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

ycbm said:
This is the crux of it all, really, though it may be too much psychological gobbledegook for some.

In all our actions in life we all do what makes us feel best. In some situations that's what makes us feel least bad, but it's the same thing. So people who are keeping horses alive that others would not are doing what makes them feel right in their heads and comfortable in their skin. And people who have horses PTS earlier are doing exactly the same. And some people would fall apart completely if they couldn't ever ride their own horse again, and can't afford to keep another. And unless people have the ability to get inside that owner's head, they have absolutely no moral right to voice their criticism of what anyone else legally chooses to do with their horse.
.
Click to expand...

that post makes it sound all about the owner and what they want and what is best for them.

Winters100 said:
If you simply view your horses as tools fine, but in my opinion living beings are not just tools or toys.
Click to expand...

this one doesn't :)
 
paddy555 said:
that post makes it sound all about the owner and what they want and what is best for them
Click to expand...

That's because you don't understand what I've written.

It has to be about what makes the owner feel the best way they can. Everything we each do in life is based on what makes us feel least bad at the time.

If it makes you feel good to keep retired horses alive, be thankful, but don't assume everyone else would feel the same and for goodness sake please stop telling them (me) that they (I) should!
.
 
The problem with threads like this is we are all unique in terms of our situation and each horse is unique in terms of it's reason for being retired, so although we can talk about what we would do/ have done we can never really understand someone else's situation and motivation. This is why I try not to be judgemental. I would like to be able to say that I have always done the best by every horse and pony that I've been privileged to own but with hindsight and more experience I know that's not true. I did the best I could at the time and if I had my time again, I know I would do some things differently but that's true of life in general. My much loved old TB went down with cellulitis aged 26, he was in so much pain that I wanted the vet to pts but she suggested that we give him 24 hours and I agreed. He had a really horrible two weeks and although he recovered enough to go out in the field and was bright enough in himself his leg remained very swollen and stiff. I lost him to strangulated colic less than two years later. I bitterly regret not having him PTS when he had cellulitis, his colic was dreadful, I heard him thrashing around in his stable from my bedroom in the early hours of the morning. I have no idea how long he'd been like that, I hope that it wasn't very long and I had a vet with me to PTS within 40 minutes. Sadly old horses rarely seem to die peacefully in their field.
 
I'm quite happy to keep mine as field ornaments. So long as they are happy and not in pain. They have brought me so much happiness. So many wonderful rides, days hunting, and even the little moments like hearing those little wickers when I walk into the barn at the end of a really awful day.
I am happy to sacrifice my riding if it means keeping them comfortable in their twilight years and giving them a happy retirement.
But I do understand everyone is different and we must do what we feel is right.
 
Last edited:
There are fates far worse than a peaceful death for a horse that can't fill the purpose that most people want a horse tk fill. Whilst it upsets me to think that an animal has to die despite having a decent quality of life , it would upset me even more if I learned that the horse had ended up in a slaughter house or neglected standing in mud somewhere.
If this was me and I couldn't afford to pay for the retirement livery ,.then I would definitely PTS. And I wouldn't feel guilty about it - a peaceful and dignified end is something that a lot or humans can only dream of.

I'm sorry that OP is in this position , it's never an easy decision to make.
 
I have always pts horses when it is convenient for me. I haven’t owned that many.
My first (as an adult) and bestest ever horse was kicked in the field, broken hock. PTS obviously.
2nd lame with various low key issues but she was sn unlikeable witch. PTS.
3rd homebred. Inoperable KS. PTS. He could have retired to a field but at 17.2 and 7 years old I decided not.
4th. A lovely horse, he retired to the field as his hocks were not up to work but the first time I saw him stand and watch the others hoon he was PTS.
So I am brutal by many standards but you really can’t compare a horse to a dog. They cost a fortune to maintain and take up so much if your life. Just do your best by each one. Dead is better than suffering.
 
paddy555 said:
I agree with you as I did last night. However I think we may be in a minority of 2 ATM. Anyone care to join us? :)
Click to expand...

I agree - which is why I thought it would be interesting to see how many hold the same view. We seem spilt into those who have to be able to ride if they have a horse and those who don't.
 
Specialist horse rescue centres also have horses PTS, there are few large horses in them, most are cheap to keep photogenic pony types.
My friend had a warmblood, very well bred, ridable, but it was getting too much for her in several ways. Wouldn't sell it, so contacted a large animal charity that has a rehoming scheme, and it was advertised on their website. As part of this it was assessed by a vet, that it was fit to be rehomed, at the owners expense, it also had to had its vaccinations update, so they needed restarting.
The charity, eventually agreed to take it in to its rehoming centre, so the owner paid for transport, and travelled with it. On arrival, it was taken away, and they had to sign over ownership.
Two weeks later the rehoming ad is removed from the website and the now ex owner rings to see if has been rehomed, and is told it has been PTS, with little explanation why. You can imagine the grief caused.
Another pony sanctuary PTS ponies that no longer perhaps look their best due to age, I was told this by a manager, because they have open days and they do not want trouble with the RSPCA.
I also know someone who worked in the horse section at Wood Green, and those that could not be used were given two weeks and then PTS, when they worked there.

I have friends who wait to have their equine partners can not get up in the field, before they will get the vet out, to me this is madness. How can you leave something that you care for and often given you many years of service, get to a state where it can not move or defend itself.
Mine go while they still have a 'social life', can roll scratch and eat, their last experience is often that. The ones that make me sad,is when they have had to be PTS due to illness, which has been short but catastrophic.
I can afford and have the space to keep my old ponies, that is my choice, but it doesn't make me a better person than those that choose to have them PTS sooner. When I was ill if someone had come and PTS all the oldies and some that are not so old but equine misfits, because my husband couldn't cope, I would have been grateful.
 
May be a strange de-railing of this thread but. How many of you that disagree with pts a horse that is no longer useful to you eat meat? If its about the animals right to a long healthy life, why are cows etc any different? They are killed in the prime of their life for our enjoyment.
I have had a much loved retired horse, he served me well for nearly 2 decades, but was no longer up to hard work. I wanted him still around as he made me smile & looked sound, just not capable of hard work. I've also pts an 11 Yr old with several issues where a vet said he was capable of light work because I'd only owned him a short while & didn't want to pay for a horse that could easily be around another 10 years +.
 
Lamehorses said:
May be a strange de-railing of this thread but. How many of you that disagree with pts a horse that is no longer useful to you eat meat? If its about the animals right to a long healthy life, why are cows etc any different? They are killed in the prime of their life for our enjoyment.
I have had a much loved retired horse, he served me well for nearly 2 decades, but was no longer up to hard work. I wanted him still around as he made me smile & looked sound, just not capable of hard work. I've also pts an 11 Yr old with several issues where a vet said he was capable of light work because I'd only owned him a short while & didn't want to pay for a horse that could easily be around another 10 years +.
Click to expand...


It is an interesting point. I don't eat meat, but I am not fully vegan, and I wear leather shoes etc, so yes there is an animal welfare issue. For me though a farm animal is, rightly or wrongly depending upon your opinion, a commodity. My horses are not. Farm animals would be slaughtered for many things which we would treat in our horses, simply on the basis that the cost of treatment would exceed the value of the animal. I totally accept tat there is suffering by farm animals, but my expectations for care of my horses, and indeed my other animals, is higher.
 
I think ycbm hit the nail on the head - we do what makes us happiest / minimises our unhappiness. My horses are essentially pets / family members so of course I keep them into retirement, even if they retire at a young age. For someone whose main reason for having horses is to ride them, a short retirement then PTS may be a better decision, especially if they can only afford one horse.
 
Winters100 said:
It is an interesting point. I don't eat meat, but I am not fully vegan, and I wear leather shoes etc, so yes there is an animal welfare issue. For me though a farm animal is, rightly or wrongly depending upon your opinion, a commodity. My horses are not. Farm animals would be slaughtered for many things which we would treat in our horses, simply on the basis that the cost of treatment would exceed the value of the animal. I totally accept tat there is suffering by farm animals, but my expectations for care of my horses, and indeed my other animals, is higher.
Click to expand...

In many countries (Belgium, France…) horses ARE farm animals, and are raised and slaughtered for meat. When I was a child, in the farm behind my house, ponies were born, raised and shipped off to market just like any other farm animal. The meat section of the supermarket also had horse in it, next to beef, lamb etc.
 
maya2008 said:
In many countries (Belgium, France…) horses ARE farm animals, and are raised and slaughtered for meat. When I was a child, in the farm behind my house, ponies were born, raised and shipped off to market just like any other farm animal. The meat section of the supermarket also had horse in it, next to beef, lamb etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course, but this does not influence the standards of care I want to provide for my own animals. Where I live there are dogs used as site security for many businesses, if one was sick it would simply be replaced, but just because it happens does not make me feel that it would be acceptable for mine.
 
ycbm said:
That's because you don't understand what I've written.

It has to be about what makes the owner feel the best way they can. Everything we each do in life is based on what makes us feel least bad at the time.

If it makes you feel good to keep retired horses alive, be thankful, but don't assume everyone else would feel the same and for goodness sake please stop telling them (me) that they (I) should!
.
Click to expand...
I understand perfectly.

It is not to my mind about what makes the owner feel good or bad. It is for my bike, my car or my other possessions but not for a living animal. For an animal, for me, it is a case of taking our own ego out of the situation to look at it clearly.

Should we PTS an animal who is coping perfectly well for our convenience so we can have another or on the other side should we keep one alive that is clearly in pain and has little quality of life.

It doesn't make me feel good or bad to retire horses. I just see it as my responsibility for an animal I chose to acquire. No different to my responsibility to looking after it well whilst it was ridden and even PTS when it was ridden if that was needed.
No way would I pass them on for loan/companion/BB/ET etc to abdicate my responsibility and to make me feel good.

I'm not telling anyone, or you, what they should do. It is a discussion group and I am giving my view. Some agree some don't. I don't expect anyone to change their mind because of what I post.

I find your view that you don't retire horses full stop as difficult as you clearly find mine.
 
I had two non riddens on livery for ages. One was taken on as a companion and we've only recently lost him. He was probably the equine love of my life even though I can count on my fingers the number of times I rode him.

I've got land now which does make it easier but even so I PTS one earlier this year that I know some disagreed with. There's a thread somewhere! I actually asked for help on how to safely PTS on that thread not whether I should, but some people still felt the need to express their views. I've never had second thoughts on that and it would have been totally irresponsible to pass him on (for humans involved and the pony himself)

I don't always agree with people's position on here but I respect their right to make the call that works for them. Even if I think a horse should obviously be PTS I'd always try and be tactful and supportive. If I don't agree with a PTS decision then I'll scroll on by!
 
I understand perfectly.
Click to expand...

No, you don't, or you could not write what you are writing. For example:

paddy555 said:
It doesn't make me feel good or bad to retire horses. I just see it as my responsibility for an animal I chose to acquire.
Click to expand...

And fulfilling that perceived responsibility makes you feel good about yourself.

If doing that did not make you feel the least bad, then you wouldn't do it, you'd do whatever would make you feel the least bad.

.
 
paddy555 said:
It doesn't make me feel good or bad to retire horses. I just see it as my responsibility for an animal I chose to acquire. No different to my responsibility to looking after it well whilst it was ridden and even PTS when it was ridden if that was needed.
.
Click to expand...

This is exactly how I feel. In past years it has sometimes felt quite a hardship to keep 'broken' horses, especially when money was tight, but I have always viewed it as my duty. This is not to say that I do not believe that financial issues and what care can realistically be given should not be considered, they absolutely should, and I would advise anyone who could not afford a good standard of care for an older or broken horse to seriously consider PTS, but I would not personally do this just to be able to afford a more useful horse or a nicer car.

Like you I do not expect everyone to feel the same way, and am not seeking to change opinions, but I would say that in general I feel that today there is a lot of emphasis on 'what I want' rather than 'what is my duty', and I do not mean just in relation to animals.
 
Winters100 said:
that today there is a lot of emphasis on 'what I want' rather than 'what is my duty', and I do not mean just in relation to animals.
Click to expand...


I think there is some truth in that but as regards horses there are more horses being retired and fewer PTS when they can no longer be ridden than ever there were when I first bought a horse.

Retirement then was primarily done by people with land of their own and plenty of excess money. It was a long time, decades, into horse ownership before I ever heard anyone state the opinion that someone who could not afford an additional horse should stop riding a horse of their own until the end of the natural lifespan of the horse they "should" give a retirement.
.
 
The meat animal thing is an interesting comparison. I feel happier for the animals that get to live for years, chilling in herds producing young than for the ones destined to get to maturity then go off to slaughter, I think they are the unluckier by birth of the two groups, but I'm OK with the system. I'm vegetarian, not through principle but through squemishness about consuming a dead thing. I think that's in line with being OK with dead horses but preferring live ones where a suitable job and home can work for them (even if that's retired pet, great).
 
Winters100 said:
Like you I do not expect everyone to feel the same way, and am not seeking to change opinions, but I would say that in general I feel that today there is a lot of emphasis on 'what I want' rather than 'what is my duty', and I do not mean just in relation to animals.
Click to expand...

What is my duty? Some people will see that their duty is keeping an animal quality of life is reduced so much that they are staring at four walls 24/7, or herd excluded for their 'welfare', where that has morphed into, what I want, under the cover of duty.
When I had my first elderly horse, which at the time I had owned nine years, I would have a vets review, where all we talked about was the horses physical condition candidly. Now there seems to be no wish unless you are really blunt, for veterinary professionals to be objective, whether this is because they have their professional reputation or income to protect, who wants a Twitter storm, but death is inevitable, and it's the way humans and animals get to that natural conclusion that is important.
As a society we have become detached from the process of death, but how we and animals die should be discussed, parking death descisions can cause suffering. Money is always a factor in death, it's just in human welfare it's often hidden.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02314-X/fulltext
 
ycbm said:
No, you don't, or you could not write what you are writing. For example:



And fulfilling that perceived responsibility makes you feel good about yourself.

If doing that did not make you feel the least bad, then you wouldn't do it, you'd do whatever would make you feel the least bad.

.
Click to expand...
no it doesn't make me feel good or bad. It makes me feel nothing at all because it is not something I even consider or give any thought to. I got my first horse in 1973, he was PTS at 31 and it never occurred to me to do anything else.
I didn't feel sad or I would be letting him down if I PTS earlier, I didn't feel morally superior for keeping him. Just pleased he was able to have his full lifespan.

If you want to put feelings to it then I see it exactly as I would a dog. I have done everything possible to give it as long and happy life as possible. You can call that what you will. If doing that you think would make me feel good then fine by me. I think there are lot like me, especially with dogs, so nothing unusual. Just normal really. If you call that making them or me feel good then I see nothing wrong with it.

I'm not moralising about your choices but I do wonder if I have struck a bit of a chord. Everyone else seems able to either agree and like my comments or just ignore me.
 
honetpot said:
What is my duty? Some people will see that their duty is keeping an animal quality of life is reduced so much that they are staring at four walls 24/7, or herd excluded for their 'welfare', where that has morphed into, what I want, under the cover of duty.
Click to expand...
well I haven't said that in fact I said I don't do box rest, nor do I herd exclude, nor do I keep them with the reduced quality of life you refer to. I haven't noticed that people who have agreed with me have said they do that. I think most of us realise that a lot of factors and care is involved and we have to keep assessing the horse to consider when PTS becomes necessary.

asking "what is my duty" just seems to be an attempt to discredit people who say they retire their horses.
 
honetpot said:
What is my duty? Some people will see that their duty is keeping an animal quality of life is reduced so much that they are staring at four walls 24/7, or herd excluded for their 'welfare', where that has morphed into, what I want, under the cover of duty.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02314-X/fulltext
Click to expand...

I appreciate that some may keep their animals, horses / dogs or any others, longer than is in the best interests of the animal itself, but I have not seen anyone here suggesting that this is acceptable. All that some of us are saying is that while an animal can live a quality and enjoyable life, and where this can realistically be provided by the owner, it is in the best interests of the animal to be afforded such a life rather than being PTS. This seems obvious to me.
 
Winters100 said:
I appreciate that some may keep their animals, horses / dogs or any others, longer than is in the best interests of the animal itself, but I have not seen anyone here suggesting that this is acceptable. All that some of us are saying is that while an animal can live a quality and enjoyable life, and where this can realistically be provided by the owner, it is in the best interests of the animal to be afforded such a life rather than being PTS. This seems obvious to me.
Click to expand...

Why is it in the best interest of the animal though?
 
DabDab said:
Why is it in the best interest of the animal though?
Click to expand...

Are you questioning whether a long and good quality life is better than a short one? I would have thought that it is obvious, because they are living beings who are capable of enjoying things and being happy. It seems to me that these sort of questions imply that our animals are simply 'things' and not capable of appreciating the good things in their lives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top