Why do people assume a horse could not be retired?

[Wagtail]

I see this time and time again on PTS posts where a horse sustains an injury that would make it paddock sound but no longer able to work. The owner says 'oh he could never cope without being worked...' or words to that effect. It really winds me up. I think it's a complete misconception and that virtually ALL horses will settle into a life of retirement, so long as they are well cared for. I think it is putting our own feelings onto the animal and that it is us that would find it hard to cope with the situation.

By all means, if the horse is suffering, then PTS, but don't assume the horse will not get used to a new life of leisure. My own field ornament loved to work. She always tries to come out when I bring other horses in for work. I know she misses it. But is she happy? Hell yes!

 

[Ladylina83]

I have to admit to the same thoughts - although saying that my mare has never really enjoyed her work ( or not let on to the fact anyway) But just recently I have not had as much time to work both of mine and she's had a week or so off and got very jealous that I am not giving her any attention. I think she would be different if she couldn't see me though and was more than happy living out and not working for 6 months when she was at stud !

So in conclusion to my whittering I don't think you can expect to keep your horse in the same way as when it was working - seeing everyone else go out to competition being left alone when you go on hack but I do think they will settle into any routine you throw at them given time

 

[Spyda]

I'll be devil's advocate here....... Frankly, it'll boil down to the cost. What else in reality? Not necessarily applicable to those lucky enough to have ample land of their own and to be able to keep one or two extra retirees at minimal additional cost within their 'herd' (I'd ask the OP's question to them specifically TBH), but more for those paying high cost livery in their area and scrape together enough money to keep a single horse to ride; I suppose then the PTS option is a viable option in their opinion. Personally I don't see humane PTS a terrible option if that's the choice that's made, whist equally if someone is able to offer an unsound horse a retirement home for life I applaud and admire them (after all, I am one myself ). But everyone cannot be the same. Some on here believe every horse they own is a 'horse is for life', whilst most horse owners haven't or don't shrink at selling on a horse and buying another at some point in the life; others use horses as stepping stones, and others still, as means of making money or as merely see them as a commodity.

 

[Wagtail]

I think that with horses that love to work, it is mainly the attention and wanting to please that makes them that way. But I agree, horses will settle into most routines eventually. Why people assume they would be better off dead than a little bit bored, is beyond me. Horses are designed to mooch around grazing and occasionally flee from predators. Working them is something we unnaturally train them to do. Retiring them is simply returning them to the life they (very happily) had before they were broken in!

 

[AmyMay]

I see this time and time again on PTS posts where a horse sustains an injury that would make it paddock sound but no longer able to work. The owner says 'oh he could never cope without being worked...' or words to that effect. It really winds me up. I think it's a complete misconception

I guess these owners know their horses better than you, so are better able to make a judgement.

And for many horses, especially those who have had a competative career and genuinly thrive on work, retirement simply is not an option.

Retiring them is simply returning them to the life they (very happily) had before they were broken in!

I guess you've never had a bunch of youngsters needing a job to keep them out of trouble...

 

[Rowreach]

Unfortunately I have loads of retired horses, ranging from 6 yrs to 15 yrs, so not ancient, and likely to be with me for many years to come. Once they work out that their routine has changed, they are perfectly happy in their new roles - it's not that much different to turning out a horse for a few weeks' holiday when they have been in full work - it just takes them a bit of time to adapt.

I am much more concerned by the numbers of horses (many of whom are posted about on here) who are still being ridden when they really really shouldn't be To me the horses are crying out to their deaf owners that they are in pain and discomfort and really retirement is the kindest option for them, or in some cases being pts.

I do also think that economics come into it as well. I have plenty of land and stabling and work from home so keeping retired horses costs me far less than if I was paying livery for them. I wouldn't have any problem with any owner who decides to pts a horse which can no longer be ridden if they cannot, say, afford another horse if they keep the retired one. Surely that's better for the horse than being passed from pillar to post or being left in a field without proper care.

 

[be positive]

I agree I have retired several,am lucky to have own land etc so they can stay at minimal expense,they are quite happy to be out in the fields with company.

I feel that people use it as an excuse as they often cannot get another horse until the "useless" one has gone.

It is also often said about racehorses,but most NH horses are turned away for the summer to rest so whats the difference,its just an extended holiday.As long as they have company,enough to eat,shelter and a rug when needed ,most will happily go back to living as nature intended.

That said if you are not prepared to keep them I do feel that pts is better than passing them on to possibly end up in the wrong hands,at least you know that cannot happen.

Maybe more good retirement livery yards should start up,but you do need plenty of land and knowledge to care for the oldies,they cannot just be turned out and left.I am not sure that enough owners will want to continue paying out for what may be years of happy retirement.

 

[chestnut cob]

I don't see what difference it makes - surely it's personal choice?! I'd rather see a horse PTS than some of the crippled retired field ornaments you see wandering around because the owner has some romantic notion that it deserves a "lovely retirement". Horses have no concept of tomorrow so IMHO as long as today has been good, it shouldn't matter to anyone but the owner whether there even *is* a tomorrow.

If people want to retire their horses and keep them forever, fine, it's their choice and I wouldn't judge them because of it. My own horse wouldn't retire - I tried to give him a quieter life earlier this year and he hated it so he's now back in full work (albeit a bit creaky and wonky some days) and loving it. He has arthritis and really does need to do more than just amble around the field. If I choose to put him down when his working days are over, it's my choice and no one else has the right to judge me because of it.

 

[Wagtail]

I'll be devil's advocate here....... Frankly, it'll boil down to the cost. What else in reality? Not necessarily applicable to those lucky enough to have ample land of their own and to be able to keep one or two extra retirees at minimal additional cost within their 'herd' (I'd ask the OP's question to them specifically TBH), but more for those paying high cost livery in their area and scrape together enough money to keep a single horse to ride; I suppose then the PTS option is a viable option in their opinion. Personally I don't see humane PTS a terrible option if that's the choice that's made, whist equally if someone is able to offer an unsound horse a retirement home for life I applaud and admire them (after all, I am one myself ). But everyone cannot be the same. Some on here believe every horse they own is a 'horse is for life', whilst most horse owners haven't or don't shrink at selling on a horse and buying another at some point in the life; others use horses as stepping stones, and others still, as means of making money or as merely see them as a commodity.

And that is fine. We are all different. But what irks me is rather than saying the real reason their horse is going to be PTS, people come out with the line that their horse would be so unhappy not working that it is kinder to put them to sleep. How do they think the horse coped before it was broken in? Do they think they were a terribly unhappy youngster that would have been better off dead than not being broken in? Maybe they genuinely THINK their horse would be unhappy retired, or maybe they have heard the phrase before and it helps make them feel better about the decision, I don't know. All I am saying is that it is a false assumption.

 

[Wagtail]

I guess these owners know their horses better than you, so are better able to make a judgement.

And for many horses, especially those who have had a competative career and genuinly thrive on work, retirement simply is not an option.

Why not? It is what they did before working. They adapted to a working life, they can adapt back again.

 

[Wagtail]

Unfortunately I have loads of retired horses, ranging from 6 yrs to 15 yrs, so not ancient, and likely to be with me for many years to come. Once they work out that their routine has changed, they are perfectly happy in their new roles - it's not that much different to turning out a horse for a few weeks' holiday when they have been in full work - it just takes them a bit of time to adapt.

I am much more concerned by the numbers of horses (many of whom are posted about on here) who are still being ridden when they really really shouldn't be To me the horses are crying out to their deaf owners that they are in pain and discomfort and really retirement is the kindest option for them, or in some cases being pts.

I do also think that economics come into it as well. I have plenty of land and stabling and work from home so keeping retired horses costs me far less than if I was paying livery for them. I wouldn't have any problem with any owner who decides to pts a horse which can no longer be ridden if they cannot, say, afford another horse if they keep the retired one. Surely that's better for the horse than being passed from pillar to post or being left in a field without proper care.

Completely agree. There are financial considerations and not everyone is lucky enough to have their own land to retire the horse and have another one to ride. But it is the excuse that the horse could not be retired because he loves to work that I have a problem with.

 

[L&M]

As with all these type of issues I think it depends on the horse, facilities and owners bank balance!

If I had a horse going into retirement either through old age or injury, turnout would be my main concern - both my horses have had a life of reasonably hard work and routine, overnight stabling and turnout in small paddocks. This would have to be adjusted if they were to retire as would like to 'turn away' 24/7, but then there is also the issue of companionship - for example if one was bought in would the other stress if left out? Would I then have to get a companion for the retired one which in turn would also have financial implications?

When the time comes for mine I will have to 'suck it and see' - I imagine one would adapt as has always been a lazy so and so, and have the land and finaces in place to give it a go. The other I am not so sure about, and if he couldn't cope I would give him a summer off then take to the kennels before the weather turned.

A hard one but each to his own. I certainly wouldn't criticise somone for pts if they didn't think their horse could cope with retirement - it is their decision and they know the horse best...

 

[Maesfen]

I'll be devil's advocate here....... Frankly, it'll boil down to the cost. What else in reality? Not necessarily applicable to those lucky enough to have ample land of their own and to be able to keep one or two extra retirees at minimal additional cost within their 'herd' (I'd ask the OP's question to them specifically TBH), but more for those paying high cost livery in their area and scrape together enough money to keep a single horse to ride; I suppose then the PTS option is a viable option in their opinion. Personally I don't see humane PTS a terrible option if that's the choice that's made, whist equally if someone is able to offer an unsound horse a retirement home for life I applaud and admire them (after all, I am one myself ). But everyone cannot be the same. Some on here believe every horse they own is a 'horse is for life', whilst most horse owners haven't or don't shrink at selling on a horse and buying another at some point in the life; others use horses as stepping stones, and others still, as means of making money or as merely see them as a commodity.

Couldn't agree more with this.
It's always a purely personal thing and we must not lose sight of that fact that just because you/I/we would not do something does not make it wrong for someone else and you/I/we must not lose sight of the fact that you/I/we should not pressurize them to think like you/I/we do, which sadly, HHO is prone to do which is the last thing the person in question needs at that time. We must play fair to them whatever their decision, to do otherwise is very spiteful and behaviour like that only belongs in the playground.

Saying that, I have no doubt that there are horses that do not cope well with retirement, get miserable, withdrawn, grouchy or plain nasty if they are not in work and if they are unsound to do any work at all with no hope of improvement to even a field soundness, then IMV, it is the kindest thing to put them down.
Some people will have the time to devote 'them' time to them, many of us will not have that time and there is nothing worse for them than an old or permanently lame/injured horse being left on the shelf. In circumstances like that then I'd have no hesitation to put down as their quality of life is zilch, it would be cruel to do otherwise IMV because then you are only thinking of yourselves.

 

[Wagtail]

I agree I have retired several,am lucky to have own land etc so they can stay at minimal expense,they are quite happy to be out in the fields with company.

I feel that people use it as an excuse as they often cannot get another horse until the "useless" one has gone.

It is also often said about racehorses,but most NH horses are turned away for the summer to rest so whats the difference,its just an extended holiday.As long as they have company,enough to eat,shelter and a rug when needed ,most will happily go back to living as nature intended.

That said if you are not prepared to keep them I do feel that pts is better than passing them on to possibly end up in the wrong hands,at least you know that cannot happen.

Maybe more good retirement livery yards should start up,but you do need plenty of land and knowledge to care for the oldies,they cannot just be turned out and left.I am not sure that enough owners will want to continue paying out for what may be years of happy retirement.

Completely agree. I would worry about an injured horse being passed to the wrong hands. PTS is better I think if a horses future cannot be secured. But it just annoys me that people will turn away their hiunters for the summer and then say that they would not be happy retired as soon as they can no longer do their job. It is a fallacy that some others may actually believe. Others that may be able to afford to retire a loved horse.

 

[chestnut cob]

I think that with horses that love to work, it is mainly the attention and wanting to please that makes them that way. But I agree, horses will settle into most routines eventually. Why people assume they would be better off dead than a little bit bored, is beyond me. Horses are designed to mooch around grazing and occasionally flee from predators. Working them is something we unnaturally train them to do. Retiring them is simply returning them to the life they (very happily) had before they were broken in!

Horses were designed to mooch around and travel around 30 miles per day, not be kept retired in a couple of acre paddock. If I had my own land with plenty of space then maybe it would be easier but most of us have to keep our horses at livery, where the space our horses have available is dictated by someone else (and please don't just say "move yards" as it isn't always that simple!).

 

[riding_high]

my horse is retired, he is field sound and happy (most of the time), but there are times when you can clearly see he is longing to do something, his mind won't let him believe he's no longer able to gallop across the country.
when my OH brings him in at night he mooches down the track, happily bimbling along.
when i get him in he's got a fast walk going on and he thinks i'm gonna ride him.
if my son walks up the track my horse will march over to the gate to be caught, my son then rides him down the track and my horse thinks it's great, you can see he clearly enjoys it because he's having a 'job' to do.

i tried him on complete field rest for 9 months, everyone said he was looking depressed and i could see him 'ageing' so i let my son have the occassional ride on him and it put a spring back in his step and he seemed happy. so in my case (well my horses case) he is happy to be retired but just needs that extra something to keep him happy and i guess him feeling like he's still needed. he's worked hard all his life and can't seem to accept it's time to put his hooves up!

 

[AmyMay]

Why not? It is what they did before working. They adapted to a working life, they can adapt back again.

I think you have an idealistic view of the world Wagtail. Nice place to be, but not always hugely in touch with some realities.

 

[Wagtail]

I don't see what difference it makes - surely it's personal choice?! I'd rather see a horse PTS than some of the crippled retired field ornaments you see wandering around because the owner has some romantic notion that it deserves a "lovely retirement". Horses have no concept of tomorrow so IMHO as long as today has been good, it shouldn't matter to anyone but the owner whether there even *is* a tomorrow.

If people want to retire their horses and keep them forever, fine, it's their choice and I wouldn't judge them because of it. My own horse wouldn't retire - I tried to give him a quieter life earlier this year and he hated it so he's now back in full work (albeit a bit creaky and wonky some days) and loving it. He has arthritis and really does need to do more than just amble around the field. If I choose to put him down when his working days are over, it's my choice and no one else has the right to judge me because of it.

What indication did he give that he hated it? And for how long?

 

[riding_high]

i would love a horse that i could ride, it costs me a fortune in livery for my horse and my OH has said that if i find somewhere cheaper to keep him i can get another one to ride. sometimes i think yay great but then i think about the lack of time i'd be able to give my horse and also why should i move him to a new place when he is happy and settled. i'd rather miss out on the riding to have my horse happy and i enjoy looking after him.

he may not be here next year, depending on how he copes with winter so i'm determined to make each day worthwhile with him.

 

[Spyda]

And that is fine. We are all different. But what irks me is rather than saying the real reason their horse is going to be PTS, people come out with the line that their horse would be so unhappy not working that it is kinder to put them to sleep. How do they think the horse coped before it was broken in? Do they think they were a terribly unhappy youngster that would have been better off dead than not being broken in? Maybe they genuinely THINK their horse would be unhappy retired, or maybe they have heard the phrase before and it helps make them feel better about the decision, I don't know. All I am saying is that it is a false assumption.

Nah doubt they think that far about it. They need an excuse to convince themselves (and other's who'll they'll deem will judge them badly for their decision) that the PTS option really IS okay. That's all. I bet 99% of the time the real reason the PTS option is chosen is a financial one but that sounds far too callus. Far better to tell yourself you're doing it out of kindness. That said, such posts as this probably qualify their concerns at being judged if they DO decide to PTS an unsound horse!

 

[Rowreach]

I would rather someone pts a horse with the excuse that it could not be retired because it loves being worked than the many many people who carry on riding horses which should no longer be ridden, with the excuse that they would not cope with retirement.

 

[Maesfen]

But what irks me is rather than saying the real reason their horse is going to be PTS, people come out with the line that their horse would be so unhappy not working that it is kinder to put them to sleep.

But what's it to do with you what their reasons are, they don't have to explain to you or anyone else and you shouldn't pressurize them to do things the way you want them?

 

[AmyMay]

Nah doubt they think that far about it. They need an excuse to convince themselves (and other's who'll they'll deem will judge them badly for their decision) that the PTS option really IS okay. That's all. I bet 99% of the time the real reason the PTS option is chosen is a financial one but that sounds far too callus. Far better to tell yourself you're doing it out of kindness. That said, such posts as this probably qualify their concerns at being judged if they DO decide to PTS an unsound horse!

Wow Spyda, cynical

 

[Allover]

Couldn't agree more with this.
It's always a purely personal thing and we must not lose sight of that fact that just because you/I/we would not do something does not make it wrong for someone else and you/I/we must not lose sight of the fact that you/I/we should not pressurize them to think like you/I/we do, which sadly, HHO is prone to do which is the last thing the person in question needs at that time. We must play fair to them whatever their decision, to do otherwise is very spiteful and behaviour like that only belongs in the playground.

Saying that, I have no doubt that there are horses that do not cope well with retirement, get miserable, withdrawn, grouchy or plain nasty if they are not in work and if they are unsound to do any work at all with no hope of improvement to even a field soundness, then IMV, it is the kindest thing to put them down.
Some people will have the time to devote 'them' time to them, many of us will not have that time and there is nothing worse for them than an old or permanently lame/injured horse being left on the shelf. In circumstances like that then I'd have no hesitation to put down as their quality of life is zilch, it would be cruel to do otherwise IMV because then you are only thinking of yourselves.

^^^^^this^^^^^^^

Wagtail, i presume you are posted this due to the other post on here regarding a horse being put down today (i think it is today anyway). If this is the reason i think you have been wholly insensitive, these people obviously adore this horse and are doing what they thnk is best for this particular horse. You never know the full situation. I really hope they do not read this thread as it will only serve to make them feel even worse than they undoubtedly feel already.

IMO it is better to PTS years too early than a day to late, the horse knows nothing when it is dead!

 

[Wagtail]

As with all these type of issues I think it depends on the horse, facilities and owners bank balance!

If I had a horse going into retirement either through old age or injury, turnout would be my main concern - both my horses have had a life of reasonably hard work and routine, overnight stabling and turnout in small paddocks. This would have to be adjusted if they were to retire as would like to 'turn away' 24/7, but then there is also the issue of companionship - for example if one was bought in would the other stress if left out? Would I then have to get a companion for the retired one which in turn would also have financial implications?

When the time comes for mine I will have to 'suck it and see' - I imagine one would adapt as has always been a lazy so and so, and have the land and finaces in place to give it a go. The other I am not so sure about, and if he couldn't cope I would give him a summer off then take to the kennels before the weather turned.

A hard one but each to his own. I certainly wouldn't criticise somone for pts if they didn't think their horse could cope with retirement - it is their decision and they know the horse best...

It's not the decision to PTS I have issue with, it is the belief that a horse would rather be dead than be a bit bored in the field. My own mare has become cheekier and more of a handful since retiring. It is because she needs stimulation and that is her way of getting it. I believe she was happier before retirement, but sadly, she has no choice. I know she is still a happy horse and I do ground stuff with her every now and then. It saddens me to think she has had to retire relatively young. She wants to work, but she is still a happy healthy horse. I certainly would not think death was better for her than a little bit of boredom.

 

[chestnut cob]

But what's it to do with you what their reasons are, they don't have to explain to you or anyone else and you shouldn't pressurize them to do things the way you want them?

*applauds*

This is the whole point... what is it to do with the OP what others do with their horses? Better to PTS than leave something unsound in a field with the romantic notion that it is enjoying its retirement.

 

[be positive]

Nah doubt they think that far about it. They need an excuse to convince themselves (and other's who'll they'll deem will judge them badly for their decision) that the PTS option really IS okay. That's all. I bet 99% of the time the real reason the PTS option is chosen is a financial one but that sounds far too callus. Far better to tell yourself you're doing it out of kindness. That said, such posts as this probably qualify their concerns at being judged if they DO decide to PTS an unsound horse!

Cynical,maybe, but in most cases probably true.

 

[indi4]

I think most horses will handle retirement fine, but there are the odd few that don't. I had a mare that could be fairly difficult to handle and could be quite evil, but whilist in work was managable. She then went lame and would never become sound. She was becomeing more and more dangerous to handle as she was bored, and she would just explode so it was decieced that for everyone's saftey she was PTS. If she hadn't have got so dangerous she'd still be here today.

 

[Wagtail]

^^^^^this^^^^^^^

Wagtail, i presume you are posted this due to the other post on here regarding a horse being put down today (i think it is today anyway). If this is the reason i think you have been wholly insensitive, these people obviously adore this horse and are doing what they thnk is best for this particular horse. You never know the full situation. I really hope they do not read this thread as it will only serve to make them feel even worse than they undoubtedly feel already.

IMO it is better to PTS years too early than a day to late, the horse knows nothing when it is dead!

There is no thread that I am aware of regarding this. If there is, I have not seen it. I would have posted on the thread as I always do when people use the 'he could never be retired line'. I always hope to change people's minds if that is the only reason they have to PTS.

 

[chestnut cob]

It's not the decision to PTS I have issue with, it is the belief that a horse would rather be dead than be a bit bored in the field. My own mare has become cheekier and more of a handful since retiring. It is because she needs stimulation and that is her way of getting it. I believe she was happier before retirement, but sadly, she has no choice. I know she is still a happy horse and I do ground stuff with her every now and then. It saddens me to think she has had to retire relatively young. She wants to work, but she is still a happy healthy horse. I certainly would not think death was better for her than a little bit of boredom.

The point is that this is your decision. I don't care what you choose to do with your horse, if you want to keep your retired horse for 20 years, fine. Horses don't have any concept of retirement or death - my horse certainly does not stand around in the field hoping not to die tomorrow or wishing he could retire.

I can't understand why you are ranting about this. I'd rather see people being responsible than passing retired horses on as companions because they don't have the balls to make the decision.