What constitutes neglect?

digitalangel

digitalangel

Well-Known Member
Joined
13 November 2006
Messages
1,857
Location
BellEnd.
Visit site
Following on from a conversation i was having with my friend yesterday, what would you constitute as a neglected animal? There are certainly a lot of skinny animals out there, and a lot of unrugged horses, but does this in itself constitute neglect? How would you define it?

Me personally my 'version' is a horse that may have the following:
- not wormed
- not rugged and needs it ( ie skinny )
- feet not seen to
- insufficient grazing and hay not supplied ( again, expect to see a skinny horse )
- lame horse that has not been seen to by a vet.

What is your version of neglect?
 
digitalangel said:
Following on from a conversation i was having with my friend yesterday, what would you constitute as a neglected animal? There are certainly a lot of skinny animals out there, and a lot of unrugged horses, but does this in itself constitute neglect? How would you define it?

Me personally my 'version' is a horse that may have the following:
- not wormed
- not rugged and needs it ( ie skinny )
- feet not seen to
- insufficient grazing and hay not supplied ( again, expect to see a skinny horse )
- lame horse that has not been seen to by a vet.

What is your version of neglect?
Click to expand...

I think you need to be careful here. Some of the criteria you have chosen are very subjective and hard to quantify

A horse doesn't necessarily need worming - it needs worm management (not the same thing).

Not all horses need rugs, IMHO many horses are over rugged which can be just as cruel
Feet not seen to - something of a minefield there are grossly unhealthy feet out there which are seen to regularly - every 6 weeks or less - is this ok? Or do you mean unhealthy feet which are not being brought to full health? While I would love the latter to be addressed it is going to be a long and slow journey.
Horses need suitable turnout and adequate forage - but the definition of skinny is often in the eye of the beholder and therefore subjective and many UK horses are obese which again is equally cruel - shouldn't we pursue the fatties equally?
Lame horse not seen by vet - again this criteria needs strict quantification. It may be that the horse has been seen by a vet and has been retired as a pasture ornament. Also I regularly come across lame horses which have been seen by vets and are still working/competing. I have to ask which is worse?

Personally I think it is not a good thing for horse welfare for a horse to be in 24/7 unless for a strictly acute medical reason. Likewise turned out on their own or overweight. Laminitis is the second biggest cause of premature death in horses but we choose to keep them fat?
 
Last edited:
The Five Freedoms not being met. These are:
Freedom from hunger and thirst
Freedom from discomfort
Freedom from pain, injury and disease
Freedom to display normal behaviour
Freedom from fear and distress

This includes obese horses as well as thin ones!
 
I see your points definitely and you have raised some good issues about laminitis and management.

But this is exactly why i posted this - there are so many 'what ifs' and quantification like you say - so when is neglect, actually neglect? is it when the horse hasnt seen a farrier for X weeks? how skinny or indeed fat does a horse have to be? how lame? at one point does a horse stop being under vet care? whats worse? a horse in a field full of ragwort or a field full of rish grass?

its alll very interesting to think about! at WHAT point does it cross the line? is there any special criteria???



LucyPriory said:
I think you need to be careful here. Some of the criteria you have chosen are very subjective and hard to quantify

A horse doesn't necessarily need worming - it needs worm management (not the same thing).

Not all horses need rugs, IMHO many horses are over rugged which can be just as cruel
Feet not seen to - something of a minefield there are grossly unhealthy feet out there which are seen to regularly - every 6 weeks or less - is this ok? Or do you mean unhealthy feet which are not being brought to full health? While I would love the latter to be addressed it is going to be a long and slow journey.
Horses need suitable turnout and adequate forage - but the definition of skinny is often in the eye of the beholder and therefore subjective and many UK horses are obese which again is equally cruel - shouldn't we pursue the fatties equally?
Lame horse not seen by vet - again this criteria needs strict quantification. It may be that the horse has been seen by a vet and has been retired as a pasture ornament. Also I regularly come across lame horses which have been seen by vets and are still working/competing. I have to ask which is worse?

Personally I think it is not a good thing for horse welfare for a horse to be in 24/7 unless for a strictly acute medical reason. Likewise turned out on their own or overweight. Laminitis is the second biggest cause of premature death in horses but we choose to keep them fat?
Click to expand...
 
Well, there are codes of practice that give an idea of the intervals needed for farriery, vaccinations etc, as well as information on condition scoring etc - there is a Scottish government one, a Welsh government one, a DEFRA one, and the National Equine Welfare Council compendium. So this information is out there and free to access, IMO there is not really any excuse for people to say they didn't know. Obviously it varies from horse to horse, but there is advice and help out there for people if they need it.

Crossing the line might come when you move from just not meeting the five freedoms to actually causing suffering by doing so. So, from having a fat horse to one that has chronic laminitis due to its body condition, for example. Or maybe from keeping a horse in an unsafe environment to the horse becoming injured by something in that environment.
 
so, would you say that a horse is neglected if the owner does not adhere to the guidelines? of course i dont think every horse can strictly adhere to the guidelines, and every horse is different, and some might be harder to keep weight on or off, depending on the type. But if the owner is being seen to be doing *something* ie, providing hay and rugs to a skinny horse, or exercising/restricting a fat horse, then in my mind the horse is not neglected. its when the owners do not make an effort to shoe, worm, rug ( as *required* i know lots of horses live out unrugged fine ) provide forage water and shelter, medical attention as requred, etc is when it bothers me. I think what makes it worse, is that the horse has to suffer before anyone will take action and quite often it is too late.
 
To me neglect is anything preventable that happens to a horse that comprimises its quality of life.
I had better qualify. Someone keeping a horse far too fat and it gets laminitus (that really boils my blood!)
Poor feet - lack of beeing seen to by the farrier
Lack of worming
Lice
Lack of feed when it needs feed etc.
I am sure you get the picture.
 
Last edited:
Neglect - needs not being met.

I think the RSPCA are concerned about more than just lack of water, but lack of water is a more immediate problem than most others.
 
No room
No grazing/hay
Bad feet
Untreated animals (worm-lame-wounds)
Horse that need rugs without them
BUT Sometimes I see horses and I wonder what the rug is hiding??!!!
Horses dragged from field for 1st time in months and thudered around a fun ride:eek:
 
To me, a horse is neglected when it appears that no-one goes to check on it everyday. There are some near me that I glance at every day as I drive past, their electric fencing has been down for nearly 2 weeks (that's me counting, it could be longer). There is also an in foal mare in the field, rugged. Makes me wonder when someone last checked the surcingles on that rug for her... Or that they had water in their trough... I do wonder why some people have horses.
 
So can anyone tell me what the various animal welfare charities constitutes as neglect?

Because i think this post has illustrated there is such a wide range of what people consider to be neglect/not neglect - i am wondering if it would be a good idea for the charities themselves to issue guidelines or case examples or something to both educate us and the more ... 'ignorant' owners?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top