Was it hillside that had a bit of a dodgy reputation?

Amymay

Well-Known Member
Joined
1 July 2004
Messages
60,046
Location
South
I think it's more to do with the sheer amount of animals they have and their refusal to foster out.

They do a hay appeal every year.
 

meleeka

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 September 2001
Messages
7,633
Location
Hants, England
A friends horse went to them. I don’t think it’s the sort of place a useful horse would go. They live In large herds so wouldn’t get much one to one attention I don’t think. The horse I know that went there was nervous and dangerous but is a happy chilled out boy these days. They have a lot of supporters who keep the place going financially.
 

Ladyinred

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 November 2007
Messages
7,384
Location
Here
You reminded me, was this the same people who started Redwings, and this was why they could never loan out the horses?
Yes it was. It all went t*ts up with the charity commission and the founder had to leave, whereupon she started Hillside which is NOT a charity but a Not For Profit company.
 

GirlFriday

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 November 2008
Messages
1,268
AFAIK because of the campaigning work Hillside do (for example regarding slaughter houses - which are now going to have cctv but used to have occasional 'undercover' filming from Hillside... exposing some pretty awful practices) they couldn't easily be a charity. Similarly bits of Amnesty are not charities due to the legal definition.

Agree it isn't the kind of place useful animals go. It is a 'last ditch' place where animals get a chance to live, with reasonable amounts of turn out etc, rather than being killed for one reason or another. It isn't like they have a bunch of PC ponies - more the kind of animal that would only ever make an unridden companion. The kind of thing plenty of owners on here are advised to PTS because they don't want to pay for a field ornament - not equines capable of work in the main.

I've no issue with them taking on a non-performing bull that a celebrity wanted to fund the keep of. Seems like a fairly sensible way of raising awareness/funds tbh.
 

rascal

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
1,640
Location
West Midlands
Sorry but when PETA were complaining about someone clipping hearts on their pony, have they really got nothing better to moan about? They are a joke.
So long as the animals needs are being met at Hillside, then great, but i had heard they had more animals than the land can cope with.
 
Last edited:
Joined
7 February 2013
Messages
186
Can you tell us Why?
Yes,as I understand it,Redwings got rid of Wendy Valentine because she didn't want meat served in the café,she is a vegan.I support this as it is a conflict of interests,being an animal rescuer and then eating them.Before you all get up in arms about this. Think about it.why rescue and pet one type and pay someone else(usually) to raise,slaughter another type so you can eat it.The old grey turkey raised her head and said 'In praise of a new born child all mine are dead'.
 

Auslander

Well-Known Member
Joined
13 November 2010
Messages
11,838
Location
Berkshire
Yes,as I understand it,Redwings got rid of Wendy Valentine because she didn't want meat served in the café,she is a vegan.I support this as it is a conflict of interests,being an animal rescuer and then eating them.Before you all get up in arms about this. Think about it.why rescue and pet one type and pay someone else(usually) to raise,slaughter another type so you can eat it.The old grey turkey raised her head and said 'In praise of a new born child all mine are dead'.
I have thought about it, and I do not feel that I am not an animal lover because I eat meat. I'd rather see animals raised well and slaughtered humanely for food, than see them fall into the hands of a bunch of people who are unable to feed and care for them adequately, but feel a sense of moral superiority because they have "rescued" them. There are fates worse than death, fates that a lot of animals in this country are living because they have been saved from slaughter.
 
Joined
20 February 2017
Messages
3,729
Can someone please enlighten me as to why HIllside has a "bad reputation"? Though tbh am not a fan myself; I did work out how many animals they had at one point and it was well into the thousands, yet they don't adopt out any (or very few) and I just don't understand how a bunch of animals who are effectively chucked out into a field can be getting all the attention they need....but maybe that's just me...and by attention I don't mean kisses and cuddles, I mean do all their horses and cows etc. have their legs checked daily and things like that.
 

JFTDWS

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 November 2010
Messages
20,885
Gosh, you're right. As an educated proponent of animal welfare, I've never done that before :rolleyes3:

Like Auslander, I would rather see animals raised - with good welfare standards - for slaughter, than see the demise of production species and farming, or indeed, see them kept by the likes of Hillside.
 

meleeka

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 September 2001
Messages
7,633
Location
Hants, England
Can someone please enlighten me as to why HIllside has a "bad reputation"? Though tbh am not a fan myself; I did work out how many animals they had at one point and it was well into the thousands, yet they don't adopt out any (or very few) and I just don't understand how a bunch of animals who are effectively chucked out into a field can be getting all the attention they need....but maybe that's just me...and by attention I don't mean kisses and cuddles, I mean do all their horses and cows etc. have their legs checked daily and things like that.
They do get checked. There are staff and I know the veterinary bill is huge. You may have seen the yards made out of straw that they winter in, so aren’t out in fields all year.
 

KittenInTheTree

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 October 2014
Messages
1,452
I can never figure out what it is that vegans and vegetarians who want all meat production to be banned have against cats and dogs, ferrets, zoo based carnivores, etc. What level of hate does someone have to possess for an animal that you'd want to have all of them either mass euthanized or allowed to starve to death? Because that's the end result of banning the slaughter of all sheep, cattle, pigs, goats, poultry, game, equines, etc. Humans can adapt to eat other things, but that's not the case for other species. I may not agree with keeping wild animals in zoos, but starving them to death to save the chickens still seems a tad off.
 

Bernster

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 August 2011
Messages
7,429
Location
London
Not for profit organisation who states in their accounts filed 21st March 2017:

'The surplus for the year has increased from £724,045 to £965,692'.....

I also find it interesting that not only was W Valentine remunerated very well for the year (appears to be around £78,000) she was also paid £41,500 in expenses, received interest on a loan to the company of £7,900, received rent from the company of £34,800..

Taking a total income of £162,200 doesn't seem much in the interests of the animals. Could buy a lot of hay for that.
Wowzers, just seen those figures from companies house. Turnover nearly £7m in 2016. I wonder how many people who donate know this and check out who they are donating to. A friend of mine has just donated and shared on her Facebook.
 
Joined
25 January 2015
Messages
3,596
Location
West Sussex
Wowzers, just seen those figures from companies house. Turnover nearly £7m in 2016. I wonder how many people who donate know this and check out who they are donating to. A friend of mine has just donated and shared on her Facebook.
The thing is that's i don't think anyone anyone would begrudge a genuine NPO donations if everything possible was ploughed back into it to provide amazing care, a large outreach, to add gravitas to campaigns.. but none of that seems to be happening.
A TO of £7m and a website that looks like a GCSE student made it; when websites are crucial for people like them for example.. as above posters have said, too much smoke and mirrors for me!
 
Joined
31 May 2013
Messages
1,526
Location
Kent
Yes,as I understand it,Redwings got rid of Wendy Valentine because she didn't want meat served in the café,she is a vegan.I support this as it is a conflict of interests,being an animal rescuer and then eating them.Before you all get up in arms about this. Think about it.why rescue and pet one type and pay someone else(usually) to raise,slaughter another type so you can eat it.The old grey turkey raised her head and said 'In praise of a new born child all mine are dead'.
Mind boggles why the whole set up has to be adjusted to a single persons beliefs...


...and then I have seen other posts.
 
Last edited:

rascal

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
1,640
Location
West Midlands
I really wish I had taken the pictures of the fields that Hillside occupied. I lived nearby, they used fields from the yard I was on and I went past other fields on my daily commute. They would certainly make people think twice about how the animals get to live happily ever after there. 20+ horses in a 1.5 acre paddock over winter, for instance.

They do take 'useful' horses, and yes they get to live out in herds but they are not kept in the way that you would expect a sanctuary to look after them. They have far too many animals for land available and the Frettenham animals are spread out over the best part of a 10 mile radius and are constantly being moved to the next available piece of land after ruining other landowners fields. They used a floodplain/marshes known to flood regularly to put on a whole load of horses and then had to get the local community to rescue them when it flooded.

Equines don't get loaned out because the attitude is that no-one can provide a better home for the animal than Hillside. They did go through a stage of allowing the rehoming of dogs, but I think that has stopped now.

I really dislike how they allow people to believe they are a charity, and I would question the 'not for profit' status.

As for veterinary attention, they don't always seek help when they should - if it looks like it might cost too much or be too time intensive they resort to other methods to treat the animals. Or will try to keep an animal going rather than PTS, even though they have been told by senior vet partners nothing can be done (especially if not prepared to spend). I know 2 people that worked there at separate times that left because they couldn't put up with what they were having to see and deal with. If they voiced their opinion they got told they either put up, or get out.

I don't doubt that they have a part to ply in the increased welfare of farmed/slaughtered animals. However my opinion, based on what I saw every day for over 4 years, is that Hillside is a front for what amounts to a hoarder, and I don't think that should be encouraged.


This is also what i had heard, and why i asked. It is one thing giving the animals a home, but it is quite different if the needs of all these PETS are not met.
 
Last edited:

GirlFriday

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 November 2008
Messages
1,268
20+ horses in a 1.5 acre paddock over winter, for instance.
Can see the issue if they aren't supplied with additional food and/or fight over available resources - but would be raising welfare concerns about a livery yard with restricted winter (or even all year round!) turn out?

Plenty of people pay hundreds/month to keep their horses without winter turn out at all.
 

rascal

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
1,640
Location
West Midlands
I would rather find new homes for the horses, than keep them with no winter turnout.

Ours live out with a shelter, but even when we did keep them in at night in the winter they went out everyday, all day.
 

GirlFriday

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 November 2008
Messages
1,268
And how often do you take on non-ridden companions to let them enjoy that life? Some people obviously do... but very few and far between...
 

SpottyMare

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 December 2013
Messages
441
And how often do you take on non-ridden companions to let them enjoy that life? Some people obviously do... but very few and far between...
Your consistent contrariness across various posts is actually quite funny at times - especially when it appears you're clutching at straws to find something to disagree with :D
 
Joined
26 January 2015
Messages
41
I had a horse who went to hillside due to personal circumstances it was one of toughest days I’ve ever had. I felt like it was quite misleading I know I was parting with that horse and they weren’t keeping him for me but I was told I could contribute to him and they would update me on him I was also told I could volunteer occasionally so I could still see him etc tho since he’s been gone I’ve only had one update and my messages I have sent never get replied to I always think about him. I probably wouldn’t have picked that option if I could have seen in to the future.
 
Top