Why was this horse put down?

[blitznbobs]

At the end of the day the pony was treated by a qualified vet . Animals are pts all the time ... For much less reasons - for a pony with extensive damage in need of extensive exploratory surgery I think it's a perfectly reasonable outcome... Surely the questioning should not be of the vet but do the **insert suitable expletive ** who stabbed the pony i the first place

 

[cobgoblin]

And they would have been perfectly within their rights not to tell you.
You can't tell anything from those photos I know my pony was extremely lucky her eight inch deep wound was contained within the muscles of her quarters and nothing vital was damaged, if I had decided to PTS on the day I would have been pretty pissed off if some random MOP had thought they had the right to demand answers.
There's any number of reasons that the vet might have taken this decision.
Perhaps the ponies situation played a part in the desision,who knows,the country is overwhelmed with poor quality stock with bad owners .

Firstly, if the decision was sound no one would mind answering the question.
Secondly, what's a MOP?

 

[Ladyinred]

MOP - member of (the) public.

 

[PaddyMonty]

In my 60 years with horses I have seen too many cruelly sentimental people put their horses through a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering due to their own selfishness.

and all in the name of love.

 

[Moomin1]

Firstly, if the decision was sound no one would mind answering the question.
Secondly, what's a MOP?

Who exactly do you expect to answer the question?

Do you presume that miraculously, the vet involved will be reading your thread and give you a detailed description of each injury, and justify their actions, just to satisfy you?

 

[RunToEarth]

Z

I am wondering how much effort was put into finding the owner and whether the decision to PTS was purely a medical decision, or rather based on the fact that it was probably a traveller's horse. There is also the question of the influence of the rspca, which I'm afraid I don't hold in very high regard.

I don't hold the RSPCA in high regard, but I can see the bigger picture that apparently you can't.

Have you ever been in a situation where you have to make tough decisions about horses quickly, based on what is in front of you at that time? The vet would have a regard to the horse, it's owners, the situation and any potential danger a flight animal in pain may cause to the general public around about.

But evidently you have already decided that the vet was prejudiced towards travellers and that is that.

 

[Maesfen]

Simply put OP. What's it got to do with you?

Unless it's your horse, it's nobody else's business who puts a horse down or why; they don't have to have a reason but in this case they acted humanely; many horses would wish for the same in the same circumstances.

 

[Fides]

A horse cannot go through major exploratory surgery to determine the extent of the internal injuries - that just isn't humane and that was why the horse was PTS. Grief, colic surgery is bad enough

 

[cobgoblin]

I don't hold the RSPCA in high regard, but I can see the bigger picture that apparently you can't.

Have you ever been in a situation where you have to make tough decisions about horses quickly, based on what is in front of you at that time? The vet would have a regard to the horse, it's owners, the situation and any potential danger a flight animal in pain may cause to the general public around about.

But evidently you have already decided that the vet was prejudiced towards travellers and that is that

Not the vet.

 

[Ibblebibble]

I find it quite concerning how often I agree with Moomin lately. This thread is another instance.

shhhh don't tell her but same here!!

 

[Moomin1]

I don't hold the RSPCA in high regard, but I can see the bigger picture that apparently you can't.

Have you ever been in a situation where you have to make tough decisions about horses quickly, based on what is in front of you at that time? The vet would have a regard to the horse, it's owners, the situation and any potential danger a flight animal in pain may cause to the general public around about.

But evidently you have already decided that the vet was prejudiced towards travellers and that is that

Not the vet.

What are you going on about?

You clearly have no clue how these things work.

 

[luckyoldme]

I don t think its fair to say that its only travellers who would consider cost of treatment when deciding pts or not.
You have to look at the big picture...I know its upsetting but it really is between the horse, the owner and the vet why the dscision was made.

 

[cobgoblin]

I think it's very interesting how threads on this forum turn into a form of Chinese whispers, with posters being ascribed sentiments and reasoning that they have never expressed.
I have never said that the horse should not have been PTS.
The article merely states that the horse was PTS to prevent further suffering. This could be interpreted as a myriad of things:
It could be that the horse had sustained a mortal injury.
It could be that the horse sustained a treatable injury but had other problems and was PTS.-
It could be that the horse was treatable but the rspca decided that it did not want to pay for treatment because it might be left with the bill (in which case why not be honest about it?).
It could be that the animal was PTS because the owner could not be found to make a decision.

I'm sure there are probably many other alternatives, but in answer to the question 'why was this horse put to sleep' - no one knows because they weren't there!

 

[Moomin1]

I think it's very interesting how threads on this forum turn into a form of Chinese whispers, with posters being ascribed sentiments and reasoning that they have never expressed.
I have never said that the horse should not have been PTS.
The article merely states that the horse was PTS to prevent further suffering. This could be interpreted as a myriad of things:
It could be that the horse had sustained a mortal injury.
It could be that the horse sustained a treatable injury but had other problems and was PTS.-
It could be that the horse was treatable but the rspca decided that it did not want to pay for treatment because it might be left with the bill (in which case why not be honest about it?).
It could be that the animal was PTS because the owner could not be found to make a decision.

I'm sure there are probably many other alternatives, but in answer to the question 'why was this horse put to sleep' - no one knows because they weren't there!

Yes, you are right, it could have been any one of those.

Still not sure what the point in the thread was.

 

[Wagtail]

I think that if the cob had owners that would be prepared to dress and clean the wounds daily that the he would not have been PTS. As it happens there are so many such animals that are not wounded to take care of that I expect the decision to PTS was a financial one as well as a humane one.

 

[eggs]

You only have to read newspaper reports about Zara Phillips the show jumper to realise that not all reporting is complete and accurate....

Some years ago I had to have have a horse pts as he had received a massive internal injury in an accident. The only visible sign of any injury was a scrape on his stifle. The vets took his vital signs which were much higher than the visible injury would suggest, looked at his mucous membranes - much paler than they should have been been, x-rayed him with nothing shown on x-ray and then did an abdominal tap which provided all the evidence that this was one very seriously sick horse.

There is nothing to suggest that the vet didn't do any of the above (and admittedly none that they did do any of the above) but a decision was taken in the best interest of the pony.

 

[Goldenstar]

Firstly, if the decision was sound no one would mind answering the question.
Secondly, what's a MOP?

I can tell you there's no way I go around discussing desisions I have taken with random people I don't know .
Why on earth should anyone be required to discuss anything with people who have up no right to know .
That vet had a client who was paying his bill that prevents him discussing his desisions with anyone who fancies involving themselves .

 

[conniegirl]

Can I also point out here given the size of the entry wounds and the nature of the people who have likely done this we are not talking about a little kitchen knife, I would hazard a guess at a Bowie style knife so could be upto about a foot long. It may be less a case of what internal organs have been pierced more a case of what hasn't, all it would need is for the intestines to have been nicked and the vet would have had no option! It's hard enough for a human to survive a gut rupture let alone an animal with as delicate a gut as a horse

 

[cobgoblin]

I can tell you there's no way I go around discussing desisions I have taken with random people I don't know .
Why on earth should anyone be required to discuss anything with people who have up no right to know .
That vet had a client who was paying his bill that prevents him discussing his desisions with anyone who fancies involving themselves .

I was talking about the horse in the article where NO owner was present. Who'd want to ask you?

 

[Inthemud]

Maybe it was PTS just to wind you up OP, or to discover your so well thought out opinions....

Get a grip.

 

[Moomin1]

I was talking about the horse in the article where NO owner was present. Who'd want to ask you?

Who'd want to ask them? What's the difference a charity/vet taking a decision to pts, than an owner? Got nothing to do with anyone else.

 

[Goldenstar]

I was talking about the horse in the article where NO owner was present. Who'd want to ask you?

I assumed since you quoted my post about my stabbed pony above the comment you where referring to me .

 

[Ladyinred]

I was talking about the horse in the article where NO owner was present. Who'd want to ask you?

By the same token.. who'd want to answer you. That was a very rude reply and uncalled for especially as Goldenstar has really said nothing objectionable to you.

 

[cobgoblin]

Maybe it was PTS just to wind you up OP, or to discover your so well thought out opinions....

Get a grip.

I don't think the OP has posted since starting the thread.

 

[Sebastian]

The question was 'why was this horse put down?' The article says it was to prevent further suffering, which is the universal answer and tells you nothing.Had I been there,then yes, I would have demanded to know how and why they came to that conclusion.

Perhaps you should start a facebook petition?

 

[Evie91]

Why was the horse put to sleep?
My answers as follows;
A) it was tired
B) vet doesn't like cobs
C) vet was late for his/her tea.

Am I right? Is there a prize if I have guessed correctly?

 

[DJ]

I don't think the OP has posted since starting the thread.

Funnily enough I was just thinking the same thing ....

 

[Moomin1]

Perhaps you should start a facebook petition?

Quite!! Perhaps it should be a petition against 'articles which don't give the desired amount of detail about decisions made by vets with regard pts'. Or maybe 'hasty welfare organisations and vets who pts to prevent further suffering..'

 

[Sebastian]

Quite!! Perhaps it should be a petition against 'articles which don't give the desired amount of detail about decisions made by vets with regard pts'. Or maybe 'hasty welfare organisations and vets who pts to prevent further suffering..'

We are on the same page.

 

[ChesnutsRoasting]

Why was this horse put down?
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news...9-2014&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter

Stab wounds, generally, go deeper than their width. There could have been massive internal haemorrhage, even if the external wound appears innocuous. Poor horse. Utter, utter scum - deserve a knife in their privates.