When do you know its time to stop riding

[paddy555]

The paragraph referred to horses working until they are thirty or more. In my experience, that is rare, and the bigger the horse, the rarer.

Use it or lose it is fine for humans who can choose to 'use it' through the pain in order not to lose even more function. It is not an adage that I would personally apply to an old arthritic horse.

I apply 'use it or lose it' to myself. Apart from working through pain, there are days when I just don't want to do what I know I need to do. I force myself to do it when I don't want to. I wouldn't apply the same rules to an old horse to keep it alive. I would stop riding it the day it told me it had had enough of carrying a human, and if that makes it seize up, I'd have it put down. And envy it the ability to avoid a creaking old age and death by slow decay, which is the lot of most humans and some retired horses.

I think it is very cruel to suggest that all horses, barring accidents and serious medical conditions, and could be being ridden to the age of thirty if only their owners had treated them right earlier in their lives.

there are plenty working in their 20's, horses as well as ponies and not unreasonable to think they should be able to do so.. If I was in pain (joint type pain) I wouldn't force myself to do it I would take anti inflammatories to make life easier and then exercise to regain and keep strength and movement. I most definitely wouldn't want to be PTS. Same as I do with my horses.

I don't know if it makes a difference but I have never ridden mine at 3, they don't get backed till their 4th birthdays and then are only very lightly ridden until 5 when they are a lot more mature. As I seem to have fewer problems with older horses I wonder if that policy pays dividends at the other end when they age.

 

[ycbm]

I think ponies are very different. I've met several ponies in their thirties in work and others their forties alive and well in the last fifty years but I've never met a horse of thirty alive, never mind working.

 

[daffy44]

I had my old horse (ID xTB) pts at the end of his 30th year, I backed him at 4, and he was an awesome horse, he did everything, SJ'ed to 1.35, BE Novice, learnt to piaffe aged 20, and I rode him until he was 26, obviously just hacking and having fun the last four yrs, he had a very happy retirement, and then one day lay down and couldnt get up, so he was pts. I had his best friend pts at the same time, she was 27yrs old and she stopped ridden work at 19. When you know your horse well they will tell you when its time to stop riding.

 

[ester]

I fully expected Frank to be working in his late 20s barring any disasters, he was still hunting at 23, fitter than he'd ever been, doing some jumping on good surfaces and flatwork was still improving under the guidance of an FBHS. His only health issue was a spavin in one hock and occasional mites.
The following autumn he was moved to flat ground and reduced to hacking and some showing to limit the impact of chronic thickening of his annular ligament on the opposite side to the spavin, shortly after he had his liver flare up.

He did not cope with this summer very well to the point that it wasn't fair to keep working him unnecessarily and I was questioning how long I was happy for him to 'not be right for'. We kept his movement levels up by having them on a track system and with the better ground he has started inhand walking again and may go back to light hacking though I'm not sure mum is that keen!

I don't personally think I have ever screwed up his management in order for him not to be in work now, though I don't know what he did before 8.

 

[AandK]

You can tell from their attitude to work. I retired my 28yo when her attitude to work changed, she no longer enjoyed it like she once did (she was retired age 12 due to several joint issues, although she was sound when I retired her. However, I am astounded she is still around at the age she is!). I also have a 21yo who still loves his work and did an ODE in August (albeit at 80 level) and felt amazing in all three phases. As soon as he stops enjoying it, I will retire him. If he is sound and happy working, I see no reason to retire him due to his age alone.

 

[Sussexbythesea]

THeres a difference between treating / medicating a perfectly manageable condition such as mild arthritis or Cushings than making an old horse keep going despite having discomfort that cannot be managed.

Sometimes I think people are just lazy and can’t be bothered and want to get a newer model once the horse doesn’t serve their purpose anymore. I’ve got a newer model but I still manage my old boy to keep him sound and active on a glide path to full retirement. I’ll know in my heart when that time comes.

 

[be positive]

Sometimes I think people are just lazy and can’t be bothered and want to get a newer model once the horse doesn’t serve their purpose anymore. I’ve got a newer model but I still manage my old boy to keep him sound and active on a glide path to full retirement. I’ll know in my heart when that time comes.

Up to a point I agree with you regarding keeping a horse into retirement but I am lucky that I have my own land and am happy to retire any that need to slow down or stop work, not everyone has the luxury of being able to keep two horses or more so have to make a difficult choice, keep old one ticking over, give up competing and possibly retire them when the time comes, for some it could be 10 years or more, which is not always a realistic choice so many will be pts not because the owner is lazy but because they have to make a choice, it may not always be right but sometimes it is the only option and is far better than passing an older unsound horse on to an uncertain future.

 

[splashgirl45]

all of my horses have been fine to hack into their twenties and one of them was still being hacked at 31. we stopped when she began to trip and vet said she had ringbone, she was retired sound and PTS at 35 as she went lame and also had sidebone and i decided it wasnt fair for her to go through another winter.,..

 

[paddy555]

Up to a point I agree with you regarding keeping a horse into retirement but I am lucky that I have my own land and am happy to retire any that need to slow down or stop work, not everyone has the luxury of being able to keep two horses or more so have to make a difficult choice, keep old one ticking over, give up competing and possibly retire them when the time comes, for some it could be 10 years or more, which is not always a realistic choice so many will be pts not because the owner is lazy but because they have to make a choice, it may not always be right but sometimes it is the only option and is far better than passing an older unsound horse on to an uncertain future.

certainly better than passing and older unsound on however it would sit badly with me that I should have my horse PTS just so that I could indulge myself in another. In fact I couldn't do it to a horse unless it was suffering. At all stages of a horses life there are going to be times when you can compete, ride like hell on it, have to rest it, take it easier etc etc. That to me is all part of horse owning. If I wanted a machine that could work day in and day out and that I could throw away when it got old I would get a trials bike.

 

[ester]

I think it does depend on situations though, I certainly don't underestimate the benefit of having our own land where we can micromanage as/when required- which does seem to be a fair amount of the time!

I would have had no qualms about paying for a retirement livery situation but I would probably have to work quite hard to find one that didn't have too much grass or track livery (can no longer be muzzled) and if that wasn't close to me do all the little things he needs doing to keep him the best he can be. I suspect I might have had to take a chance and if he couldn't cope with what I could provide decide what to do.

I would also have had reservations moving him anywhere other than 'home' as he does stress with change, which is why he went back to somerset before I moved to cambs even though it is equally flat here, rather than try him here and risk him not settling/having to do a longer journey back.

 

[ycbm]

There's some very emotive and guilt-inducing language being used in this thread, and I'd like to put another point of view.

At a base psychological level, we all do the things that make us feel better and avoid doing the things that make us feel bad.

For people who keep their old/broken horses alive and give up riding, that makes them feel good. For other people, giving up riding makes them feel very bad. For some people, the pleasures of riding can seem that only thing worth being alive for. People who keep old horses alive and people who replace them are doing the same thing - what keeps their own life in balance.

It's also a very easy thing for anyone who earns a fortune or owns land to say and do.

Add to that the horse. It doesn't know it's dead. It doesn't know it could have live a minute, a week, a year or a decade longer. It will never have a sad or sorry day or ever experience pain. It simply doesn't matter to the horse as long as it's a quick, painless death.

Then there's horsekind. If you replace your horse, then there's a space for another horse somewhere, and somewhere right at the bottom of the pile there's a horse given a home by someone else which would otherwise have been put down. So the only person that it matters to that your horse is still alive, is anyone closely connected to it. It doesn't help horsekind one iota.

Secondly on horse kind, it's why the horse is got a chance at life in the first place, it was bred to ride.



And for all these reasons, I dislike 'I'll never have a horse put to sleep' posts. You won't, because you are you. That doesn't make you a better person than someone who does and it doesn't make it wrong that someone else does.

 

[ycbm]

...

 

[Summit]

There's some very emotive and guilt-inducing language being used in this thread, and I'd like to put another point of view.

At a base psychological level, we all do the things that make us feel better and avoid doing the things that make us feel bad.

For people who keep their old/broken horses alive and give up riding, that makes them feel good. For other people, giving up riding makes them feel very bad. For some people, the pleasures of riding can seem that only thing worth being alive for. People who keep old horses alive and people who replace them are doing the same thing - what keeps their own life in balance.

It's also a very easy thing for anyone who earns a fortune or owns land to say and do.

Add to that the horse. It doesn't know it's dead. It doesn't know it could have live a minute, a week, a year or a decade longer. It will never have a sad or sorry day or ever experience pain. It simply doesn't matter to the horse as long as it's a quick, painless death.

Then there's horsekind. If you replace your horse, then there's a space for another horse somewhere, and somewhere right at the bottom of the pile there's a horse given a home by someone else which would otherwise have been put down. So the only person that it matters to that your horse is still alive, is anyone closely connected to it. It doesn't help horsekind one iota.

Secondly on horse kind, it's why the horse is got a chance at life in the first place, it was bred to ride.



And for all these reasons, I dislike 'I'll never have a horse put to sleep' posts. You won't, because you are you. That doesn't make you a better person than someone who does and it doesn't make it wrong that someone else does.

Excellent post

 

[paddy555]

There's some very emotive and guilt-inducing language being used in this thread, and I'd like to put another point of view.

At a base psychological level, we all do the things that make us feel better and avoid doing the things that make us feel bad.

For people who keep their old/broken horses alive and give up riding, that makes them feel good. For other people, giving up riding makes them feel very bad. For some people, the pleasures of riding can seem that only thing worth being alive for. People who keep old horses alive and people who replace them are doing the same thing - what keeps their own life in balance.

It's also a very easy thing for anyone who earns a fortune or owns land to say and do.

Add to that the horse. It doesn't know it's dead. It doesn't know it could have live a minute, a week, a year or a decade longer. It will never have a sad or sorry day or ever experience pain. It simply doesn't matter to the horse as long as it's a quick, painless death.

Then there's horsekind. If you replace your horse, then there's a space for another horse somewhere, and somewhere right at the bottom of the pile there's a horse given a home by someone else which would otherwise have been put down. So the only person that it matters to that your horse is still alive, is anyone closely connected to it. It doesn't help horsekind one iota.

Secondly on horse kind, it's why the horse is got a chance at life in the first place, it was bred to ride.



And for all these reasons, I dislike 'I'll never have a horse put to sleep' posts. You won't, because you are you. That doesn't make you a better person than someone who does and it doesn't make it wrong that someone else does.

this doesn't stack up for me. Yes I don't like not riding but not at the expense of killing another horse. I don't keep retired horses alive to make me feel good. I do it for the same reason that I don't kill off my old dogs when they get beyond doing what I want with them, or they need vet's fees etc etc. Same as for humans, I look after them, old dogs, cats and horses in the same way and for the same reason which to me is simply responsibility. A horse, just as any other animal or human deserves a retirement and old age (as long as it can be made comfortable). My aged horses enjoy their lives. It has a downside to me, it costs probably a lot in both time and money but they are not excuses.

I don't see the horse not knowing it is dead has any basis. Putting it out of it's misery and pain is one thing. Put down as "" superfluous " to requirements when it could be happily grazing in a field and enjoying it's retirement after giving the owner years of pleasure is another.

I can see owners not having their own land is a problem but they are paying, and can presumably afford to pay for that horse in livery. Nothing has changed. It is still in livery, costs are still the same.

As for horsekind and creating a space for another horse. That holds up if you have your horse PTS and then take on a rescue to give it a chance of a life. How many people having 16.2 hunter types PTS take on rescue horses? I would guess not many. They take on a horse specially bred to be a ridden 16.2 horse. It is helping the breeding market but the horse didn't have to be bred in the first place.

I don't think for one minute keeping my horses in retirement makes me a better person. It would never occur to me to do it for that reason. I do however question people who try to justify having their horses PTS when they are beyond being useful just so they can get a replacement.

If a reason to PTS is so people get their only pleasure in life from riding so have to have another horse I wonder why they don't get very much pleasure from actually looking after the horse they have into it's old age.

 

[Cortez]

Very well put ycbm.

I'll tell you what doesn't stack up for me: people professing to love their horse and allowing the poor old thing to limp around the pasture "field sound", whilst on 2 different drugs and having to be fed gruel because it's teeth are gone. The person who has this, and other similarly afflicted horses and who proudly boasts that she is riding a 28 year old (lame) horse, thinks I am cruel because I had a horse put down that had penile cancer before he was on his last legs and in pain. Both of us think we are doing the kind thing.

 

[ester]

I can see owners not having their own land is a problem but they are paying, and can presumably afford to pay for that horse in livery. Nothing has changed. It is still in livery, costs are still the same.

But actually quite a lot can change, the livery requirements IMO of a horse in work are different to those who are retired and while suitable places might be available they might be some distance away and increasing medical needs which you then need to pay quite a lot for someone to do and/or trust them to do it.
I always quite liked the idea of Frank just going out and having retirement with a gang of older boys on retirement livery, but the reality is that it would likely be unfeasible due to his requirements.

 

[splashgirl45]

people have horses for different reasons,many have them just to ride and compete and if their horse is unable to be ridden and the owner wants to ride i see no problem with having the horse PTS if they cannot guarantee the horse's future ... i do not have loads of money or my own land ..my horses have been kept in exactly the same way once their ridden life is over and i will only PTS if their quality of life is not good and never just so i could get another, my last horse was not ridden for the last 6 months of her life and i reluctantly had her PTS in sept 2016 as she was not really field sound, if she had been happy in the field i would love to still have her now

 

[scats]

Very well put ycbm.

I'll tell you what doesn't stack up for me: people professing to love their horse and allowing the poor old thing to limp around the pasture "field sound", whilst on 2 different drugs and having to be fed gruel because it's teeth are gone. The person who has this, and other similarly afflicted horses and who proudly boasts that she is riding a 28 year old (lame) horse, thinks I am cruel because I had a horse put down that had penile cancer before he was on his last legs and in pain. Both of us think we are doing the kind thing.

Totally agree Cortez. I’ve had three horses put to sleep in the last three years, as I felt their quality of life was becoming hugely compromised. They were 10, 13 and 18 and all had life limiting conditions that were starting to hugely affected their ability to live everyday life comfortably (penile cancer, a horrendous breathing disorder and one with various sever lameness issues...). I’m sure there are people out there who believe I was cruel, but these are probably the same people who have three-legged horses limping around their fields.
I miss my horses terribly. Putting the Diva to sleep has affected me horrendously, but watching I thing I loved so much beginning to suffer was not something I could do.

 

[Sussexbythesea]

Up to a point I agree with you regarding keeping a horse into retirement but I am lucky that I have my own land and am happy to retire any that need to slow down or stop work, not everyone has the luxury of being able to keep two horses or more so have to make a difficult choice, keep old one ticking over, give up competing and possibly retire them when the time comes, for some it could be 10 years or more, which is not always a realistic choice so many will be pts not because the owner is lazy but because they have to make a choice, it may not always be right but sometimes it is the only option and is far better than passing an older unsound horse on to an uncertain future.

I don’t have my own land and never have had or ever will and I go without a lot to have a second which was a very big decision for me and something that will take a lot of sacrifice in time and money.

If I couldn’t have another horse I certainly wouldn’t put down or discard my fabulous old guy who has given me many years of joy because I wanted to do more. I do agree though that sometimes circumstances change and pts is a kinder option than selling or loaning again something I would also never do with an old horse.

The people on here who think it is ok actually do have their own land so mostly I think it comes down to actually how much you value your horse not how much money or land you have. I do see the situation differently if you have a young horse that has an issues that mean it cannot be ridden after a year or so of ownership and it could live another 20 years, maybe that is contradictory but that’s my feeling.

 

[Sussexbythesea]

Totally agree Cortez. I’ve had three horses put to sleep in the last three years, as I felt their quality of life was becoming hugely compromised. They were 10, 13 and 18 and all had life limiting conditions that were starting to hugely affected their ability to live everyday life comfortably (penile cancer, a horrendous breathing disorder and one with various sever lameness issues...). I’m sure there are people out there who believe I was cruel, but these are probably the same people who have three-legged horses limping around their fields.
I miss my horses terribly. Putting the Diva to sleep has affected me horrendously, but watching I thing I loved so much beginning to suffer was not something I could do.

No one here including myself has suggested that people keep an ill or lame horse going or limping around a field. I’ve had an 8 yr old wobbler put down.

 

[Sussexbythesea]

Very well put ycbm.

I'll tell you what doesn't stack up for me: people professing to love their horse and allowing the poor old thing to limp around the pasture "field sound", whilst on 2 different drugs and having to be fed gruel because it's teeth are gone. The person who has this, and other similarly afflicted horses and who proudly boasts that she is riding a 28 year old (lame) horse, thinks I am cruel because I had a horse put down that had penile cancer before he was on his last legs and in pain. Both of us think we are doing the kind thing.

Nobody has said that you should though? That’s equally as wrong if not more so than putting to sleep “a day too soon” as people like to quote all the time.

 

[Cortez]

Nobody has said that you should though? That’s equally as wrong if not more so than putting to sleep “a day too soon” as people like to quote all the time.

Perhaps it is a matter of perception though: I can see that my friend's horses are not well (suffering, in fact), but she cannot. She is not ignorant or inexperienced, so I can only suppose that she has deluded herself into feeling that she is being kind by keeping them going. I don't think putting a horse down before it is suffering is wrong at all.

 

[Sussexbythesea]

Perhaps it is a matter of perception though: I can see that my friend's horses are not well (suffering, in fact), but she cannot. She is not ignorant or inexperienced, so I can only suppose that she has deluded herself into feeling that she is being kind by keeping them going. I don't think putting a horse down before it is suffering is wrong at all.

Yes I have also known friends who I’ve thought keep their horses going on longer than I would have and it pained me. One actually has a fear about what happens when you die and doesn’t particularly find comfort in the fact they are no longer suffering because of this. Another friend and I had to coax her into believing pts was the only option along with the vet although it was obvious to everyone but her.

 

[paddy555]

Totally agree Cortez. I’ve had three horses put to sleep in the last three years, as I felt their quality of life was becoming hugely compromised. They were 10, 13 and 18 and all had life limiting conditions that were starting to hugely affected their ability to live everyday life comfortably (penile cancer, a horrendous breathing disorder and one with various sever lameness issues...). I’m sure there are people out there who believe I was cruel, but these are probably the same people who have three-legged horses limping around their fields.
I miss my horses terribly. Putting the Diva to sleep has affected me horrendously, but watching I thing I loved so much beginning to suffer was not something I could do.

I absolutely agree with you and no way would I keep a "poorly" horse going whatever it's age. My comments however have been in relation to horses that are not "poorly" who could continue to live a good quality life and even if that includes bute so be it. They may not be able to work as much, maybe they would need retirement and just leading out in hand perhaps. They are PTS for their owner's convenience so they can be replaced with a working model. In some cases that would be acceptable if for example the owner was very ill or some other serious problem where PTS was preferable to an uncertain future if the horse was moved on. What I find unacceptable if simply PTS as a chattel so it can be replaced.

 

[ester]

From the people I've known I do think a lot of people's cut offs as to what and what isn't acceptable are just different. Sometimes I think it is helped by knowing the animal well, sometimes probably hindered and it also depends on the sort of veterinary advice they are receiving. I have friends who have horses still going that wouldn't if they were mine and others who I think I have gotten rid sooner than I would likely have done. For the most part I don't feel like any of those people are wrong, often just different.

For instance I really rather hope we don't get to the point of having to PTS because a horse cannot get up as I would want to avoid that level of distress but also not everything is predictable. It would be much easier if someone could give us a timeline in advance that we could pick from!

 

[paddy555]

I don't think putting a horse down before it is suffering is wrong at all.

I agree just how long before is the question. If it was starting to go downhill and it was obvious (to the vet at least even if not the owner) it was going to end badly then PTS a few days or even weeks I can see and would do. For example taking a not perfect horse through a bad winter would gain little unless you had very good facilities and it was not going to struggle. I wouldn't retire a horse that could no longer be ridden or no longer be ridden as fast as I wanted and PTS in case it started to suffer a few years into it's retirement.

 

[paddy555]

If I couldn’t have another horse I certainly wouldn’t put down or discard my fabulous old guy who has given me many years of joy because I wanted to do more. I do agree though that sometimes circumstances change and pts is a kinder option than selling or loaning again something I would also never do with an old horse.

The people on here who think it is ok actually do have their own land so mostly I think it comes down to actually how much you value your horse not how much money or land you have.

this says it all for me.

 

[ycbm]

I have a funny feeling that it's more to do with your own fear of death or love of life than it is of 'valuing' horses that you own. My own fear is death by slow decay and I'm so glad for my animals that I can prevent that for them. I have no fear of death itself, (as a state, the process in humans can be foul), so I don't see death as robbing a horse of time that it could have lived. I struggle to understand people who are happy to see their old horses get stiffer and stiffer until they either struggle to rise, or fail to, before they call it a day.

 

[ycbm]

...

 

[paddy555]

I have a funny feeling that it's more to do with your own fear of death or love of life than it is of 'valuing' horses that you own. My own fear is death by slow decay and I'm so glad for my animals that I can prevent that for them. I have no fear of death itself, (as a state, the process in humans can be foul), so I don't see death as robbing a horse of time that it could have lived. I struggle to understand people who are happy to see their old horses get stiffer and stiffer until they either struggle to rise, or fail to, before they call it a day.

I don't know if your comment is aimed at me. If not then sorry and please ignore this reply.

If it is then I find it extraordinary. You seem to think I don't value the horses that I own. To me it is the exact opposite I just think people who PTS horses when they finish their riding career are the ones who don't value them and try to make excuses by suggesting some people would rather let their horses suffer. . Especially people with land who could in fact keep them. You appear to project your own fear of death by slow decay onto horses. I also don't like the idea of death by slow decay and would want the same for me as I do for my horses ie euthanasia or suicide. However I don't want to die in the meantime when I am healthy nor do I want my horses to just, basically, for my convenience.

I certainly don't let old horses struggle to get up and I don't let them get stiffer, I give them pain relief for as long as it is effective which is a long time. I do however give them a long retirement and fail to see why others don't. If they have worked for me for many years then they deserve it.
For the record I think I have had around 12 old horses put to sleep at this stage in my life. I think from your posts you are about the same age as I am. You seem concerned by death. I am not even considering it. I am far too young! My mum and grandmother lived to over 90 so when I get to around 85 I shall give it some thought!