When you're done with horses but horse is unsellable?

[ycbm]

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.

I said "happy in their own skin" not "happy about themselves" and I think there's a very big difference. You behave according to your moral compass because it would make you feel too uncomfortable to do otherwise.

That's fine, but not everyone shares your view of what is the a correct moral compass and there can be more than one.
.

 

[honetpot]

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.

This pony was on the spiral downwards, that is what happens when owners are desperate to solve and issue, be it handling, health or financial. The easy thing is to move it on. If you look at 'best interests', its the least worse possible outcome, and sometimes that is PTS, not the uncertainty of a tenuous or neglected life.
My history is as a young teenager I rode for a low end dealer, so I have seen so many animals that we would have for a few weeks to assess, and then they would go for meat, because they were not saleable, this was when there was a good horse meat trade.
You are making a judgement that people who retire their horses care more than the people who have them PTS, having seen some very neglected retired animals, I do not think that is the case. If you can not keep an unsaleable animal, what do you do?

 

[nagblagger]

[QUOTE="Barton Bounty, post:]You obviously have a very big heart [/QUOTE]

Thank you, but no, just stupid and a sucker for a sob story in my younger years.
However now i am much harder - no more horses and if they start needing a lot of veterinary intervention/care they will be pts. 8 of them are in their 20s.

 

[sky1000]

I don't really think, in the end, that there is much of a dispute here. Most people agree that no-one should pass on an unrideable horse that could be sold on to cause damage to people and misery to the horse. I have read on here horse welfare officers at markets breaking their hearts over old horses waiting to be sold looking up suddenly and hopefully at girls who they thought might have come to save them. That has certainly stayed with me. Whether retire or pts, I think that is the general view.

 

[BBP]

This pony was on the spiral downwards, that is what happens when owners are desperate to solve and issue, be it handling, health or financial. The easy thing is to move it on. If you look at 'best interests', its the least worse possible outcome, and sometimes that is PTS, not the uncertainty of a tenuous or neglected life.
My history is as a young teenager I rode for a low end dealer, so I have seen so many animals that we would have for a few weeks to assess, and then they would go for meat, because they were not saleable, this was when there was a good horse meat trade.
You are making a judgement that people who retire their horses care more than the people who have them PTS, having seen some very neglected retired animals, I do not think that is the case. If you can not keep an unsaleable animal, what do you do?

As far as I have seen it having read the whole thread, the only judgement Paddy555 and similar have made is that they feel it is wrong to put to sleep a horse purely for the reason of getting another one to ride. I can’t see that they have said it is wrong to put a horse to sleep if the other options are neglect, tiny postage stamp paddocks, isolation, financial issues etc. Just the replacement of an unrideable with a rideable horse. That’s all I have picked up anyway. They have accepted that others think differently. Just as YCBM etc have expressed that they see no problem with having one put to sleep for a variety of justifiable reasons and have accepted that others think differently. To me it is clear that neither ‘side’ are the sort of people that will knowingly allow an animal to suffer.

This thread has been an interesting and thought provoking read.

I wasn’t going to add my own anecdote, because I know no one really gives a flying fig about it, but it plays on my mind somewhat. I have a horse that has had some chronic health issues that come and go. I can be fairly certain that YCBM (sorry to use your name, but I think you may have commented on it in that past so stuck in my mind, it certainly isn’t meant as a criticism in any way) and similar people would have had him put to sleep multiple times before now had he been theirs. And Paddy555 may be more like me and still have him. And I genuinely don’t know who would be right. YCBMs and other similar posters approach would have saved him from periods where he was certainly in pain. He wouldn’t have known anything about it. Financially and stress wise I would have been better off. At that point in time it may have been in his best interests. But how was I to know if that pain was fleeting or if he was forever to feel bad? At what point do I decide? How hard do I try?

Four weeks ago I was sitting on the edge of having him put to sleep. He isn’t ridden, he owes me nothing, I didn’t want him to suffer. But I kept telling myself ‘I’ll just try this first’. And now he is bouncing around, all his eye tension is gone, the hard nostril, the tight lip and chin, he has a bright, open, shiny eye, he is absolutely full of himself and back to all of his happy behaviours that had vanished for part of the summer. So I don’t think I would have been wrong to have done it back then, but I don’t think I’m wrong to still have him here with me now based on how he is right now. What I do know is that an unridden horse with heath issues he will never leave me.

 

[DabDab]

The point being made throughout this thread though is that pts of an horse (or any animal) is an individual decision that someone makes according to their own morals.

The act of PTS is not a welfare issue for a horse, so putting any kind of universal (rather than individual) moral judgement on when and why someone makes the decision to PTS is a)illogical and b)quite unhelpful. The moment that you say something along the lines of "no judgement if you PTS in all these circumstances, but in this one circumstance it's <cold/treating the horse as a machine/insert any other judgement statement>" then you are by definition passing judgement on the morals of someone else, and that can be a really slippery slope.

I very much doubt that I would make the same PTS decisions as ycbm but that doesn't mean that I think she's cruel, or that my choices are 'better' than hers for the horse involved. In fact I am fairly certain that there would be zero judgment either way if we were on a yard together. Whereas there are certainly some on this thread that I would dread having around if I was having to make that call for one of mine.

 

[Barton Bounty]

As far as I have seen it having read the whole thread, the only judgement Paddy555 and similar have made is that they feel it is wrong to put to sleep a horse purely for the reason of getting another one to ride. I can’t see that they have said it is wrong to put a horse to sleep if the other options are neglect, tiny postage stamp paddocks, isolation, financial issues etc. Just the replacement of an unrideable with a rideable horse. That’s all I have picked up anyway. They have accepted that others think differently. Just as YCBM etc have expressed that they see no problem with having one put to sleep for a variety of justifiable reasons and have accepted that others think differently. To me it is clear that neither ‘side’ are the sort of people that will knowingly allow an animal to suffer.

This thread has been an interesting and thought provoking read.

I wasn’t going to add my own anecdote, because I know no one really gives a flying fig about it, but it plays on my mind somewhat. I have a horse that has had some chronic health issues that come and go. I can be fairly certain that YCBM (sorry to use your name, but I think you may have commented on it in that past so stuck in my mind, it certainly isn’t meant as a criticism in any way) and similar people would have had him put to sleep multiple times before now had he been theirs. And Paddy555 may be more like me and still have him. And I genuinely don’t know who would be right. YCBMs and other similar posters approach would have saved him from periods where he was certainly in pain. He wouldn’t have known anything about it. Financially and stress wise I would have been better off. At that point in time it may have been in his best interests. But how was I to know if that pain was fleeting or if he was forever to feel bad? At what point do I decide? How hard do I try?

Four weeks ago I was sitting on the edge of having him put to sleep. He isn’t ridden, he owes me nothing, I didn’t want him to suffer. But I kept telling myself ‘I’ll just try this first’. And now he is bouncing around, all his eye tension is gone, the hard nostril, the tight lip and chin, he has a bright, open, shiny eye, he is absolutely full of himself and back to all of his happy behaviours that had vanished for part of the summer. So I don’t think I would have been wrong to have done it back then, but I don’t think I’m wrong to still have him here with me now based on how he is right now. What I do know is that an unridden horse with heath issues he will never leave me.

Your totally right I think most are in agreement that it shouldn’t be passed on and pts if the animal cannot be helped. It’s definitely a tricky situation to be in.

 

[honetpot]

As far as I have seen it having read the whole thread, the only judgement Paddy555 and similar have made is that they feel it is wrong to put to sleep a horse purely for the reason of getting another one to ride. I can’t see that they have said it is wrong to put a horse to sleep if the other options are neglect, tiny postage stamp paddocks, isolation, financial issues etc. Just the replacement of an unrideable with a rideable horse. That’s all I have picked up anyway. They have accepted that others think differently. Just as YCBM etc have expressed that they see no problem with having one put to sleep for a variety of justifiable reasons and have accepted that others think differently. To me it is clear that neither ‘side’ are the sort of people that will knowingly allow an animal to suffer.

This thread has been an interesting and thought provoking read.

I wasn’t going to add my own anecdote, because I know no one really gives a flying fig about it, but it plays on my mind somewhat. I have a horse that has had some chronic health issues that come and go. I can be fairly certain that YCBM (sorry to use your name, but I think you may have commented on it in that past so stuck in my mind, it certainly isn’t meant as a criticism in any way) and similar people would have had him put to sleep multiple times before now had he been theirs. And Paddy555 may be more like me and still have him. And I genuinely don’t know who would be right. YCBMs and other similar posters approach would have saved him from periods where he was certainly in pain. He wouldn’t have known anything about it. Financially and stress wise I would have been better off. At that point in time it may have been in his best interests. But how was I to know if that pain was fleeting or if he was forever to feel bad? At what point do I decide? How hard do I try?

Four weeks ago I was sitting on the edge of having him put to sleep. He isn’t ridden, he owes me nothing, I didn’t want him to suffer. But I kept telling myself ‘I’ll just try this first’. And now he is bouncing around, all his eye tension is gone, the hard nostril, the tight lip and chin, he has a bright, open, shiny eye, he is absolutely full of himself and back to all of his happy behaviours that had vanished for part of the summer. So I don’t think I would have been wrong to have done it back then, but I don’t think I’m wrong to still have him here with me now based on how he is right now. What I do know is that an unridden horse with heath issues he will never leave me.

Completely true for you, but if you haven't got,
time, money, knowledge, or the mental capacity or rigour to care for an animal that you have responsibility for that is going to be difficult to find a knowledgable home for, even in good economic times, PTS is the perhaps the least worst option. You can love your old pony, but be the worst horse keeper in terms of managing it.
I have owned and ridden enough cast off equines, to know the ones that the average DIY livery owner can cope with. The owners are often short of time, and are looking for something that has no management issues, never mind being able to ride it.
I have cows, they have an economic value even when they old, or culled, you get money for their meat. If every milking cow was kept after it became uneconomic to milk it we would be over run with cows. To have a horse is euthanised it costs the owner money, so that is often a barrier that people have to face, even if they think that is the right option for them. It is not only an emotional but financial hit.
My thirty year old pony was PTS with colic three weeks ago, my now oldest is twenty three, I am not anti keeping your retired horse, but I do think people have to be realistic about the options for other people and their circumstances, and be less judgemental, and understand how difficult that decision can be.

 

[paddy555]

Completely true for you, but if you haven't got,
time, money, knowledge, or the mental capacity or rigour to care for an animal that you have responsibility for that is going to be difficult to find a knowledgable home for, even in good economic times, PTS is the perhaps the least worst option. You can love your old pony, but be the worst horse keeper in terms of managing it.

surely the point that was being discussed was PTS a horse perfectly suitable to retire to replace it with a riding horse. In that case per line 2 above if you can't care for the first horse you are not going to be able to care for the 2nd.

There are a lot of horses poorly looked after. A lot very badly looked after. I know, I have taken them on. However suggesting, as I have done and some others, that we keep horses and retire them and responsibly look after them is not going to change that situation. They are 2 separate issues.

 

[Dexter]

I don't really think, in the end, that there is much of a dispute here. Most people agree that no-one should pass on an unrideable horse that could be sold on to cause damage to people and misery to the horse.

the first few pages were people suggesting exactly that though, its only as the discussion has gone on that its morphed into a slightly different discussion. And the amount of old and broken horses sold on daily, lots of people think that its perfectly fine.

 

[baran]

I think having 16 field ornaments speaks for me! No I don't own land.

That would cost me per week more than I earn in one month.

 

[BBP]

Completely true for you, but if you haven't got,
time, money, knowledge, or the mental capacity or rigour to care for an animal that you have responsibility for that is going to be difficult to find a knowledgable home for, even in good economic times, PTS is the perhaps the least worst option. You can love your old pony, but be the worst horse keeper in terms of managing it.
I have owned and ridden enough cast off equines, to know the ones that the average DIY livery owner can cope with. The owners are often short of time, and are looking for something that has no management issues, never mind being able to ride it.
I have cows, they have an economic value even when they old, or culled, you get money for their meat. If every milking cow was kept after it became uneconomic to milk it we would be over run with cows. To have a horse is euthanised it costs the owner money, so that is often a barrier that people have to face, even if they think that is the right option for them. It is not only an emotional but financial hit.
My thirty year old pony was PTS with colic three weeks ago, my now oldest is twenty three, I am not anti keeping your retired horse, but I do think people have to be realistic about the options for other people and their circumstances, and be less judgemental, and understand how difficult that decision can be.

Which bit is true? I think I covered both sides didn’t I? I think we might be saying the same thing here? That money, time, mental capacity etc may all be reasons to put to sleep? I’m trying to view both sides so I’m hoping I didn’t come across as judgemental, I fully appreciate how lucky I am. Next year if mortgage rates rise I’m likely to have to choose between selling my house or losing my horses, but I’m super lucky that I have no family so I will sell my house and keep my two unrideable ponies. But I’m absolutely well aware that that isn’t a choice that other people can make.

 

[scats]

That would cost me per week more than I earn in one month.

It must be a nightmare at dentist time! ?

 

[nagblagger]

[QUOTE="baran, post: That would cost me per week more than I earn in one month.[/QUOTE]
I rent the field rather than per horse, very reasonable rates - i know i'm extremely lucky.

 

[paddy555]

I wasn’t going to add my own anecdote, because I know no one really gives a flying fig about it, but it plays on my mind somewhat. I have a horse that has had some chronic health issues that come and go. I can be fairly certain that YCBM (sorry to use your name, but I think you may have commented on it in that past so stuck in my mind, it certainly isn’t meant as a criticism in any way) and similar people would have had him put to sleep multiple times before now had he been theirs. And Paddy555 may be more like me and still have him. And I genuinely don’t know who would be right. YCBMs and other similar posters approach would have saved him from periods where he was certainly in pain. He wouldn’t have known anything about it. Financially and stress wise I would have been better off. At that point in time it may have been in his best interests. But how was I to know if that pain was fleeting or if he was forever to feel bad? At what point do I decide? How hard do I try?

Four weeks ago I was sitting on the edge of having him put to sleep. He isn’t ridden, he owes me nothing, I didn’t want him to suffer. But I kept telling myself ‘I’ll just try this first’. And now he is bouncing around, all his eye tension is gone, the hard nostril, the tight lip and chin, he has a bright, open, shiny eye, he is absolutely full of himself and back to all of his happy behaviours that had vanished for part of the summer. So I don’t think I would have been wrong to have done it back then, but I don’t think I’m wrong to still have him here with me now based on how he is right now. What I do know is that an unridden horse with heath issues he will never leave me.

Far from not caring a flying fig I think it's important for people to post what they have done, why and the conclusion. Without that no one can ever learn and see options they may or may not wish to take.

I would have done what you did and he would also never leave me.
I don't think it's wrong to put a horse through pain but that is pain for a reason which has the possibility of a successful conclusion. That is of course a difficult decision to make and to constantly review.


I think you have done very well and he is a lucky chap. I hope it goes well for him.

 

[paddy555]

[QUOTE="Barton Bounty, post:]You obviously have a very big heart

Thank you, but no, just stupid and a sucker for a sob story in my younger years.
However now i am much harder - no more horses and if they start needing a lot of veterinary intervention/care they will be pts. 8 of them are in their 20s.[/QUOTE]

I quite understand. These things just sort of happen and not much you can do about them.
I am also adamant no more horses. Problem is if another turns up at one's gate what is one supposed to do? and they seem to live for so long. A pony I took in that was in a very poor state 10 years ago was around 26 at the time. Just a couple of years I thought. She is now 36 and can still outrun her 10 year old offspring. Is there no end in sight?

 

[Flame_]

I don't really think, in the end, that there is much of a dispute here. Most people agree that no-one should pass on an unrideable horse that could be sold on to cause damage to people and misery to the horse. I have read on here horse welfare officers at markets breaking their hearts over old horses waiting to be sold looking up suddenly and hopefully at girls who they thought might have come to save them. That has certainly stayed with me. Whether retire or pts, I think that is the general view.

I've become much more open minded about other options for some horses where possible. Having needed to get a companion who is in a good home doing a good job, I can hardly condemn people for parting with companions. I do think the horse needs to fit "companion" criteria though. Blemished, good mares are suitable to go on from ridden homes to breeding homes. Strong, field sound, good natured but less good quality mares can be used for embryo transfer. Strong,field sound, large horses can be used for blood donation. Yes, horses exceed places in all these jobs but the homes do exist and some horses should get to fulfill those roles, AFAIC that's as good as selling any horse on and hoping it works out.

 

[Birker2020]

No way would I pass them on for loan/companion/BB/ET etc to abdicate my responsibility and to make me feel good.

.

Hi Paddy, I feel you have a very skewed and cynical view of other people's incredibly painful decisions when you say things like you have. I'm sure I speak for a lot of people when I say people send horses to the blood bank not to absolve themselves of responsibilty or guilt but because they think having a young horse pts is a bloo*y shame when it can live many happy years with other horses doing what horses do, endlessly eating, forming close bonds with other horses in their herds being and living their very best life.

It certainly doesn't make anyone that's had to let their horse go to a bloodbank 'feel good', if anything its a totally heartbreaking decision. I am dreading having to say farewell to mine knowing I will never see him again, it will kill me.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place is how I'd describe it.

 

[skinnydipper]

Not a horse owner but dog and cat owner and all round animal lover here

because they think having a young horse pts is a bloo*y shame when it can live many happy years with other horses doing what horses do, endlessly eating, forming close bonds with other horses in their herds being and living their very best life.

Could a horse not live this very best life and remain in the care of their loving owner?

 

[Peglo]

I think it’s good to remember that you choose to be offended. You don’t have to be.

there’s people who does things differently to me on the forum. I don’t get offended but I do read and consider their view. If I still disagree, cool, If I decide that they are right, I change what I’m doing.

safe to say we try our best with our horses so if your content with your decisions, don’t be offended.

 

[moosea]

OP
I think that there are options you could look into.
If those options are not suitable then you would need to pts.
You know you can't sell this horse on.

Options might include

Asking your local RDA if she might be suitable for beginners to have a walk on or be used for non ridden or driving purposes
Loaning out as a companion to someone very local that you would be prepared to check on a minumum of once a month
Getting a sharer or multiple sharers to share from your yard.
Blood bank
PTS
If those options are not suitable then you would need to pts.

While everyone screams that you should not pass on older horses, they continue to advise novice owners to buy an older horse who needs to step down.
So I have no problem in people passing older, healthy, useful horses on.
Your horse has health issues that would impact greatly on her ability to find a good home.

You know you can't sell this horse on.

If I was you I'd spend a few months seriously looking into the options which suit your horse and if nothing was resolved I would PTS at home, knowing I had done all I could to avoid that outcome.

 

[Upthecreek]

Hi Paddy, I feel you have a very skewed and cynical view of other people's incredibly painful decisions when you say things like you have. I'm sure I speak for a lot of people when I say people send horses to the blood bank not to absolve themselves of responsibilty or guilt but because they think having a young horse pts is a bloo*y shame when it can live many happy years with other horses doing what horses do, endlessly eating, forming close bonds with other horses in their herds being and living their very best life.

It certainly doesn't make anyone that's had to let their horse go to a bloodbank 'feel good', if anything its a totally heartbreaking decision. I am dreading having to say farewell to mine knowing I will never see him again, it will kill me.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place is how I'd describe it.

It may be a difficult choice, but it is a choice. You have made the decision to send your horse to the blood bank or pts to enable you to replace him with a horse you can ride. You could decide to keep the horse if the thought of saying goodbye to him is so painful for you, but you are putting your wish to ride first. I’m not criticising your decision, but it’s at odds with your argument that he should have the opportunity to live a long and happy life in a herd. Because he will only have this opportunity if the blood bank take him and his retirement is not at your expense. Otherwise he’ll be pts.

 

[Dexter]

It may be a difficult choice, but it is a choice. You have made the decision to send your horse to the blood bank or pts to enable you to replace him with a horse you can ride. You could decide to keep the horse if the thought of saying goodbye to him is so painful for you, but you are putting your wish to ride first. I’m not criticising your decision, but it’s at odds with your argument that he should have the opportunity to live a long and happy life in a herd. Because he will only have this opportunity if the blood bank take him and his retirement is not at your expense. Otherwise he’ll be pts.

There is a huge amount of mental gymnastics and a big dose of cognitive dissonance going on.

 

[Winters100]

There is a huge amount of mental gymnastics and a big dose of cognitive dissonance going on.

Probably exposing my ignorance, but what do you mean? Genuine question.

 

[Upthecreek]

Probably exposing my ignorance, but what do you mean? Genuine question.

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the perception of contradictory information, and the mental toll of it. Relevant items of information include a person's actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, values, and things in the environment. Cognitive dissonance is typically experienced as psychological stress when persons participate in an action that goes against one or more of those things. According to this theory, when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent. The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein the individual tries to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.

 

[paddy555]

Hi Paddy, I feel you have a very skewed and cynical view of other people's incredibly painful decisions when you say things like you have. I'm sure I speak for a lot of people when I say people send horses to the blood bank not to absolve themselves of responsibilty or guilt but because they think having a young horse pts is a bloo*y shame when it can live many happy years with other horses doing what horses do, endlessly eating, forming close bonds with other horses in their herds being and living their very best life.

It certainly doesn't make anyone that's had to let their horse go to a bloodbank 'feel good', if anything its a totally heartbreaking decision. I am dreading having to say farewell to mine knowing I will never see him again, it will kill me.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place is how I'd describe it.

Birker, I agree with post 442 and 439. You are not between a rock and hard place.
You have a choice. You can keep Lari where you are out with other horses (HR has already confirmed he is fine out with others) you can move him elsewhere if the set up would be better or you can PTS/BB him. Each of those are your choices. It is very sad, I feel for both you and Lari but you do have a choice.

You don't want to do that because you say you have to ride and therefore need a horse. No one has to ride, riding is a privilege. Putting it simply your desire to ride exceeds your dread and being killed in saying goodbye to Lari. If you are unable to compromise on that then you have no choice Lari has to go.

Whether you like my views of not and some do and some don't you are the only one who can decide which is most important to you.

why not compromise for a year, turn Lari out with a herd, spend time with him and look after him then book some rides or even a riding holiday and enjoy yourself away from the worry of keeping a horse.
Then see how it goes.

 

[Orangehorse]

I don't really think, in the end, that there is much of a dispute here. Most people agree that no-one should pass on an unrideable horse that could be sold on to cause damage to people and misery to the horse. I have read on here horse welfare officers at markets breaking their hearts over old horses waiting to be sold looking up suddenly and hopefully at girls who they thought might have come to save them. That has certainly stayed with me. Whether retire or pts, I think that is the general view.

OMG, please don't. I wish I hadn't read that. Poor, poor horses.

 

[ycbm]

No one has to ride, riding is a privilege.

This is the kind of value judgement that I don't think you have any right, except for a right to freedom of speech, to write.

You have absolutely no idea what goes on in Birker's brain, and there were certainly times when I was her age that riding, the physical act of being on the back of a horse I owned and knew well, was the difference to me between my own life feeling worth living and not living.

Frankly if it's a choice between someone having a broken horse quietly and painlessly PTS and spending time in a mental health secure unit, or worse, then I know where I stand on that.
.

 

[Orangehorse]

For anyone to have their own horse PTS for any reason whatsover - that is entirely 100% their own choice and their own decision and I don't think anyone should make any comment.

Certainly not guilt trip them for it, it's hard enough for any owner.

Sadly, I think a lot of older horses will be PTS this autumn for financial reasons, partly. But the horse won't know and at least you know what has happened to it and it won't suffer in the future.

 

[SadKen]

My rule since I returned to horses has been that if I found myself with a chronically injured horse, (assuming no pain if unridden, which I think is unlikely) it will be summer in the field then pts. Unless the horse has given me many years of service and has simply become old, where I might decide that a longer retirement is appropriate.

not because I ‘need’ to ride, but because I have had a chronically injured horse and it almost broke my brain because it was such a turgid grind with no bright patches. I will not go through that again. It was a pointless waste of energy, money, time and emotional investment. I had no choice as I was under 16.

horses cost a huge amount in time and money. I can’t justify investing these long term eg for my 13yo mare who I could have kept alive in retirement for conceivably 15 yrs + had I wished to force that on her. I would have got no joy from thatso a summer in the field it would have been. In the event she effectively indicated that she had had enough and welfare was compromised but I would have pts for injury after a summer out. That’s the pact I make with the horse when I buy them, and that is what I think is a fair arrangement.

I won’t judge anyone else for pts or keeping a horse in a long retirement. As long as the horse’s future is secure, fine.

Not aimed at you at all op - But I am so tired of people on social media whining about their elderly or broken horse ending up in a sh&t dealers yard because they sold it or gave it away as a companion rather than doing the right thing, be that retirement with the owner or pts. If an elderly broken horse ends up suffering IT IS ON THE OWNER for giving it away or selling it. I have zero sympathy for them and every sympathy for the poor horse.