Cortez
Tough but Fair
True....
When you're done with horses but horse is unsellable?
- Thread starter Daniel_Jack
- Start date
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
That's not what it implies, it's what I was hearking back to earlier about people's own attitude to life and death.
If an animal cannot look forward to anything in the future, and cannot meaningfully mentally rehearse anything which happened to it in the past, then what is inherently "better" for an animal about being alive than being dead?
Atheists, as I am, tend not to subscribe to the view that life in itself has some inherent value.
.
Last edited:
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
But you have the capacity to hope it won't happen, animals don't.
And there are days in many people's lives where they wouldn't try and dissuade that person with the gun.
DabDab
Ah mud, splendid
Of course it doesn't imply that
A good quality of life is a valuable thing, I'm just not sure that it matters to the animal itself whether that life is long or short according to some objective measure. My own ability to feel happy and enjoy things today is not particularly related to the quantity of life I have lived so far, nor the quantity of life I might have left to live. And I'm a human with some notion of concepts like longevity and retirement, unlike a horse.
I love my horses dearly and will keep them alive as long as possible without causing them undue suffering, irrelevant of whether I can ride them and I would contemplate significant financial hardship to do it. But I am under no illusion that that is primarily for my benefit.
Winters100
Well-Known Member
It is true that animals in general 'live in the moment', as do babies and small children, but just because they cannot plan their lives in advance, or do not fear death, does not mean that a long quality life is of no value.
cauda equina
Well-Known Member
But on the whole animals do their damndest to stay alive
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Yup, they are driven by nature to pass on their DNA, often against their own individual best interests.
.
Peglo
Well-Known Member
i was actually just going to say this for pure interest on peoples views.
we know horses are stoic so that they don’t get eaten or abandoned etc so would that not signal they don’t want to die? Does most animals not fight for life?
honetpot
Well-Known Member
When you get a background view on here and in other places which is often expressed to owners even thinking of having to their animal PTS, of disapproval, and down right nastiness, it blocks objective open discussion of the subject. It forms peer pressure where, people can be 'othered' and made to feel they have failed,because they have even thought about the option, for what ever reason.
When an owner for is thinking they will be unable to care for a horse properly, euthanasia is not a bad choice, for some people it may be the only viable choice, and I only wish that people would be realistic about the choices people have.
The problems that I see in welfare issues are that people are completely unable to assess what the best interests of the animal are, there is no objective assessment from them or a veterinary professional.
HashRouge
Well-Known Member
For what it's worth, I completely agree with everything you've posted on this thread and I don't think you have come across as being judgemental about other posters or their choices.
Winters100
Well-Known Member
I agree 100% that the ability of the owner to provide proper care is a major factor, and if this is not possible then PTS is the best option for many horses. Maybe I missed it but I didn't notice anyone here suggesting otherwise.
Regarding people's ability to accurately determine when is the best time to PTS from the point of view of animal welfare it is of course difficult, and relies upon careful judgement of owners and vets. But my understanding of this discussion is that it does not concern animals in pain, but it is rather whether it is the best interests of an animal which is capable of having a good quality of life to be PTS. In my opinion it is not.
paddy555
Well-Known Member
actually HR it's worth a lot so thanks for posting that.
honetpot
Well-Known Member
If you can not afford , have the time or have the mental capacity to cope with its needs daily,it is. Most welfare issues are caused by,'lets think about that tomorrow', because people either have other priorities or just not the mental capacity to see issues developing. How many people do see post on FB, I need a hay delivery tomorrow, I have run out? If you have been on livery yards, even supposedly caring owners leave horses shut in for days, with minimal beds standing in poop.
I work six months in advance, I am planning for spring now, some people only plan from month to month if that, there is not much time for careful judgement.
stangs
Well-Known Member
Who are we to decide what's in their best interests?
FestiveG
Over the hill and far awa
Surely anyone who ownes any animal intends to keep them in their best interests, even if they can't manage that in the actualité
Winters100
Well-Known Member
Yes, but as everyone has said this discussion is not centered around horses being PTS because owners are unable to keep them well, either because of a medical condition of the horse, because of financial constraints, or any other reasons. It is simply about it is in the best interests of the horse to be PTS only because it cannot be ridden and the owner would like to replace it with a more useful horse. If you do not have the mental capacity to look after a retired horse I doubt very much that you would manage a ridden one.
I do not question that if a horse cannot enjoy a quality life, or if an owner is simply unable to provide for its needs, then PTS may be the best option, but I do not agree that it is in their best interests to be PTS simply because they are unable to be of use in helping the owner achieve their ridden goals.
Winters100
Well-Known Member
I suppose what is better is that the horse can enjoy tomorrow, even if it does not make a plan to do so, just the same as a human child.
JoannaC
Well-Known Member
I'd far rather PTS than pass on to an uncertain future. Of course, there are lots of good homes out there which we don't hear about because it's not that interesting so it's the bad homes that always gets talked about. I wouldn't want to take the risk unless I knew the person very well. I recently took on a 28 year old pony but only because I used to own him so felt I had a responsibility for him. I've loved having him back but he is costing me a fortune and takes up a lot of time as needs feeding little and often. I wouldn't feel the same about a pony I didn't already have a relationship with. I also have an 18 year old retired mare who hasn't been right since she had a field accident at 8, I would not pass her on if my circs changed and she would be pts as she could easily be passed on as sound but after a few weeks in work she becomes explosive and makes it clear she doesn't want to be ridden.
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Ali27
Well-Known Member
I think that if you have the resources to provide a horse which is field sound a happy retirement then that’s brilliant! But I personally could never sell a horse with issues and would only loan to someone I knew! PTS is then the most responsible thing to do! My old mare had 4 years happily retired in field after a tendon injury but then tore another SFDT in a different leg so I chose to PTS as at the age of 20 did not want to put her through box rest again. Horses know no tomorrow and it’s every owner’s responsibility to do the right thing!
paddy555
Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone could possibly disagree that you did absolutely the right thing for her. You gave her the best you could and ended it when things got too bad for her. That is all any of us can do for them.
EllenJay
Well-Known Member
I don’t think you do understand. However you want to package life, us humans do what makes us feel better. Now that could be putting to sleep a young ill horse - our thinking - he was in pain, keeping an old horse alive, when others would have said it was suffering - ‘he happy in his field’ etc, etc.
All of our animals are subjected to what makes us feel good. The majority of us are doing it for the benefit of the animal, but ultimately we do it for us.
Winters100
Well-Known Member
But this thinking is flawed, because you could apply it to anything. Does it make me feel better to give proper care to my children? Yes. Does it make me feel good to help my neighbors? Again yes. Would I feel bad if I beat my children? Yes. When you give to or volunteer for a charity are you ultimately doing it for yourself? Perhaps yes, but it does not take away from the fact that you are doing good.
Just because a certain course of action makes us feel happy that we have behaved properly does not make it an inherently selfish thing.
The difference is that here we are discussing whether it is in the best interests of the horse to be PTS just because it can not help us to achieve our ridden goals, regardless that it could have a comfortable life, and that the owner could provide proper care as long as they did not decide to replace it with a more useful horse.
And to those who say that the fact that the horse cannot remember yesterday or plan for tomorrow makes a difference in this case, I would have to ask if it is only having a good memory and an ability to plan, which makes our lives worth living?
Last edited:
paddy555
Well-Known Member
not sure you can have both. For eg. The benefit of the animal, horse, advised by vet shouldn't be ridden any longer, however perfectly happy horse, can live in it's field with no problem. Per vet no reason medically why it can't be retired. Horse pretty calm reasonable horse. Would adapt well to the retirement regime.
For us we want to ride, in fact we demand to ride. We are not happy to go to the riding school we want our own horse. The only way to achieve that is to get rid of the first horse. Starting to see a conflict of interests between what's possible for the horse and our demands.
So yes, I do totally understand. Difficulty I have is with shooting the first horse with the only justification being I demand another.
honetpot
Well-Known Member
One of my oldies I sold as a three year old, an expensive pony, and had a very successful competition history and then disappeared. Before I bought him back he had three homes, in just under two years. I met one of the sellers, she was selling him because her family circumstances had changed, and she needed the time and money, mother with dementia. Thought she had found the perfect home, it lasted just over three weeks, so he got moved on, to someone who I think kept him for the summer, may have then been with a dealer, before he moved again further north.
I only know this because I followed FB and Preloved. In the end the last time he was advertised I could not bear it,and said 'what is the least you will take for him', and I will send a box this week COC. The transporter who collected him said the seller could not wait to get rid of him.
That is the reality of people selling horses, a lot just to get rid as fast of possible, they will tell themselves a story to rationalise the sale, and pass what they see as a problem on. I do not think they are bad people, just human.
What I find so sad is this old man, he can have a buck in him but can be ridden, looks half his twenty plus years, is cheap to keep, and has no real health issues. He is a very pretty pony, with a recorded competition record, has beautiful manners, but he is not for a novice, if I could not keep him he would be PTS, and sleep at night.
There are just not enough knowledgable homes for animals that can not be kept or ridden by a novice owner, or people with limited finances and not acknowledging this is living in fairy land.
paddy555
Well-Known Member
I'm a bit lost here. I think most are aware that if you sell a horse then you no longer have control over it and it could end up anywhere. I don't see that is the issue here. I thought we were talking about retiring horses which could go on to have a good retirement as opposed to PTS to enable their owner to have a new horse.
I have never sold, loaned or passed on a horse. I realise as you have posted that anything could happen to it. I have however retired many over the years as I know they can have a nice life although I may have to be patient before I can have another riding horse.
DabDab
Ah mud, splendid
But that is just your moral value judgement though. Nobody is saying that making that value judgement is wrong, in fact I think most people would make the same. The idea of putting down one horse just so that I could get another horrifies me, but I understand that that is purely my human value judgement and is hugely influenced by human society, human norms, human morality....
Assuming that the horse in question is not routinely suffering from pain then the human reason why its life is brought to an end makes no practical difference to the horse.
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
You are the only person who has used the word selfish about this psychological fact.
.
Winters100
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Behaving in accordance with our own moral compass makes us happier. This is the whole point, but it does not mean that we take these actions only in order to feel such happiness, because often these actions might also involve some other inconvenience or hardship. It is simply not a valid argument that people behave according to their morals only in order to feel happy about themselves, our ability to feel empathy and to think of others is also very important.