Why do rescue centres have so many useless horses?

Little bit late to this, but just throwing a couple of extra points in to the debate:

Firstly, we as a society do treat older or sicker humans differently to the young or the less sick. A friend of mine has just been offered a cancer treatment that would not be offered to someone older or sicker because it wouldn't be cost effective. Whether or not you agree with it, the NHS isn't a bottomless pot and care is sometimes rationed on the basis of those most likely to benefit.

Secondly, if a rescue is in a position to take in a horse, rehab it and rehome it, they can then take in another. If you can turn around a horse and rehome it, you free up space for another one. Taking in the "useful" ones (and perhaps running a very good slaughter facility on the side) should theoretically mean more horses can be helped overall - and since we can't help them all, surely the number than can be helped should be a major factor? I admit it wouldn't be as attractive to supporters, but it should be something to consider in a debate like this ...
 
Bequeathing a pony to charity is peace of mind. Realistically how often does it happen that an equine outlives their human? WHW and plenty of charities find that a large % of their money is from donations left in wills, and I suspect that many of the people who leave their horse to The charity also leave a sum regardless of if their horse outlives them.

I too find the concept of sanctuaries a bit odd, but they DO make a difference to a few equines, and they use a lot of their resources promoting welfare and trying to prevent neglect and unwitting abuse through education, which the other charities also do, BHS being the best example IMO.

Just to reiterate to those who may not realise, the majority of the spaces in the rehoming charities are taken by equines who will go out on loan as a companion. If WHW Pts every horse who couldnt be ridden then their equine centres would be almost empty; ridden and rideable horses are not usually the ones in need of rescue, it is those who are bred for no good reason who usually are.

Plus to the general perhaps less knowledgeable public how does it look, a charity pts a healthy equine? How does it look to people like the owners of carrot and spud, who at the end of the day signed the pair over immediately. If they had thought they would be destroyed because they could not be ridden would they have done that? it would have taken months of more suffering, improvement notices and a court case before those two could be moved.

I imagine the donations and support would soon dry up if equine charities destroyed equines who were healthy.
 
Leviathan said:
I based this on what has been said in the past and what WHW said to me







It has nothing to do with how much or if you leave enough for your horse when gifted in.
Its a service they offer no one forces you , but if you want to secure their future then the option is there.
I myself are gifting mine in.
Click to expand...

Look, I think that's lovely that you can do that. It's surely peace of mind for an owner. But do I, as a person who donates to charity, want to pay for some perfectly healthy horses to be kept at the charity's expense? Not really.

I dunno. I'm in a funny situation because if I pop my clogs before my mare does, she'll go back to the charity she came from anyway. Hopefully she would be rehomed asap again :D
 
Wow - hope our Old Boy doesn't hear you lot calling him useless! As far as I'm concerned he's a pet and is no more useless than say my cat. Plus he makes good fertiliser for my mum's veg patch.

What I don't get is why is the waiting list for the abbatoir so long? Because of an increase in demand or because they've cut down how many horses they process? Perhaps sorting that end of things out might go some way of easing the over population.

Although I agree there are worse things that can happen to a horse than PTS, I don't agree that just because they have no concept of future that it makes it o.k to put a healthy horse down. They are pretty hard wired to stay alive so do have some understanding of death!

Back to the original point - In my opinion I think it may be the case that the rescue centres are quite quick to state that a horse can't be ridden. I guess they don't have the time to work through any problems they may have and can't take the risk of rehoming ponies with problems for children to ride.

Also - as someone else has said, most rescue centres only take in welfare cases i.e. where there are grounds to legally seize the animals. As most of you who moan about the RSPCA know, things have to be pretty dire before this happens.
 
Leviathan said:
Well its been proven that The Guide Dogs are the richest charity . This is one reason why I wont support them.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the success of the charity financially, I agree with what they do, they are not trying to raise funds to keep ill or substandard animals existing when the money could be better spent looking after 20 other perfectly healthy animals.

In reply to general points raised further on:
Using the example of one's own pet is a slightly skewed perspective because you and you alone are responsible for the welfare and cost of your pet you don't go round begging people for money to feed, house and medicate him or her or them.
 
milliepops said:
Look, I think that's lovely that you can do that. It's surely peace of mind for an owner. But do I, as a person who donates to charity, want to pay for some perfectly healthy horses to be kept at the charity's expense? Not really.

I dunno. I'm in a funny situation because if I pop my clogs before my mare does, she'll go back to the charity she came from anyway. Hopefully she would be rehomed asap again :D
Click to expand...

Its all legal and above board the charity know i have a bank account which goes with my animals.

They are to be loaned out to whom the charity feels is suitable. but ONLY If i pop my clogs :)

I
pop my clogs before my mare does, she'll go back to the charity she came from anyway. Hopefully she would be rehomed asap again
Click to expand...

^5this is what happens to mine if loanee gives up
 
Ive got 2 WHW horse and without them I would never have got my Eddie the shire I lost at xmas he was 33 when he dies and I got him at 24 he was in no way useless he was a police horse and was my sould mate I was so proud to have him and juste because he isnt a competition horse or worth anything to anyone else in their eyes doesnt mean to say he was useless he was worth a hundred degenerate inter breed half witted horse/ponies people try to palm off on people.

I also have a non rideable pony from the WHW and without him I would have face putting my perfectly healthy other big lad down due to him propbably injuring himself to the extent where he would have to be pts and that wasnt an option . I got my pony within 12 hours of losing my Eddie cause Fox was taking the whole stable block down roof an all and at 18'2 and a clydesdale that's a lot of power they saved not only Foxbar but me going throught the heartache of having another pts.

God Bless Tracy at WHW, Penny Farm, Blackpool, Lancashire
 
Once I get my own place, one of the very first things that I will do is buy a non-rideable companion. It's a very important job and the sort of horse that I must have when I set myself up. Their job will be to look after the young horses. So not useless at all. Two of them would be even better than one. It depends on how much land I end up with.
 
I guess it depends on how you view things. I would never have even thought about it and would never view any animal as useless for just 'being'. They may not be useful to us humans anymore in the working sense. But to me that does not mean their lives are invalid.

We may be masters of the universe and all that, but we shouldn't decide what lives or dies depending on whether it is useful to us or not. But unfortunately that is the case with a lot of animals.
 
Just because a horse cannot be ridden, doesn't mean it can't enjoy life. Are you saying OP that the likes of carrot and spud should not have been given the chance of a happy end to their long lives? Should they have been shot in their cold, bare field, in their emaciated state? Those ponies went peacefully, loved and content and not hungry. That's what charities are for. Every living thing deserves a chance at a happy life. They may not know they are dead, but they know when they are alive. They have friends, personality and fun.

If we are only keeping ridden horses alive then should we also kill all the dogs and cats in charities? They have no use other than affection either, some don't even have that. Just kill them whilst they are miserable and near death anyway, eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top