everyone else is evilllll....~

~sings in a sing-song voice~

Is there a particular reason you need to get so personal or is it just a character flaw? Sorry to reply and continue your delight but forgot to ignore as was busy working but I'd like to thank you for reminding me what tit's there are in the world and for giving me a laugh in my boring job. I'm assuming your job isn't that busy either?

 

[cptrayes]

Actually, I do think I have the moral high ground compared to those who view horses as disposable utensils.
You have the right to PTS any horse that you own that you don't maybe like much, or you can't sell on in the current market. Even one that is a bit stiffer when ridden than it used to be, or whose colour you've never particularly liked.
It's not a welfare issue, but to me it's a moral/ethical issue, and I have the right to think less of you for your choices.
S

You don't have the right without knowing me to suggest that I might have a horse put to sleep because it was the wrong colour. I know you pride yourself in writing offensive things (but always with a smilie, so you can pretend it's just a joke) to get a reaction Shils, but I didn't think even you would write something that stupid .

 

[AshTay]

And they aren't standing in the field counting the days til you have them put to sleep either. I see it as very much the same, depriving one actual horse of life it never new it was going to have and will not miss as depriving a theoretical horse of the possibility of life it does not yet know. When you don't actually know either horse, it's easy to see it as days of life missed and it not mattering which horse missed it. Not if you know the horse, of course, I understand that.

I agree that depriving an actual horse of a life it never knew it was going to have isn't an evil thing.

But to me it's definitely worse to deprive an actual horse of a life grazing peacefully in a field than it is to deprive a theoretical horse of the possibility of a life it doesn't know. Is every ovulation cycle of a mare a wasted opportunity of a life if she's not sucessfully covered???

(and why do you assume a retired horse is waiting to die - I could suggest that your ridden horses are less happy than my unridden field ornament....).

 

[Shilasdair]

You don't have the right without knowing me to suggest that I might have a horse put to sleep because it was the wrong colour. I know you pride yourself in writing offensive things (but always with a smilie, so you can pretend it's just a joke) to get a reaction Shils, but I didn't think even you would write something that stupid .

I think when you start insulting other posters, for example calling them 'stupid' and saying they write 'offensive things', then you must know that your position is not tenable.
S

 

[cptrayes]

Shils if you will write stupid things like suggesting that I (you did use the word "you", a personal pronoun) would have a horse put down because it was the wrong colour, then I think being called offensive and stupid is the least you could expect, no?

 

[DragonSlayer]

Is there a particular reason you need to get so personal or is it just a character flaw? Sorry to reply and continue your delight but forgot to ignore as was busy working but I'd like to thank you for reminding me what tit's there are in the world and for giving me a laugh in my boring job. I'm assuming your job isn't that busy either?

You made it personal by airing your own laundry and telling us how 'woe is me' you are by all the good things you have done for your animals., and you said you put me on ignore, is that because you cannot stand my witty replies?

Now, we can throw insults all day, but I give you this question.

Rent/mortgage or livery?

Which would you pay? And please don't give us your life story once more about having to sell that dear little cottage, I couldn't stand it....

A simple one word answer will do.

 

[Wagtail]

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. They don't know, or care, that they could have lived more years. It is only the owner that knows or cares about that.

For every horse whose owner thinks that they owe them the rest of their natural lives as a paddock ornament, there is another sound horse somewhere being killed for no reason at all.

Is it really anything to congratulate yourself for, and feel superior to those of us who do not think the way you 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?

Are you talking about horses or cars?

 

[Shilasdair]

Shils if you will write stupid things like suggesting that I (you did use the word "you", a personal pronoun) would have a horse put down because it was the wrong colour, then I think being called offensive and stupid is the least you could expect, no?

Well, I could have used 'one' instead of 'you', I suppose, although that sounds quite dated.
It was a general point, regarding y/our legal rights differing from y/our moral/ethical rights and responsibilities.
I am sure you heard a little 'swoosh'.
S

 

[cptrayes]

I agree that depriving an actual horse of a life it never knew it was going to have isn't an evil thing.

But to me it's definitely worse to deprive an actual horse of a life grazing peacefully in a field than it is to deprive a theoretical horse of the possibility of a life it doesn't know. Is every ovulation cycle of a mare a wasted opportunity of a life if she's not sucessfully covered???

(and why do you assume a retired horse is waiting to die - I could suggest that your ridden horses are less happy than my unridden field ornament....).

Gosh, we must be getting close to existentialism now I think we basically agree that there are worse things for a horse than to be dead, and it's everyone's responsibility to do what they consider is the best for their horse.

I don't assume a retired horse is waiting to die. I am saying that NO horse is waiting to die. They have no concept of their future mortality like humans do, I am convinced of that.

 

[Spotsrock]

Shils if you will write stupid things like suggesting that I (you did use the word "you", a personal pronoun) would have a horse put down because it was the wrong colour, then I think being called offensive and stupid is the least you could expect, no?

I believe the pronoun 'you' may have been used in the current common vernacular in which it represents also the phrase 'an individual' or 'someone' or 'people' as in 'you just can't do that' in conversation does not mean that the person being spoken to cannot do something but rather that an individual or people in general should not do what ever is being referred to.

I may be wrong.

 

[jsr]

You made it personal by airing your own laundry and telling us how 'woe is me' you are by all the good things you have done for your animals., and you said you put me on ignore, is that because you cannot stand my witty replies?

Now, we can throw insults all day, but I give you this question.

Rent/mortgage or livery?

Which would you pay? And please don't give us your life story once more about having to sell that dear little cottage, I couldn't stand it....

A simple one word answer will do.

Livery.

Oh sorry to write more than one word but just going to yard now to feed my horse with the money I would have used to buy my shoes or feed my child if I could afford to have one so I'm not ignoring your replies but having no internet at home I won't be online again.

 

[Shilasdair]

I believe the pronoun 'you' may have been used in the current common vernacular in which it represents also the phrase 'an individual' or 'someone' or 'people' as in 'you just can't do that' in conversation does not mean that the person being spoken to cannot do something but rather that an individual or people in general should not do what ever is being referred to.

I may be wrong.

Perfectly correct.
One will try harder with one's grammar in future to avoid being insulted.
S