Why do rescue centres have so many useless horses?

Wagtail said:
The fact that a horse may have worked extremely hard and given years of faithful service matters not a jot then?
Click to expand...


Not really. Horses are expensive to keep. Obviously, most of us love them and treat them like we treat our children, but I doubt there's many "regular" horses that really give true value for money.
 
scrunchie said:
Plus there is every possibility the elderly or disabled person has paid towards their care through tax throughout their working life.
Click to expand...

Yes, and even if not, we as a SOCIETY have decided that we want to provide services such as welfare for humans, social services, the NHS etc. So even if the needy haven't 'paid their share', they will get help.

The same just doesn't apply for animals, it's up to interested individuals to fund that. My horse is ex-rescue, I used to work for a charity and I continue to donate. I'm therefore an interested individual. I would prefer them to use their funds to make a difference to as many horses as possible - that means focussing on horses that can be rehomed, in order to make way for new ones. If that means they have to pts the un-rehomeable horses, then that seems the most sensible thing to me.
 
Last edited:
i understand where OP is coming from, because it isnt old and injured horses being PTS or slaughtered, it is also good healthy ones that no one wants due to over breeding and the economy but (going to get shot I know) if there was an age limit set on those that are at charities who cannot be ridden or who are field sound only and have hit the good old age of 25 then surely they could be quietly put to sleep to make way for others who are younger, healthier and also deserve a chance. Before I get shod down I also have a 14 year old and 17 year old and no I don't want them to be PTS when they get to 25 but these are my beloved ponies and I do feel that those that have been rescued by a charity were not loved otherwise they would not be at the charity in the first place.
 
LEC said:
This is where you are putting human feelings into everything - the horse has no idea about any of this they are just doing what they have been trained to do. They will be no happier alive or dead!
Click to expand...

Rubbish! I'm afraid if you cannot even acknowledge simple emotions such as happiness in animals then it is pointless arguing with you.
 
Wagtail said:
The fact that a horse may have worked extremely hard and given years of faithful service matters not a jot then?
Click to expand...

What if it hasn't? What if it's been lame and awkward since the day it was backed? Is it OK to pts then? Which mug tricked into buying it is responsible for its life-long retirement or do they have to neglect it for a while so a charity will come and take it away? :p

Or is it OK to pts? Is it the most responsible, kindest thing to do? You can't pts people, no matter how lame or awkward they are! Animals and people do not compare and killing animals humanely is either cruel or it isn't. If you think it is cruel, where do you draw the line? Is it OK to kill meat animals? Catch mice? Stamp on wasps? All this argument about horses is down to our own flipping sentimentality.
 
A different twist to the "rescue" I know someone who felt unable to care for a horse they had owned for some time, he had been replaced by a younger model, it was not really a problem to keep the older horse they had land and stables at home and money was not an issue, it was more a time and being tied situation.

A big rescue centre was approached, they were interested as he should have been suitable for loaning, bringing in some money, the owners gave the horse and a fairly large donation and the horse went into the rescue centre, he is still there, as while being prepared to go out on loan he went lame and is considered unsuitable as a companion as he does not really like other horses and is very large. So he is now costing £££s to keep and taking the place of one really in need.

Should he be there? in my view no, he was never in need of rescue had served his owners well and could be living out his days in the home he was in, the rescue centre was, I think in this case , just taking him to get the money the owners donated.
 
I think it's all too easy to look at the logistics and say 'put that old "useless" horse down to make way for this "better" one' without being in the position.
You rescue a horse, you put time and effort into it and you inevitably grow to love it. It's highly unlikely you're going to PTS a horse you are attached to, whether it seems the sensible thing to do or not, for a horse you have never met.
 
B_2_B said:
I think it's all too easy to look at the logistics and say 'put that old "useless" horse down to make way for this "better" one' without being in the position.
You rescue a horse, you put time and effort into it and you inevitably grow to love it. It's highly unlikely you're going to PTS a horse you are attached to, whether it seems the sensible thing to do or not, for a horse you have never met.
Click to expand...

B2B I've been in exactly that position. But while I was working there, it wasn't my job to love them (although I did, I love most horses:)) it was my job to try and ensure the best life for as many horses as possible.
 
Flame_ said:
What if it hasn't? What if it's been lame and awkward since the day it was backed? Is it OK to pts then? Which mug tricked into buying it is responsible for its life-long retirement or do they have to neglect it for a while so a charity will come and take it away? :p

Or is it OK to pts? Is it the most responsible, kindest thing to do? You can't pts people, no matter how lame or awkward they are! Animals and people do not compare and killing animals humanely is either cruel or it isn't. If you think it is cruel, where do you draw the line? Is it OK to kill meat animals? Catch mice? Stamp on wasps? All this argument about horses is down to our own flipping sentimentality.
Click to expand...

Where have I ever said it is wrong to PTS? My argument is simply that just because a horse is old or cannot be ridden for some reason does not mean it is less deserving of care than a fit young horse. Of course, if a horse is in pain and not paddock sound it should be PTS for humane reasons. I also think that it is the owners responsibility to do this rather than fob off to charities. However, the fact is, that people are not always responsible, and the charities pick up the cast offs.

My objection to this thread is that it smacks of treating horses like they are objects or cars rather than living beings.

You have to remember too, that some people donate to the charity for many years before they die and leave their animals to be cared for by them.
 
milliepops said:
B2B I've been in exactly that position. But while I was working there, it wasn't my job to love them (although I did, I love most horses:)) it was my job to try and ensure the best life for as many horses as possible.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think it all depends on the specific ethics of the centre really. I see our "job", or rather purpose as to provide care for the animals we have. It's impossible to save them all but choosing which ones we do make a difference to is far too difficult a problem for everyone to take the same viewpoint.
Making money or being paid to do a job doesn't come into it for me.

I don't think everyone will ever agree on something like this, there are so many variables and differing sentiments.
 
forestfantasy said:
I think the problem is overbreeding - not charities keeping companion ponies!
Click to expand...
Agree. Also, why are the horses charities rescue 'useless'? Could it be because of previous owners? :rolleyes:
I don't think rescues should be used as rehabilitation centres for those who want a 'finished', sorted horse...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wagtail said:
My objection to this thread is that it smacks of treating horses like they are objects or cars rather than living beings.
Click to expand...

I don't think this thread is about treating horses like objects. No one is denying they are living beings. But there's a difference between a living being that is capable of consciously imagining its own death (like a person) and one that is not (like a horse).
 
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...

The answer is in their name :rolleyes:
WORLD HORSE WELFARE

Meaning they don't scrutinize who lives and who dies out of the horses that can live happily in their care , regardless of age background or minor ailment.

As long as the horse or pony or donkey is happy with life then that's
what they take in to consideration.

They all deserve the chance to live a happy retirement.
companion horses are useless you say ? allot of people want companion horses thus they adopt them so they are adoptable.

This sort of thread peeves me off too .
 
Why is a horse that's not rideable life worth any less than a useful horse? Especially if the horses issues are caused by humans!! Shocking IMO, I own two "useless" horses, i would never consider putting them down so I could get a horse to ride when they are both happy ponies.
 
I haven't read any replies yet but TBH, I totally agree with Lec.
Horse charities should be caring for the rescue cases such as Spindles Farm and Hope the Shire but they should not be looking after someone's pet because that person doesn't have the balls to look after it themselves. If they don't want it any longer, fine, sell it, give it away or put it down but don't expect a charity to take over your work for you because you're too idle or haven't the balls to sort something out for yourself.

Charities should be for rescue cases not to salve your conscience because you're too chicken livered to do it yourself.
 
How we treat livestock is a whole other contentious question. Are horses live stock to the average owner? You don't see many people training cattle etc. to be ridden or pull carts. Horses do have a different place in many instances.
Putting ourselves above other animals has got us into this mess. If all owners trained and treated their horses with respect and bred responsibly then we wouldn't need rescues in the first place.
The problem is with US humans, not horses that have to endure our whims and treatment whether good, mediocre or downright bad..
 
amandap said:
I don't think rescues should be used as rehabilitation centres for those who want a 'finished', sorted horse...
Click to expand...

Bang! Absolutely. You have hit the nail on the head there :)

There should be distinctions between hardcore rescue centres, rehabilitation centres and retirement centres.
 
Enfys said:
Bang! Absolutely. You have hit the nail on the head there :)

There should be distinctions between hardcore rescue centres, rehabilitation centres and retirement centres.
Click to expand...

Plus I dont think the rescue centres are equipped to deal with the rehab cases especially if its a big nag with issues
 
kirstykate said:
Sense at last:p:p I really do thing that breeders should be licensed, it would stop so much of this happening.
Click to expand...

:) In an ideal world. How on earth would that be policed though :confused:

My stallion is licensed with two breed societies, but just because he is licensed would not stop me breeding from any old thing with a uterus - if I wanted to.

Nobody can stop me, how could they?
Insist I register everything?
Make me keep records?
 
Wagtail said:
Rubbish! I'm afraid if you cannot even acknowledge simple emotions such as happiness in animals then it is pointless arguing with you.
Click to expand...

Happiness cannot be measured in humans so not sure how you can justify it being measured in animals?
 
Enfys said:
:) In an ideal world. How on earth would that be policed though :confused:

My stallion is licensed with two breed societies, but just because he is licensed would not stop me breeding from any old thing with a uterus - if I wanted to.

Nobody can stop me, how could they?
Insist I register everything?
Make me keep records?
Click to expand...

I know its a b***** I dont think it will ever be sorted as I said earlier there are too many people with crap mares that they can do nothing with that they just bung in foal:mad::mad::mad:and there are too many softies:p:p
 
Flame_ said:
To me it just smacks of the need to treat horses like the livestock they are and not like pets (or worse, children).
Click to expand...

It's all a matter of perspectives surely? To some people horses are pets first and a vehicle for their sport/hobby second. And what a derogatory way to view horses, as 'just' livestock. Do you feel that animals you deem as pets are somehow more important or deserve more care?

FWIW I view all animals the same in terms of how well we ought to treat them, whether they are cows, pigs, horses or dogs.
 
Last edited:
montyforever said:
Why is a horse that's not rideable life worth any less than a useful horse? Especially if the horses issues are caused by humans!! Shocking IMO, I own two "useless" horses, i would never consider putting them down so I could get a horse to ride when they are both happy ponies.
Click to expand...

But that's YOUR choice. Would you expect someone else to pay for/look after them while you went off and bought a new horse to ride? I don't think so!
 
Too many being bred! I suppose the regulation should come from breeding horses. Perhaps thats where the money should be spent providing castration for stallions running with mares etc. The number of horses being advertised as running with stallion or could be in foal etc is quite worrying or a good broadmare is very sad.

Animals are thus disposable life is cheap...........Perhaps money should be spent offering free castration service with the charity money? I dont really know the answer..more regulation etc. But who is going to police it all?
 
Flame_ said:
To me it just smacks of the need to treat horses like the livestock they are and not like pets (or worse, children).
Click to expand...

Horses are pets, most horse owner would not consider their horse livestock.

I don't for one they are pets - family members .

And whats wrong with treating horses like children ?? I for one prefer horses to children ( shoot me down now ).


MY view is if treating horses like children means they are pampered well looked after spoilt and loved?? I for see no problem in that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top