Why do rescue centres have so many useless horses?

LEC

LEC

Opinions are like bum holes, everyone has one.
Joined
22 July 2005
Messages
11,711
Visit site
I am just fascinated why charities such as the WHW spend so much money keeping companion horses/ponies which are effectively useless when instead they could be devoting the money to horses who will go on to lead productive lives, can be rehomed and the money saved spent on improving conditions etc?

I heard last night that Potters has a 9 week waiting list for horse slaughter!! Which got me thinking about the whole pitiful situation and that actually the whole system is completely broken.
 
My two shetlands you could say are useless . But to me they are therapy and keep me going in life. Most people are only interested in riding which yes its a bonus but my two have given me more happiness then any of the riding horses I used to have
 
I agree with Spoon ^^

LEC said:
I heard last night that Potters has a 9 week waiting list for horse slaughter!! Which got me thinking about the whole pitiful situation and that actually the whole system is completely broken.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is overbreeding - not charities keeping companion ponies!
 
I agree with you in reason....but I think its a moral obligation to do your best for any animal.....
I agree entirely that if an animal needs daily painkillers/other medication to keep it alive, then perhaps it is in that animals best interests to let him/her go, but if they are happy pottering around, leading a happy and 'useful' life giving joy to someone/babysitting comp horses or foals/allowing disabled children to groom them or something like that, then they should absolutely live their lives.

I dont agree with trying to save animals that should not be saved.... sometimes its kinder to let them go.
 
When I read threads like this I often think, 'isnt it a good thing that horses cant use the internet?' Just imagine all the posts to Human and Human forum going, ' do you ever wonder why so many stables have useless, uncaring humans about'....
 
staceyn said:
My two shetlands you could say are useless . But to me they are therapy and keep me going in life. Most people are only interested in riding which yes its a bonus but my two have given me more happiness then any of the riding horses I used to have
Click to expand...

Hear Hear !!

My two Shetlands are retired but far from "useless" because of the pleasure they give to me.

I don't think that the type of people who run rescue centres are of a mind to put animals down while there is still hope for them.
 
Oh and by the way OP - whw aims to rehome EVERY horse they take in, whether or not it can be ridden. It is not a sanctuary. Its horses go on to lead useful lives, some as ridden horses, driving horses, or companions.
 
It's a tricky subject. For me, this

LEC said:
they could be devoting the money to horses who will go on to lead productive lives, can be rehomed
Click to expand...

Is the critical bit. There are unrideable 'useless' horses that can be useFUL companions and rehomed as such, but there are also horses that are too difficult/ill to be rehomed and they are sometimes kept on at huge expense which is questionable if their quality of life is poor.:(

Thing is though, these centres need some residents that visitors can come and see and fuss etc, in order to generate donations for their 'real' work - there needs to be a happy medium IMO. Those horses are usually there for the long term by necessity - they have to be used to having kids etc patting their noses :D
 
Personaly my horses are 'useless' but I can tell you one thing I am very ill and can no longer work most of the time I am bed ridden and the only thing that has kept me going is those two fluffs. They bring me hope and give me a reason to not give up on life. I think riding is over rated its a nice bonus but . Having useless horses for me is the best decision I ever made.
 
Spoon. said:
Are you saying that say, for example, your horse becomes permenantly lame and unable to use for riding and you become unable to afford him/her. You give him/her to a charity were he/she could live the rest of his life happy and carefree or would you have him PTS? Just because he's ''useless''.
Click to expand...

I would definitely have said horse put down, without doubt.
 
Spoon. said:
But they're saving the 'useless' horses/ponies out there. If it weren't for them, there would be a hell of a lot more mistreated/dead 'useless' horses/ponies everywhere.
Click to expand...
My point was that if there really were lots of people looking to rehome a companion then the centres would not be full. Reality is these days the demand is way behind the supply.
Charities have finite space and resources. At some point decisions will have to be taken.
I believe it is the basis of these decisions that the OP is questioning.
 
If you have a horse which is not able to be ridden any longer, which you can't afford to keep, then unless you personally know and absolutely trust the person who would take it on as a companion, including where it would be kept, under what conditions and what would happen if that person too became unable to look after your horse, there is only one thing to do as a responsible owner.

And that it to have your horse PTS.

Two reason: how could you ever be sure that your horse was being looked after properly and importantly, why should you palm off your problem, including all the time and money needing to be spent, on someone else?
 
PaddyMonty said:
Charities have finite space and resources. At some point decisions will have to be taken.
I believe it is the basis of these decisions that the OP is questioning.
Click to expand...

That's how I read it too. I also believe that as they rely on limited donated funds they should direct it to the horses with most potential for a long and happy life - and these decisions can't be based on sentimentality :(
 
Has anyone on here any knowledge of the basis on which charities make these decisions, I wonder... Or might people be making an awful lot of rather large assumptions? And criticising without having all the facts?
 
Wow, they are not useless!! :mad:

We're a very small rescue but we have over 200 horses out on loan to homes and many of them are companions. They have all been given a second chance and I guarantee they give back as much as they possibly can.

We have a handful that stay on site permanently, many can't be ridden but I will tell you exactly what they do.

1. They taught me and other volunteers to ride and continue to give me a chance to ride when I otherwise wouldn't.
2. They help out with EAL - Equine Assisted Learning, and Equine Therapy. You try telling the children that they've helped that they're useless. Go on.
3. They stand for something. They educate our visitors and show the countless children that visit or volunteer that you can get a second chance in life.
4. They changed me as a person. I was a shy 12 year old when I started volunteering there with not many friends. I am not now and I owe that to the horses (and all the animals here), people on here will testify to that!

Sorry, but saying they are useless is ridiculous.
 
Mrs B said:
If you have a horse which is not able to be ridden any longer, which you can't afford to keep, then unless you personally know and absolutely trust the person who would take it on as a companion, including where it would be kept, under what conditions and what would happen if that person too became unable to look after your horse, there is only one thing to do as a responsible owner.

And that it to have your horse PTS.

Two reason: how could you ever be sure that your horse was being looked after properly and importantly, why should you palm off your problem, including all the time and money needing to be spent, on someone else?
Click to expand...

This. I have made the choice to keep my old boy as a pet, and I can't afford another, but I would not expect anyone else to have to look after him just because I want another horse I can ride?!
 
FWIW I get that the OP is questioning the keeping of horses that can't be rehomed, I do understand but they are not useless and we can't generalise all horses which can't be ridden as useless.
 
milliepops said:
I also believe that as they rely on limited donated funds they should direct it to the horses with most potential for a long and happy life - and these decisions can't be based on sentimentality :(
Click to expand...
Just how I see it but then I also take the view that a horse that has been PTS does NOT know it has happened. I'm pretty sure they are all sitting on clouds thinking "The b********s killed me." It is only the human emotion that is being satisfied when a horse or any other animal is kept alive in circumstances the OP outlined.
Take the human emotion out and look at things logically from the horses perspective.
 
I agree with the OP here. I am not saying I wouldnt keep my own horse as a non rideable companion but a rescue centre with limited places should look at which horse is most desirable to rehome (which of course is their aim?).
 
LEC said:
I am just fascinated why charities such as the WHW spend so much money keeping companion horses/ponies which are effectively useless when instead they could be devoting the money to horses who will go on to lead productive lives, can be rehomed and the money saved spent on improving conditions etc?

I heard last night that Potters has a 9 week waiting list for horse slaughter!! Which got me thinking about the whole pitiful situation and that actually the whole system is completely broken.
Click to expand...

I'm more disturbed by the amount of money this country spends on useless people to be frank!
 
Spoon. said:
This post pee's be off a bit.

Are you saying that say, for example, your horse becomes permenantly lame and unable to use for riding and you become unable to afford him/her. You give him/her to a charity were he/she could live the rest of his life happy and carefree or would you have him PTS? Just because he's ''useless''.

I know I wouldn't. These ponies and horses deserve life and may be companions through no fault of their own, why do they deserve to be PTS just to make way for more 'useful' horses?

It doesn't seem fair to me.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would rehome a companion horse as they would a ridden horse/pony.
Click to expand...

I would have the horse put down in this situation- not because the horse is useless, but because the horse is my responsibility- nobody else's.

Rescues are full enough with neglected horses that really need care, why should they have to take on the responsibility of someone's "useless" (to use your words) horse because that person will not do so themselves?

Being PTS is not the worst thing in the world for a horse IMO.
 
Spoon. said:
Are you saying that say, for example, your horse becomes permanently lame and unable to use for riding and you become unable to afford him/her. You give him/her to a charity were he/she could live the rest of his life happy and carefree or would you have him PTS? Just because he's ''useless''.
Click to expand...

I think you have to be clear on what the role of a rescue charity is, Spoon. It is not to take your horse off you when the above happens - because your horse is your responsibility. If you choose to retire it or have it pts, that's your choice.

A rescue charity is there to help horses in need - not those in a private home that can afford them.
 
Example there are a few horses on whw ect which are classd as companions but a lot of them are just young stock that may be rideable when they reach maturity . And will need a competent handler .
 
I don't think it's as black and white as some people think.
There's an awful lot to think about when putting a "desirability" label on a horse.

I agree that rescues which are full shouldn't be taking in more, or shouldn't take in a horse they think will have no chance of a new home BUT you can't always tell this!

Often the horses come in bad shape and it's impossible to tell if they can be ridden, what their true personalities are like and how rehomeable they are.
Where do you draw the line with turning animals away because "they might not get a home?"

It depends on if the rescue has a list of people waiting to rehome or who they know who would rehome, whether these people want a ridden horse, a companion, a pet or what.

There are so many variables and it's got to be a case of take each animal as it comes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top