# Puzzled - "wrong horse put down" article?



## Widgeon (18 October 2017)

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/owners-devastation-wrong-horse-put-634764

I've been thinking about this all morning and have decided to post as I am slightly puzzled by it.

If I were the owner in question in this article, I wouldn't be wanting an apology from the idiot woman who brought the wrong horse out to be PTS (to say nothing of how I would feel about the vet) I would be wanting the full value of the horse! Even if just on principle, as I know the horse may not have been worth much. Surely there must be some legal comeback for her? It can't be the case that oh, yes, you had my property destroyed without my consent, but oh well, nothing I can do. That is barmy...

Any thoughts? As is probably obvious I have no idea of the law in cases like this, so can anyone enlighten me?


----------



## Batgirl (18 October 2017)

It is a very puzzlingly written story but it sounds as if it is the mother of the owner who is the 'idiot' at fault and therefore the value isn't really the issue?

A lot of miscommunication, for the Yard owner not to have been made aware is strange, for the vet not to question a healthy horse being put down unless they knew the situation is a little strange.  The whole thing is rather strange.


----------



## Orangehorse (18 October 2017)

They sound completely uncaring, ignorant barstewards actually.  Even if the correct horse had been PTS it would have left the other horse alone in his field, missing his friends so absolutely no thought had been given to the situation at all.

I suppose the horse had no real value, but I think the owner is well deserved of some financial recompense.

How ghastly.


----------



## Batgirl (18 October 2017)

Orangehorse said:



			They sound completely uncaring, ignorant barstewards actually.  Even if the correct horse had been PTS it would have left the other horse alone in his field, missing his friends so absolutely no thought had been given to the situation at all.

I suppose the horse had no real value, but I think the owner is well deserved of some financial recompense.

How ghastly.
		
Click to expand...

Who is supposed to recompense her?  The YO wasn't informed and the Vet put down the 2 horses that he was instructed to, presented by a family member of the owner? (obviously the mother should pay something if they are that kind of family).


----------



## Widgeon (18 October 2017)

Batgirl said:



			It is a very puzzlingly written story but it sounds as if it is the mother of the owner who is the 'idiot' at fault and therefore the value isn't really the issue?
		
Click to expand...

No, I think it was the mother of the owner of the other horses - the ones that *were* meant to be PTS - who led out a horse that was not in fact belonging to her daughter.

"....she presented him with the wrong horse  Round The Bend instead of one of her daughters horses."

But yes, it is very strange!!


----------



## GirlFriday (18 October 2017)

^ This.

I agree that owner of the one mistakenly PTS should be getting the full value of her horse from either the YO (duty of care?) or the other owner... possibly it would be the YO to pay the owner in the article (negligence? unlikely to be a specific clause about this situation in most livery contracts!) and then try to claim it back from the owner of the one that shouldn't have been PTS under the kind of 'pay for what you damage on the yard' rule in some livery contracts but possibly a direct claim against the owner of the other horse. ETA but obviously Citizen's Advice/Trading Standards/BHS legal line would be good ports if call...

Sadly healthy horses are PTS all the time and many people on this forum would advise the owner of a retired horse to do so for financial or time reasons if they wanted so I don't really see that the vet is at fault. They have no legal obligation to ignore the instructions of an 'owner' and, without a micro chip check, couldn't even be sure they had the right one from the passport really. If the horse wasn't intended to enter the food chain or be claimed for on insurance then I'm not really sure why a vet would check identity. If they had to for PTS would we be saying they had to scan every animal for every treatment just in case some muppet presented the wrong one? (Possibly a good check, but a slight admin overhead for a very rare occurrence surely?)


----------



## luckyoldme (18 October 2017)

it s horrific all round.
the lady who owns the horses left it to someone who didnt evan know her horses to be with them at the end.
the mother of the horses owner sounds really uncaring, and sad as it sounds, i know a mother and daughter team who are quite easily evil enough to have done this knowing what they were doing.
Its really hard to say how you can protect people from people as stupid and evil as the mother and daughter involved in this story.


----------



## Widgeon (18 October 2017)

GirlFriday said:



			I don't really see that the vet is at fault.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, unless there is legislation that I am unaware of (quite likely!) then it seems that the vet had very poor admin procedure, but that may not be an offence - he did as he was asked. It's the owner of the other horses I'd be chasing I think. Or their mother. If someone took my car away to be crushed thinking it was a different car, I would want them to pay. Saying sorry surely isn't nearly enough. All very bizarre.


----------



## Widgeon (18 October 2017)

luckyoldme said:



			Its really hard to say how you can protect people from people as stupid and evil as the mother and daughter involved in this story.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps by making it mandatory for vets to do some basic ID checks before PTS? But I agree that laws are not enough - some people are so uncaring / cruel / stupid that they will always find a way to hurt other people and animals.


----------



## Batgirl (18 October 2017)

Widgeon said:



			No, I think it was the mother of the owner of the other horses - the ones that *were* meant to be PTS - who led out a horse that was not in fact belonging to her daughter.

"....she presented him with the wrong horse &#8212; Round The Bend instead of one of her daughter&#8217;s horses."

But yes, it is very strange!!
		
Click to expand...

Oh I see! In which case then yes I would be getting it from the owner of the other horses (I thought all 3 belonged to the same person!).


----------



## Orangehorse (18 October 2017)

It wasn't the vet's fault at all.  He attended to PTS two horses, which he did.  If they weren't going into the food chain then there was no need to check the passports.  Although I bet he does from now on, or at least ascertain he has the right horse.


----------



## Widgeon (18 October 2017)

Orangehorse said:



			It wasn't the vet's fault at all.  He attended to PTS two horses, which he did.  If they weren't going into the food chain then there was no need to check the passports.  Although I bet he does from now on, or at least ascertain he has the right horse.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I think I agree - it might have been a good idea to check (bet you're right there!) but he only did as he was asked. I don't think it was unreasonable for him to expect that he would be presented with the right horses.


----------



## ozpoz (18 October 2017)

It was negligent all round -the yard owner, the vet and the person who arranged to have her horses put down but wasn't there.
Poor, poor owner - I'd be beyond furious and upset.They'd be chipped, as ex racehorses and I'm surprised if it isn't mandatory to check i.d.


----------



## Pinkvboots (18 October 2017)

in all the years I have been around horses I have never seen a vet identify a horse before it was pts,  and I have seen quite a few pts over the years I have never really thought about before but hearing that story it makes you wonder why it's not compulsory for the horse to be identified first, it's so sad that poor owner it's a terrible thing to happen


----------



## alainax (18 October 2017)

I'm shocked you can just book a vet, bring in a random horse from a field and he will kill it. Surely there has to be some sort of check?


----------



## RaposadeGengibre (18 October 2017)

alainax said:



			I'm shocked you can just book a vet, bring in a random horse from a field and he will kill it. Surely there has to be some sort of check?
		
Click to expand...

This!


----------



## ester (18 October 2017)

ozpoz said:



			It was negligent all round -the yard owner, the vet and the person who arranged to have her horses put down but wasn't there.
Poor, poor owner - I'd be beyond furious and upset.They'd be chipped, as ex racehorses and I'm surprised if it isn't mandatory to check i.d.
		
Click to expand...

chipping for racehorses didnt come until 1999 so it depends when he retired from racing?

What I don't get is that she wasn't even told that it was happening, as she said she wouldn't have put him in that field that day as he would then have been left on his own...


----------



## Pearlsasinger (18 October 2017)

If I were the owner, I would be pursuing this with the woman who presented my horse to the vet and with YO.


----------



## PapaverFollis (18 October 2017)

I can't even imagine the utter horror of this. What an absolutely stupid woman who brought the wrong horse in. And her daughter. How can you not inform the yard owner and your field sharer of what you intend? I also find it amazing that you can present any horse to a vet and they'll go ahead. I thought they would check, when we had our old boy pts the vet didn't check anything but he was our regular vet and knew us and the horse very well!

What a complete nightmare. If it was my horse I'd be beyond livid and be doing what I could to get compensation for the value of the horse plus the emotional trauma. I would not be letting it rest on getting an apology!


----------



## frankster (19 October 2017)

This a worry I think, especially to those who rely on third party help with horses at such times.  We had the local huntsman come to us, and again he knew the horse so if I had left a 17hh tb in the stable instead of my tank of a horse, he would have been suspicious I think.

What is the point of passports?


----------



## RhaLoulou (19 October 2017)

alainax said:



			I'm shocked you can just book a vet, bring in a random horse from a field and he will kill it. Surely there has to be some sort of check?
		
Click to expand...

Exactly! I have gone to the trouble of informing my vets that my yard owner and a friend can make a decision regarding treatment of my horses in my absence, I would expect that to extend to horses being euthanasied. 
One of the vets we use waited for me to arrive before he gave two of mine their boosters even though another livery said she would hold them. I would have been cross if he had done them before I got there. ( he was early)


----------



## Undecided (19 October 2017)

For the horse to be unwell enough, even age related, to be pts, would the vet or at least a member of the surgery not have seen to the horse before to try alternative treatment or administer pain meds to keep the animal comfortable until the deed was done and therefore recognize them? Or is this just my country-town mentality?


----------



## Hoof_Prints (19 October 2017)

It doesn't sound right, you can argue the vet isn't at fault, but surely any vet with any basic professionalism, common sense and compassion would check all was being done correctly? My vet certainly did when I had my two PTS earlier this year. I also, as a responsible owner left both horses's passports outside each stable for the vet to check (I could have never been there in person, and I'm glad I wasn't) . He would never dream of just turning up and putting a horse down in a non-emergency situation, without a prior consultation to evaluate the owner and horse's circumstances. There was a bit of conflict when a family member strongly disagreed with my decision to PTS, and my vet confirmed all of the above. 

It's very, very upsetting and I can't imagine what the owner is going through.


----------



## Leonor (19 October 2017)

How can you be so heartless when you have been responsible for this.That womans cold response speaks volumes.No remorse only after being told by the yardowner to say something and still no real apologies.It makes you wonder how she treats her horses.I actually wouldnt be suprised if this wasnt accidental.


----------



## Alec Swan (19 October 2017)

The article is very badly written.  Come on H&H,  wake up,  your standards of journalism are appalling.

So,  it seems that two horses are to be put down.  The mother of the owner (the M-o-t-o) of the two horses concerned is there to officiate.  The M-o-t-o leads out the wrong horse.  It's put down.  Am I right so far?

The responsibility lays with the person who assumed responsibility,  the M-o-t-o.  It isn't the responsibility of either the vet or the yard owner.  The owner of the wrongly identified horse has a legal claim and I'd guess by now that the lady concerned has checked her insurance policies.

It isn't the first time that it's happened,  and it won't be the last.

Alec.


----------



## ycbm (19 October 2017)

Leonor said:



			.I actually wouldnt be suprised if this wasnt accidental.
		
Click to expand...

Neither would I. Horse was a 25 year old ex point to point horse (how many of those are alive at twenty five, never mind healthy) being looked after (on grass livery?) by a friend when the owner was living a long way away. Can't help wondering, given the lack of apology, if there is not a lot more to this than meets the eye.


----------



## dominobrown (19 October 2017)

ycbm said:



			Neither would I. Horse was a 25 year old ex point to point horse (how many of those are alive at twenty five, never mind healthy) being looked after (on grass livery?) by a friend when the owner was living a long way away. Can't help wondering, given the lack of apology, if there is not a lot more to this than meets the eye.
		
Click to expand...

I read it similar. The person 'resposible' was the mother of the owner. The owner was 'away' leaving on old 25 hear old Tb on grass livery. The mother might of thought it would be better pts, if there was nobody to give it the attention it needs, maybe it loses weight over winter, not doing as well? Anyways whatever the real reason everyone involved are bad communicators!


----------



## popsdosh (20 October 2017)

ycbm said:



			Neither would I. Horse was a 25 year old ex point to point horse (how many of those are alive at twenty five, never mind healthy) being looked after (on grass livery?) by a friend when the owner was living a long way away. Can't help wondering, given the lack of apology, if there is not a lot more to this than meets the eye.
		
Click to expand...

As per normal you are way off the mark making malicious assumptions . I think you are getting worse! You also make hugely prejudiced comments about older racehorses in general and you clearly havent got a clue. 

Indeed the horse was very special to louise having been with her through her PtoP career and was kept on grass livery on one of her horse owners yards. It is just an unfortunate accident that happened it could happen with many of us at some point.
Louise quite rightly is upset,but honestly everybody all this talk of monetary compensation and other thoughts ,will not bring the horse back and is of no consequence to her nor would she expect it.
Hindsight is a great thing but you cannot change what has happened.


----------



## popsdosh (20 October 2017)

dominobrown said:



			I read it similar. The person 'resposible' was the mother of the owner. The owner was 'away' leaving on old 25 hear old Tb on grass livery. The mother might of thought it would be better pts, if there was nobody to give it the attention it needs, maybe it loses weight over winter, not doing as well? Anyways whatever the real reason everyone involved are bad communicators!
		
Click to expand...

The person presenting the horses for the Vet has nothing to do with Louise ! she was the mother of the owner whose horses should have been put down.
Why are so many assuming the horse was neglected as I can assure you it wasnt.

Dont you just love the way stories get changed from what it is.


----------



## luckyoldme (20 October 2017)

Undecided said:



			For the horse to be unwell enough, even age related, to be pts, would the vet or at least a member of the surgery not have seen to the horse before to try alternative treatment or administer pain meds to keep the animal comfortable until the deed was done and therefore recognize them? Or is this just my country-town mentality?
		
Click to expand...

no, some people put them down before they get to that stage


----------



## Gingersmum (20 October 2017)

For the horse to be unwell enough, even age related, to be pts, would the vet or at least a member of the surgery not have seen to the horse before to try alternative treatment or administer pain meds to keep the animal comfortable until the deed was done and therefore recognize them? Or is this just my country-town mentality?



luckyoldme said:



			no, some people put them down before they get to that stage
		
Click to expand...

I would imagine that generally a vet would know the horse and owner through historical illness attended. 
If a vet is presented with a non-urgent PTS scenario where the vet doesn't know the horse or owner then maybe this incident highlights that checks ought to be made.


----------



## Widgeon (20 October 2017)

Hoof_Prints said:



			It doesn't sound right, you can argue the vet isn't at fault, but surely any vet with any basic professionalism, common sense and compassion would check all was being done correctly?
		
Click to expand...

Mmm yes, agree with this too.


----------



## Widgeon (20 October 2017)

popsdosh said:



			Louise quite rightly is upset,but honestly everybody all this talk of monetary compensation and other thoughts ,will not bring the horse back and is of no consequence to her nor would she expect it.
Hindsight is a great thing but you cannot change what has happened.
		
Click to expand...

As you seem to know some of the people involved, thanks for posting. I think some of the confusion here probably arose from the generally rubbish reporting in the H&H article! (As Alec pointed out). I do sometimes wonder who they get to write some of these "news" articles, they are often so poor as to be pretty well pointless.

My thought of monetary compensation came from the way that the article suggested that the owner hasn't even had an apology - faced with that sort of attitude I think I would want to hit the responsible person with the biggest claim possible! But as you and others point out, we don't actually know the full circumstances of the incident. Anyway it's sad and I do feel very sorry for the owner and carer of the horse. I don't know why anyone would think the horse was neglected - I can't see anything that suggested that any of them were neglected.


----------



## Goldenstar (20 October 2017)

Well it's certainly not the vets fault it's clearly the fault of the owner for not being there and for choosing a muppet to do the job of presenting the horse to the vet .
Biazzre story .


----------



## Lanky Loll (20 October 2017)

Whilst the story is all shades of weird and wrong I do find it amazing that more checks are made when you take a horse to an abbattoir than if the vet comes out - I know this is due to the entry into the food chain etc, but would have thought this should be standard regardless of method?


----------



## popsdosh (20 October 2017)

Gingersmum said:



			For the horse to be unwell enough, even age related, to be pts, would the vet or at least a member of the surgery not have seen to the horse before to try alternative treatment or administer pain meds to keep the animal comfortable until the deed was done and therefore recognize them? Or is this just my country-town mentality?


I would imagine that generally a vet would know the horse and owner through historical illness attended. 
If a vet is presented with a non-urgent PTS scenario where the vet doesn't know the horse or owner then maybe this incident highlights that checks ought to be made.
		
Click to expand...

Seriously as a vet what do you do when faced with what you are aware is the owners mother and two horses , Start questioning the validity of what you are doing? Sorry these situations are stressful enough for owners without them feeling they have to wait for an identity check. 
Do you really think that vets remember every horse they treat. 
Why do some think there is something odd about it , its very straightforward somebody was asked to be there and present the horses and they made the most terrible of mistakes there is no underlying sub plot going on. I am sure they are as devastated as Louise is and no words can put it right nor was it done with any motive. We all love to over analyse everything though.


----------



## Lanky Loll (20 October 2017)

popsdosh said:



			Seriously as a vet what do you do when faced with what you are aware is the owners mother and two horses , Start questioning the validity of what you are doing? Sorry these situations are stressful enough for owners without them feeling they have to wait for an identity check. 
Do you really think that vets remember every horse they treat. 
Why do some think there is something odd about it , its very straightforward somebody was asked to be there and present the horses and they made the most terrible of mistakes there is no underlying sub plot going on. I am sure they are as devastated as Louise is and no words can put it right nor was it done with any motive. We all love to over analyse everything though.
		
Click to expand...

I think what people are expecting are that the vet would make a few basic checks before PTS - if as appears to be the case the plan was for a pair of oldies to go off together before they got too bad - a simple check for chip, chip matches passport (or drawing matches horse if no chip), yes ok and job done - takes less than 5 minutes.


----------



## SEL (20 October 2017)

My last YO had a fair few PTS by the hunt and there were never any checks done to agree the horse to the passport - I doubt they even had a microchip reader on them. They would just assume the people handling the horses were not so incompetent that they would present them with the wrong horse. I can't see the vets being any different unless they actually knew the horses concerned.

I once brought in an all black TB gelding for the hunt who had reached the end of his life and saw one of the liveries do a bit of a double take. He was very, very similar to her mare in looks and she hurriedly turned her mare out before the hunt turned up. I'm sure we wouldn't have presented them with the wrong horse, but it was a big yard with a lot of TBs in shades of brown and black.......

Very sorry for your friend Popsdosh - I'd be beyond devastated.


----------



## Leonor (20 October 2017)

popsdosh said:



			Seriously as a vet what do you do when faced with what you are aware is the owners mother and two horses , Start questioning the validity of what you are doing? Sorry these situations are stressful enough for owners without them feeling they have to wait for an identity check. 
Do you really think that vets remember every horse they treat. 
Why do some think there is something odd about it , its very straightforward somebody was asked to be there and present the horses and they made the most terrible of mistakes there is no underlying sub plot going on. I am sure they are as devastated as Louise is and no words can put it right nor was it done with any motive. We all love to over analyse everything though.
		
Click to expand...



Louise has stated that the owner whose mother presented the wrong horses never made an apology and only said something after the yo made her  and louise still didnt get a sorry ,  Louise also seemed puzzled by the whole thing .Not overanalysing .


----------



## ester (20 October 2017)

I think the issue is that in general no vet would ever think an owner/their representative would present the wrong horse!


----------



## Goldenstar (20 October 2017)

Lanky Loll said:



			I think what people are expecting are that the vet would make a few basic checks before PTS - if as appears to be the case the plan was for a pair of oldies to go off together before they got too bad - a simple check for chip, chip matches passport (or drawing matches horse if no chip), yes ok and job done - takes less than 5 minutes.
		
Click to expand...

Any vet who thinks it's a goood idea to start mucking about with paperwork when I am handing them my horse to PTS will leave with a thick ear .
It's owners mothers fault and the owner squarely no room for doubt anything else is just the modern I screw up blame someone else for not stopping me screwing up culture .


----------



## Lanky Loll (20 October 2017)

Goldenstar said:



			Any vet who thinks it's a goood idea to start mucking about with paperwork when I am handing them my horse to PTS will leave with a thick ear .
It's owners mothers fault and the owner squarely no room for doubt anything else is just the modern I screw up blame someone else for not stopping me screwing up culture .
		
Click to expand...

In an emergency case totally with you, but this wasn't.  And I'm not trying to blame the vet I'm just surprised that there are no checks in place when the vet does the deed.  It's not something I have experience of as we've only ever had one shot at home - done by the hunt following a broken leg in the field, the others over the years have gone to Potters where everything is checked and passport signed off.


----------



## ycbm (20 October 2017)

Lanky Loll said:



			In an emergency case totally with you, but this wasn't.  And I'm not trying to blame the vet I'm just surprised that there are no checks in place when the vet does the deed.  It's not something I have experience of as we've only ever had one shot at home - done by the hunt following a broken leg in the field, the others over the years have gone to Potters where everything is checked and passport signed off.
		
Click to expand...

Potters have to do that because otherwise they have no idea if they are being brought a stolen horse and also have to check whether it can go for human consumption or not. Horses killed at Potters are taken there from elsewhere and normally paid for. It isn't the responsibility of a vet in the middle of a field which they have been called to, to start asking for ID for the horse. Neither is it an issue whether it is healthy or not. Of course any individual vet can refuse to put a horse down, but that's a personal ethical decision and not a legal one.


----------



## Lanky Loll (20 October 2017)

ycbm said:



			Potters have to do that because otherwise they have no idea if they are being brought a stolen horse and also have to check whether it can go for human consumption or not. Horses killed at Potters are taken there from elsewhere and normally paid for. It isn't the responsibility of a vet in the middle of a field which they have been called to, to start asking for ID for the horse. Neither is it an issue whether it is healthy or not. Of course any individual vet can refuse to put a horse down, but that's a personal ethical decision and not a legal one.
		
Click to expand...

I get that - just still surprised that in this age of bureaucracy they don't have to sign off passports etc.  Can't help thinking it leaves it open to abuse by the unscrupulous


----------



## Cecile (20 October 2017)

ycbm said:



			Potters have to do that because otherwise they have no idea if they are being brought a stolen horse and also have to check whether it can go for human consumption or not. Horses killed at Potters are taken there from elsewhere and normally paid for. It isn't the responsibility of a vet in the middle of a field which they have been called to, to start asking for ID for the horse. Neither is it an issue whether it is healthy or not. Of course any individual vet can refuse to put a horse down, but that's a personal ethical decision and not a legal one.
		
Click to expand...

Sort of this ^^^
Its quite straight forward or should be, if a vet didn't like to put a horse down they wouldn't or shouldn't come out anyway, the owner has enough on their plate 

You just phone up and book the vet to come out, I always want early morning as that is how I am, I can't spend the whole day becoming stressed out about times, if I have any questions the vet phones me once I have booked it or I phone him depending on how quickly I want the answer, he is well aware that I don't want much of a conversation with him when he arrives, if I had to faff around waiting for him to look at the passport or scanning for a chip I would be lethal and probably loose the plot on life.  

Same with the hunt, I call them they ask what size the horse is and we make an early morning appointment if possible, they always have sedalin with them just in case its needed (Never needed it for a horse but often wonder if I should have some), they arrive make idle conversation which is a one way conversation as my head is like cotton wool, if they ever started asking me for a passport or chip details I think I would pass out as I am almost sure I hold my breath when they are there

This situation of the wrong horse being put down obviously doesn't happen that often.  I don't think the world should change due to this unfortunate situation, it wouldn't happen on my yard as I am holding the horse or my husband is.  Large busy yards or livery yards may need to check out their arrangements just as a safeguard for the future

Not sure what happens at Potters


----------



## Alec Swan (20 October 2017)

Cecile said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

Not sure what happens at Potters
		
Click to expand...

With any licensed premises it's a statutory requirement that the horse and it's passport are matching and it's all to do with the onward shipment of the carcass and it's possible usage,  as opposed to incineration.  There is no requirement upon an attending vet,  or any other person to supply or receive any documentation,  and in my view,  rightly so,  the horse being viewed as it would had it died of natural causes.  Put down on the premises is viewed as a matter of disposal.

Alec.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (20 October 2017)

I'm another who would NOT be happy if the vet/hunt/knackerman wanted to start faffing around with paperwork, when they had come to pts.  
It is the responsibility of the person presenting the horse to ensure that they have the right horse.   If there are only a few horse, then it surely can't be that difficult.  If it is a large livery yard then YO should be aware that pts is happening and maybe be around to see that all goes smoothly, although I certainly wouldn't expect YO to have to check that he right horse was brought out
And, even though nothing can put the situation right/bring the horse back, I would expect monetary compensation from the numpty who presented the wrong horse to the vet - just to make the point.


----------



## tallyho! (20 October 2017)

Batgirl said:



			Who is supposed to recompense her?  The YO wasn't informed and the Vet put down the 2 horses that he was instructed to, presented by a family member of the owner? (obviously the mother should pay something if they are that kind of family).
		
Click to expand...

The vet should have checked the passport - in my eyes that is a breach of his code.


----------



## popsdosh (20 October 2017)

Leonor said:



			Louise has stated that the owner whose mother presented the wrong horses never made an apology and only said something after the yo made her  and louise still didnt get a sorry ,  Louise also seemed puzzled by the whole thing .Not overanalysing .
		
Click to expand...

I was talking about those that think theres a backstory.
 It is her worst nightmare and then some. I am not sure  what I would say if it had been me making such a mistake and I am sure they are totally devastated to be generous to them ,what can you say!


----------



## Alec Swan (20 October 2017)

The question of compensation is a tricky one;  though the person who presented the wrong horse to be destroyed,  is clearly responsible,  the unpalatable aspect of any claim,  is the marketable value of the animal.  Compensation claims never take in to account any emotional connection.  The value of compensation is only ever considered at the marketable value of,  in this case,  a 25yo retired ex-ptp horse.  The true marketable value would probably have the horse valued in the negative.

That doesn't take away from the upset to the owner,  and I understand that it will probably be considerable,  but the brutal fact is that the horse may well have had no commercial value,  at all.

Alec.


----------



## Orangehorse (20 October 2017)

That is so Alec.  There is no financial compensation for grief and upset but the poor owner must be heartbroken, all down to carelessness.


----------



## sarahandwilby (20 October 2017)

tallyho! said:



			The vet should have checked the passport - in my eyes that is a breach of his code.
		
Click to expand...

I've put down some that I'm 99% certain don't even have a passport... And found plenty with the wrong passport for other things. I wouldn't blame the vet. 

All very worrying though and I will certainly be more careful in future if it's anyone other than the owner with the horse!


----------



## Alec Swan (20 October 2017)

Orangehorse said:



			That is so Alec.  &#8230;&#8230;..  all down to carelessness.
		
Click to expand...

Yes,  quite.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (20 October 2017)

sarahandwilby said:



			I've put down some that I'm 99% certain don't even have a passport&#8230; &#8230;&#8230;..  I will certainly be more careful in future if it's anyone other than the owner with the horse!
		
Click to expand...

Sanguine advice to others,  no question of that.

Alec.


----------



## Cecile (20 October 2017)

tallyho! said:



			The vet should have checked the passport - in my eyes that is a breach of his code.
		
Click to expand...

This idea could lead to problems, vets put horses down all the time without even knowing who the owner is, they attend traffic accidents, are called out to dumped horses, make decisions to put down during welfare situations, if the situation were to alter and vets were accountable or held responsible for putting down without checking they may become reluctant to actually attend, what would happen if the owner had no passport, lost it or didn't have it with them, would he refuse to do it?

One of mine was referred to hospital and was put down there, at no time did I give anyone a view of the passport, ok my vet referred to the hospital but the vet who actually put him down didn't know me or the gelding, the passport was in my car and the last thing on my mind

The people involved in this terrible situation must be reliving this every minute of the day with what ifs, how and why, it really is everyone's worse nightmare


----------



## Alec Swan (20 October 2017)

Cecile said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. , vets put horses down all the time without even knowing who the owner is, &#8230;&#8230;..
		
Click to expand...

I once went to a horse which was in a very bad way.  The vet said that he wouldn't put the horse down without the owner's authority.  Despite repeated attempts, the owner couldn't be contacted.  I knew the owner well and advised the vet that I was in fact the owner.  Within 30 seconds,  the horse's suffering was over. It was the only way and the owner accepted that.

The problem is that when we consider the vet,  what are they to do but deal worth what's before them?  It was my view,  at the time that if we're to consider the welfare of the animal,  then any attending vet has no other option than to consider the best interests of the animal.  What happens with a horse which is fatally injured whilst racing,  is the owner contacted first?  Of course they aren't &#8230;. the welfare of the horse comes first. 

Attempting to attach blame to a vet,  at such times,  is unacceptable.

Alec.


----------



## Cecile (20 October 2017)

Alec Swan said:



			I once went to a horse which was in a very bad way.  The vet said that he wouldn't put the horse down without the owner's authority.  Despite repeated attempts, the owner couldn't be contacted.  I knew the owner well and advised the vet that I was in fact the owner.  Within 30 seconds,  the horse's suffering was over. It was the only way and the owner accepted that.

The problem is that when we consider the vet,  what are they to do but deal worth what's before them?  It was my view,  at the time that if we're to consider the welfare of the animal,  then any attending vet has no other option than to consider the best interests of the animal.  What happens with a horse which is fatally injured whilst racing,  is the owner contacted first?  Of course they aren't &#8230;. the welfare of the horse comes first. 

Attempting to attach blame to a vet,  at such times,  is unacceptable.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you and this should also cover the hunt and knackerman
I would hate to see a load of PC activity, rules and regulations attached to putting an animal down in the UK

I'm ok Jack as my vet has known me for over 30yrs so my animals won't be affected but what about all the other animals out there without that safety net if someone wants the rules changed,
it doesn't bare thinking about

Thank you for explaining about Potters, I doubt I will ever attend but it good to learn something new everyday


----------



## GirlFriday (21 October 2017)

Completely agree with Alec that the value of this horse will have been low (less than meat money potentially if the passport has it signed out of the food chain...) but do feel, as with any property damage, some form of (ideally good will gesture, not sued for!) compensation is in order. If a break a tea cup in someone's house I replace that even though the value is very low - the symbolism matters too.

Can't agree that vets have to always do what is in the best interests of the animal. Owners in this country have the right to request a vet PTS a perfectly happy healthy horse if they so wish which is, to my mind, sometimes fundamentally at odds with acting in the horse's best interests.

I appreciate the point was being made more in relation to a situation where the vet would believe PTS /was/ in best interests but did not have permission from the owner; but the converse (PTS not in best interests but at request of owner) is also a common scenario. Our society probably isn't ready (and I'm not sure it ever should be) for vets to routinely overrule or disregard owners in all matters - not about the treatment of minor ailments nor end of life. I'd expect them to use their professional judgement to _only_ administer non-authorised treatment (including life ending treatment) when there is an emergency situation or with law enforcement backing.


----------



## popsdosh (21 October 2017)

GirlFriday said:



			Completely agree with Alec that the value of this horse will have been low (less than meat money potentially if the passport has it signed out of the food chain...) but do feel, as with any property damage, some form of (ideally good will gesture, not sued for!) compensation is in order. If a break a tea cup in someone's house I replace that even though the value is very low - the symbolism matters too.

Can't agree that vets have to always do what is in the best interests of the animal. Owners in this country have the right to request a vet PTS a perfectly happy healthy horse if they so wish which is, to my mind, sometimes fundamentally at odds with acting in the horse's best interests.

I appreciate the point was being made more in relation to a situation where the vet would believe PTS /was/ in best interests but did not have permission from the owner; but the converse (PTS not in best interests but at request of owner) is also a common scenario. Our society probably isn't ready (and I'm not sure it ever should be) for vets to routinely overrule or disregard owners in all matters - not about the treatment of minor ailments nor end of life. I'd expect them to use their professional judgement to _only_ administer non-authorised treatment (including life ending treatment) when there is an emergency situation or with law enforcement backing.
		
Click to expand...

Why are everybody so hung up on the horses value ,it has nothing to do with this situation ! It is of no consequence. You sound like you have a middle eastern attitude were even human life has a price and you can use money to clear your conscience.
Tell me how money or replacing the horse will remedy how Louise feels about what has happened. I am sure its not even crossed her mind he was irreplaceable to her!


----------



## tallyho! (21 October 2017)

Cecile said:



			This idea could lead to problems, vets put horses down all the time without even knowing who the owner is, they attend traffic accidents, are called out to dumped horses, make decisions to put down during welfare situations, if the situation were to alter and vets were accountable or held responsible for putting down without checking they may become reluctant to actually attend, what would happen if the owner had no passport, lost it or didn't have it with them, would he refuse to do it?

One of mine was referred to hospital and was put down there, at no time did I give anyone a view of the passport, ok my vet referred to the hospital but the vet who actually put him down didn't know me or the gelding, the passport was in my car and the last thing on my mind

The people involved in this terrible situation must be reliving this every minute of the day with what ifs, how and why, it really is everyone's worse nightmare
		
Click to expand...

By law they are supposed to check so actually they are liable.

If you look at the law, the vet is required to check and sign the passport at intervals and our vets are very particular. (I was made to go home and get mine when I forgot it). There's is a £5000 fine if you don't have a passport which is supposed to be reported by an attending vet should they find you don't have the correct one.

The vet is supposed to sign the euthanasia/death bit of the passport then the passport has to returned to the PIO within a month (I think).

Copied from horse passport regs 2009:

Procedure on death
13.(1) When a horse is slaughtered or killed for disease control purposes, the official veterinary surgeon responsible for the slaughter or killing must, in accordance with Article 19(2)(a)(i) of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 504/2008, return the passport to the passport issuing organisation as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(2) When a horse is slaughtered for human consumption, in accordance with Article 19(2)(a)(ii) of that Regulation the occupier of the slaughterhouse must give the passport to the official veterinary surgeon at the slaughterhouse, who must record the identification number of the animal, mark the passport accordingly and send the marked passport to the passport issuing organisation as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(3) In any other case, notwithstanding Article 19(2)(b) of that Regulation, the keeper must return the passport to the passport issuing organisation within 30 days of the death of the horse, and failure to do so is an offence.
(4) The return of the passport under this regulation is the attestation required under Article 19(1)(c) of that Regulation.


Unfortunately lots of vets almost rely on the fact that owners have no idea about the law and so get away with rather a lot.


----------



## rabatsa (21 October 2017)

tallyho! said:



			By law they are supposed to check so actually they are liable.

If you look at the law, the vet is required to check and sign the passport at intervals and our vets are very particular. (I was made to go home and get mine when I forgot it). There's is a £5000 fine if you don't have a passport which is supposed to be reported by an attending vet should they find you don't have the correct one.

The vet is supposed to sign the euthanasia/death bit of the passport then the passport has to returned to the PIO within a month (I think).

Copied from horse passport regs 2009:

Procedure on death
13.&#8212;(1) When a horse is slaughtered or killed for disease control purposes, the official veterinary surgeon responsible for the slaughter or killing must, in accordance with Article 19(2)(a)(i) of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 504/2008, return the passport to the passport issuing organisation as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(2) When a horse is slaughtered for human consumption, in accordance with Article 19(2)(a)(ii) of that Regulation the occupier of the slaughterhouse must give the passport to the official veterinary surgeon at the slaughterhouse, who must record the identification number of the animal, mark the passport accordingly and send the marked passport to the passport issuing organisation as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(3) In any other case, notwithstanding Article 19(2)(b) of that Regulation, the keeper must return the passport to the passport issuing organisation within 30 days of the death of the horse, and failure to do so is an offence.
(4) The return of the passport under this regulation is the attestation required under Article 19(1)(c) of that Regulation.


Unfortunately lots of vets almost rely on the fact that owners have no idea about the law and so get away with rather a lot.
		
Click to expand...

Most horses will fall under (3).  Nothing here to say the vet needs to even see the passport and the onus is on the owner to return the passport to the PIO.


----------



## tallyho! (21 October 2017)

rabatsa said:



			Most horses will fall under (3).  Nothing here to say the vet needs to even see the passport and the onus is on the owner to return the passport to the PIO.
		
Click to expand...

I think you are right even though the disease control part also does include animal health in the EC regulation (which is huge), not just disease. If only (3) applies then there is no responsibility on any party to make sure it's the right horse - (how can that be allowed?) If it is the case then owner has no one but herself to blame.

(I know it happens all the time)


----------



## popsdosh (21 October 2017)

tallyho! said:



			I think you are right even though the disease control part also does include animal health in the EC regulation (which is huge), not just disease. If only (3) applies then there is no responsibility on any party to make sure it's the right horse - (how can that be allowed?) If it is the case then owner has no one but herself to blame.

(I know it happens all the time)
		
Click to expand...

I think a lot of confusion is being created by who is being described as the 'owner' as you describe ,as to be honest neither were personally involved in this mess up.


----------



## Undecided (21 October 2017)

Gingersmum said:



			For the horse to be unwell enough, even age related, to be pts, would the vet or at least a member of the surgery not have seen to the horse before to try alternative treatment or administer pain meds to keep the animal comfortable until the deed was done and therefore recognize them? Or is this just my country-town mentality?


I would imagine that generally a vet would know the horse and owner through historical illness attended. 
If a vet is presented with a non-urgent PTS scenario where the vet doesn't know the horse or owner then maybe this incident highlights that checks ought to be made.
		
Click to expand...

Yes this is what I meant sorry I wasn't clearer. I only say this as last weekend I took both horse and guinea pig to the vet, horse had jab and GP needed eye looking at and teeth clipping. My mum went in to register our place in the queue as I was stood with the horse in the box. GP had never seen vet before and my mum made a passing comment to reception that he was getting on a bit and that's why he was going downhill a little (weight loss, teeth wearing uneven etc.). Vet came out to car park with two needles, one for horse, one very familiar looking coloured one for GP. I asked him what reception had told him I was here for with GP and he said to be PTS (!!!!!). He took one look at GP and said there'd nothing wrong with him to warrant that, he just needs eye drops and teeth clipping. 

So yes my situation was a misunderstanding/communication error, but vet still looked over the animal he had never seen before prior to doing what he assumed I had asked for, and said that there was no reason for it. Alternatively, the week before our 12 yo bitch was PTS, we rang that day and without even questioning us, said he would be with us at so and so time. He had seen her on and off for the last year or so with different issues and deteriorating health and he knew that we weren't making that phone call lightly, but he didn't question our decision either as he understood there was no recovering for her and we wanted her to go with dignity.


----------



## joosie (21 October 2017)

popsdosh said:



			I think a lot of confusion is being created by who is being described as the 'owner' as you describe ,as to be honest neither were personally involved in this mess up.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I am quite amazed how many people don't seem to have understood which horses belonged to whom!


----------



## Cecile (21 October 2017)

tallyho! said:



			By law they are supposed to check so actually they are liable.

If you look at the law, the vet is required to check and sign the passport at intervals and our vets are very particular. (I was made to go home and get mine when I forgot it). There's is a £5000 fine if you don't have a passport which is supposed to be reported by an attending vet should they find you don't have the correct one.

The vet is supposed to sign the euthanasia/death bit of the passport then the passport has to returned to the PIO within a month (I think).

Copied from horse passport regs 2009:

Procedure on death
13.(1) When a horse is slaughtered or killed for disease control purposes, the official veterinary surgeon responsible for the slaughter or killing must, in accordance with Article 19(2)(a)(i) of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 504/2008, return the passport to the passport issuing organisation as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(2) When a horse is slaughtered for human consumption, in accordance with Article 19(2)(a)(ii) of that Regulation the occupier of the slaughterhouse must give the passport to the official veterinary surgeon at the slaughterhouse, who must record the identification number of the animal, mark the passport accordingly and send the marked passport to the passport issuing organisation as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(3) In any other case, notwithstanding Article 19(2)(b) of that Regulation, the keeper must return the passport to the passport issuing organisation within 30 days of the death of the horse, and failure to do so is an offence.
(4) The return of the passport under this regulation is the attestation required under Article 19(1)(c) of that Regulation.


Unfortunately lots of vets almost rely on the fact that owners have no idea about the law and so get away with rather a lot.
		
Click to expand...

If there was a disease outbreak regarding equines the situation regarding disposing of a horse would alter but until that time the vet is booked in to put a horse down and neither has to see the passport or sign anything,
the owner just has to send in the passport, however if there were an outbreak of disease it is very possible Defra would be giving the permission/authorisation to have the horse put down by whoever they choose and the owner would be able to receive £1 in compensation (I think one such disease is African Horse sickness)

Until that time (which hopefully will never happen) the owner can call the vet, hunt or knackerman to a sick, old or perfectly well horse and have the deed done


----------



## Cecile (21 October 2017)

joosie said:



			Yes I am quite amazed how many people don't seem to have understood which horses belonged to whom!
		
Click to expand...

I agree with this ^


----------



## Leonor (21 October 2017)

popsdosh said:



			I think a lot of confusion is being created by who is being described as the 'owner' as you describe ,as to be honest neither were personally involved in this mess up.
		
Click to expand...

 Louise is the owner of the horse that was wrongly put down.She had nothing to do with the error.
The other owner was supposed to have her horse put down but her mother presented the vet with the wrong one .


----------



## cobgoblin (21 October 2017)

The other owner is at fault for failing to ensure that her deputy(mother) knew what she was doing.


----------



## {97702} (21 October 2017)

This is horrific - how stupid and ignorant of the owner and her mother not to at least notify the yard owner and fellow livery that this was happening!  Poor owner (Louise)


----------



## Alec Swan (21 October 2017)

tallyho! said:



			By law they are supposed to check so actually they are liable. &#8230;&#8230;..

Copied from horse passport regs 2009:

Procedure on death
13.&#8212;(1) *When a horse is slaughtered or killed for disease control purposes*, the official veterinary surgeon responsible for the slaughter or killing must, in accordance with Article 19(2)(a)(i) of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 504/2008, return the passport to the passport issuing organisation as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(2) When a horse is slaughtered for human consumption, in accordance with Article 19(2)(a)(ii) of that Regulation the occupier of the slaughterhouse must give the passport to the official veterinary surgeon at the slaughterhouse, who must record the identification number of the animal, mark the passport accordingly and send the marked passport to the passport issuing organisation as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(3) In any other case, notwithstanding Article 19(2)(b) of that Regulation, *the keeper must return the passport to the passport issuing organisation within 30 days of the death of the horse*, and failure to do so is an offence.
(4) The return of the passport under this regulation is the attestation required under Article 19(1)(c) of that Regulation.


Unfortunately lots of vets almost rely on the fact that owners have no idea about the law and so get away with rather a lot.
		
Click to expand...

If you look further at the regulations and as you've listed them the conditions to which you refer concern those vets who are attending the slaughter of horses for 'Control disease proposes' and this would be at a time of an equine disease which was highly contagious &#8212; F&M for instance,  except horses aren't liable to that.

I'd refer you to clause 3 which clearly has the owner '*In any other case*' of the horse as being responsible for the return of a passport to the issuing authority &#8212; *NOT the vet*.


Alec.


----------



## Cloball (22 October 2017)

It's not a case not a case of placing blame on the vet, as from the thread its clearly not the done thing, I just can't imagine a professional putting needle to skin without checking an quick ID, however; that is easiest done. That's a very different scenario to putting a horse down at the road side or one that is suffering. That is probably just my line of work talking though. People get quite annoyed when they get the wrong medication even when they swear blind they ARE Margaret (and their ID says they are clearly Dave).


----------



## GirlFriday (22 October 2017)

popsdosh said:



			Why are everybody so hung up on the horses value ,it has nothing to do with this situation ! It is of no consequence. You sound like you have a middle eastern attitude were even human life has a price and you can use money to clear your conscience.
Tell me how money or replacing the horse will remedy how Louise feels about what has happened. I am sure its not even crossed her mind he was irreplaceable to her!
		
Click to expand...

Gosh this forum jumps to unhelpful (and entirely irrelevant) nationalistic attitudes quickly... 

As I said in the post I mentioned the money as a symbolic gesture, an admission of responsibility, like the apology the owner told a journalist she would have wanted. I wasn't for a minute suggesting the horse be replaced.

And, as an FYI, under English law it was property, a thing. I'm not aware of any English mechanism for treating it as anything else or formally recognising the emotional value. Sure, it could be a nice gesture to offer to pay for individual cremation/horse hair bracelet/enlarged photo/whatever other thing might help the owner later on but, assuming disposal had already happened, and the owners don't know each other well enough to pick out a personal commemoration/decide a bottle of gin would suit better, I'm not sure what else the owner could hope for from those who made the mistake at this stage.

What would you suggest they do? (Assuming the public humiliation at a time when they themselves have just lost two horses leaves them open to suggestion...)


----------



## Cecile (22 October 2017)

Cloball said:



			It's not a case not a case of placing blame on the vet, as from the thread its clearly not the done thing, I just can't imagine a professional putting needle to skin without checking an quick ID, however; that is easiest done. That's a very different scenario to putting a horse down at the road side or one that is suffering. That is probably just my line of work talking though. People get quite annoyed when they get the wrong medication even when they swear blind they ARE Margaret (and their ID says they are clearly Dave).
		
Click to expand...

Its no different to when the owner calls the hunt or knackerman to their yard, the horse is then shot, no ID is needed and I doubt the hunt or knackerman would think to question the person holding the horse if they have the correct horse at the end of the lead rope which they are about to shoot and take away


----------



## Cecile (22 October 2017)

GirlFriday said:



			Gosh this forum jumps to unhelpful (and entirely irrelevant) nationalistic attitudes quickly... 

As I said in the post I mentioned the money as a symbolic gesture, an admission of responsibility, like the apology the owner told a journalist she would have wanted. I wasn't for a minute suggesting the horse be replaced.

And, as an FYI, under English law it was property, a thing. I'm not aware of any English mechanism for treating it as anything else or formally recognising the emotional value. Sure, it could be a nice gesture to offer to pay for individual cremation/horse hair bracelet/enlarged photo/whatever other thing might help the owner later on but, assuming disposal had already happened, and the owners don't know each other well enough to pick out a personal commemoration/decide a bottle of gin would suit better, I'm not sure what else the owner could hope for from those who made the mistake at this stage.

What would you suggest they do? (Assuming the public humiliation at a time when they themselves have just lost two horses leaves them open to suggestion...)
		
Click to expand...

Do you know what suddenly sent my mind into overload, that 2 horses were to be put down (Both belonging to one owner) which clearly didn't happen, now there is still one horse to be put down as a terrible error has been made, who on earth would want to sort that out, if I were the owner, the mother of owner or the vet I really wouldn't want to be responsible that day


----------



## tallyho! (22 October 2017)

Cecile said:



			If there was a disease outbreak regarding equines the situation regarding disposing of a horse would alter but until that time the vet is booked in to put a horse down and neither has to see the passport or sign anything,
the owner just has to send in the passport, however if there were an outbreak of disease it is very possible Defra would be giving the permission/authorisation to have the horse put down by whoever they choose and the owner would be able to receive £1 in compensation (I think one such disease is African Horse sickness)

Until that time (which hopefully will never happen) the owner can call the vet, hunt or knackerman to a sick, old or perfectly well horse and have the deed done
		
Click to expand...

Yes I agree someone pointed that out to me earlier... we've had several horses its bt same vet group and each time they checked the passport and I was told they had to... now it's not clear.

What an awful oversight in the law don't you think?


----------



## tallyho! (22 October 2017)

Alec Swan said:





If you look further at the regulations and as you've listed them the conditions to which you refer concern those vets who are attending the slaughter of horses for 'Control disease proposes' and this would be at a time of an equine disease which was highly contagious &#8212; F&M for instance,  except horses aren't liable to that.

I'd refer you to clause 3 which clearly has the owner '*In any other case*' of the horse as being responsible for the return of a passport to the issuing authority &#8212; *NOT the vet*.


Alec.
		
Click to expand...

 yes thanks Alec several people have now pointed this out! 

Don't you think that's awful though?


----------



## Alec Swan (22 October 2017)

tallyho! said:



 yes thanks Alec several people have now pointed this out! 

Don't you think that's awful though?
		
Click to expand...

My apologies,  had I read further back,  perhaps I'd have noticed! :redface3::biggrin3:

Is it awful?  If you're referring to the fact that a vet isn't responsible for the return of a passport,  no not really.  The owners are the one's who are responsible,  and if the duty of dealing with another layer of bureaucracy is placed on the vet,  further absolving the owners from their duties,  then I can't agree.  

The only person for whom I have any real sympathy,  is the owner of the horse which was wrongly destroyed,  and even were substantial compensation forthcoming,  which I very much doubt it will be,  the lady's distress must be considerable.  

Alec.


----------



## Tiddlypom (22 October 2017)

As has been extensively discussed, the much loved horse which was wrongly put down had little or no financial value. There is no bringing him back, but if the owner and mother of the other two horses made a profound apology and offered to make a substantial donation to a charity of Louise's choice, then maybe that could be a way of drawing a line under it.


----------



## honetpot (22 October 2017)

I have at least 3 ponies in gods waiting room, and over the years I have had to have several PTS sleep through old age or infirmity and for me the hardest part is deciding when the time is right. The easiest one was when it had to be done, the illness was catastrophic.
  I think if this had happened to my old horse, once I had go over the initial shock and had the moan at how could no one check properly , I would probably think that fate had done me a favour, even better if I could get the person who presented the horse to pay the bill. But I am the sort of person who makes the best of a bad job.

 There was a case where the wrong horse went racing, and they are supposed to check the chip before they go into the stable area, https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...h-mandarin-princess-millies-kiss-horse-racing
  The ones I have PTS no one has ever checked its the right animal, the hunt must have the record from getting out of the van and the deed being done. Its shown there is a chance of error so perhaps in future who ever is doing the deed they get who ever presents the animal to sign that,
a) its the correct animal
b) they have the right to authorise it and will be responsible for any bill, just that would make someone think twice.
  You often hear of relationships breaking up and the partner either selling or 'getting rid' of the horse, I would rather be more 'distressed', that someone had checked properly than have this muddle after the deed is done.


----------



## tallyho! (22 October 2017)

Alec Swan said:



			My apologies,  had I read further back,  perhaps I'd have noticed! :redface3::biggrin3:

Is it awful?  If you're referring to the fact that a vet isn't responsible for the return of a passport,  no not really.  The owners are the one's who are responsible,  and if the duty of dealing with another layer of bureaucracy is placed on the vet,  further absolving the owners from their duties,  then I can't agree.  

The only person for whom I have any real sympathy,  is the owner of the horse which was wrongly destroyed,  and even were substantial compensation forthcoming,  which I very much doubt it will be,  the lady's distress must be considerable.  

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I do still think it's awful there's nowhere to prove the death of a horse.

I've just perused my passports.... there's nowhere to even state a date/cause/method of death - you have to send a covering letter to PIO (or insurers). This is something I've previously never worried about but actually, for a "generic grey" horse... any other "generic grey" could pass off as this horse if I was so inclined and never even say anything to the PIO :O... I send it back to the PIO all I get is an 'invalid' overstamp so there is actually no witness. My eyes have just been opened as to what a shambles the horse passport system is. There's no point even having one


----------



## Alec Swan (22 October 2017)

It was years ago now,  I had two elderly TB brood mares put down,  asked Weatherbys what I should do about the passports,  the lady I spoke to said that I'm supposed to return them but that most didn't bother!  A nod's as good as a wink to a blind horse,  or so they say!

As you seem to imply,  and I agree,  there are a great many rules and regs which are simply ignored and the main reason I suspect,  is that whether we comply or we don't,  appears to have no impact,  what so ever! 

Alec.


----------



## npage123 (22 October 2017)

Louise Allan (and groom), if you ever get to read this, I'm so very sorry for what has happened.  I wish I could have turned back time so that the error and everything that went wrong on the day, could not have occurred.  My heart goes out to you.

Many years ago, when I bought my TB, I contacted Weatherby's to ask the procedure of registering him under my name instead of the previous owners.  I duly sent his passport to them, only to have it returned with one change to it:  my details was handwritten as the new owner.  Anyone else, even I, could have written it and no-one would have known it wasn't a Weatherby's employee that wrote it down.

This very tragic story has reminded me of a previous livery yard where I used to keep my horse.  There was another horse (let's call him M), who was also a bay, but in every other way there was no resemblance to M and my horse, Mr C.  Mine is a 16.2 bay TB and M probably 15.2, and their conformation was completely different.  I used to bring in both if I was there first and we wanted to go on a hack, as being a teenager and having to use the bus, the owner of M was sometimes a bit late.  

One day, the owner of M and I decided again to go on a hack.  I got to the yard, to find my horse tied up and munching away on a haynet.  The (very non-horsey) father of the owner of M, had brought my horse in.  I was extremely surprised about that, mostly because my horse was a git to catch unless it was feeding time!  So I said 'Wow, thank you so much for bringing Mr C in!  How did you manage to catch him?"  It transpired that he thought it was his daughter's horse that he brought in...! Luckily ours was a funny situation (unlike the tragic story in the article), but I pointed out to M's 'Dad' that my horse always has sausage boots on behind, so from that day onwards he knew the one with the 'bangles' was Mr C, and not M.  

Just saying the above as to the untrained, non-horsey eye, two horses of the same colour would look much more alike than if you asked someone with some equine knowledge to describe the difference between the two said horses.

Very sadly, at that same livery yard, the YO's horse had a tragic accident in the field an had to be PTS asap.  There were 2 horses that stayed out 24/7 at the time.  I was doing the morning duties and to my shock, found the injured horse around 06:30 that morning with his fractured leg.  I immediately called the vet who said he'll be there asap.  I then called the owner (who was away for an early morning shift at work, but working locally) I had to briefly explain what had happened and she said she'll be there within 15 minutes.  I then called a good friend (and fellow livery) who lived very close to the yard, to come and help me.  While she was holding the injured horseand trying to entice him to eat a final nice bucket feed,  I put the only other horse in the field back into his stable, administered almost a full tube of sedalin to the injured horse and put a home-made stent on his fractured leg.  As we suspected, as soon as the vet laid eyes on the leg, he shook his head and we knew sadly the horse was going to be PTS.  The vet administered something, but the owner wanted to say goodbye and luckily she was there shortly after the vet arrived, so the horse was put out of his pain fairly quickly after we discovered him with his injury in the field.  After that incident, I've learnt to appreciate every moment that I get to spend with my horse and that sometimes, live is more fragile than you think.


----------



## Cecile (22 October 2017)

tallyho! said:



			Yes I agree someone pointed that out to me earlier... we've had several horses its bt same vet group and each time they checked the passport and I was told they had to... now it's not clear.

What an awful oversight in the law don't you think?
		
Click to expand...

With me and only me and the way I think, so I am not saying I am right or wrong, I take on an animal and I am responsible for it and when it is time to end that life it is my responsibility to sort it out, I will arrange the appointment, be there, hold the animal (Or my husband will), pay the bill and send in the passport.  The law doesn't really worry me in my case as I am the one who is responsible for what happens

I take old dogs to be put down and I am not asked if I have the correct dog and I am often asked to take cats to the vets for their owners or stand with someone else's horse but I know these animals well.  If an owner cannot face being there I meet them at the yard and they either go for a walk or drive off but normally the owner has spent an hour grooming and fussing the horse in question before I arrive and the horse is in the stable with a head collar on, I certainly wouldn't agree to go into a field without the owner being present and take horses out to be put down unless they were mine, I would also always make sure that all the owners of any horses sharing with mine knew what was happening so they could decide whether to avoid the yard that morning, move their horse to another field or choose to be present to make sure their own horse was not galloping around the field upset

However I know nothing about this awful situation, only what has been reported, I just feel so sorry for the owner that it has happened, to the majority of us we can't imagine how it could of happened, but it did and maybe we will all learn something from some other person's total distress


----------



## Alec Swan (22 October 2017)

Cecile said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

However I know nothing about this awful situation, only what has been reported, I just feel so sorry for the owner that it has happened, to the majority of us we can't imagine how it could of happened, but it did and maybe we will all learn something from some other person's total distress
		
Click to expand...

Well said,  and the rest of your post too.  I have,  many times,  stood with a horse for another,  and also put the horse down too when the owners are unable to face it,  and without any judgement.  We need to always bear in mind that the animal is about to leave this earth and visibly distressed owners will only ever worsen a difficult time.  Better always that a calm and thoughtful approach is taken.  I always take the view that if we approach it as though we have all day,  it will only take a couple of minutes from start to finish.

Alec.


----------



## tallyho! (22 October 2017)

Cecile said:



			With me and only me and the way I think, so I am not saying I am right or wrong, I take on an animal and I am responsible for it and when it is time to end that life it is my responsibility to sort it out, I will arrange the appointment, be there, hold the animal (Or my husband will), pay the bill and send in the passport.  The law doesn't really worry me in my case as I am the one who is responsible for what happens

I take old dogs to be put down and I am not asked if I have the correct dog and I am often asked to take cats to the vets for their owners or stand with someone else's horse but I know these animals well.  If an owner cannot face being there I meet them at the yard and they either go for a walk or drive off but normally the owner has spent an hour grooming and fussing the horse in question before I arrive and the horse is in the stable with a head collar on, I certainly wouldn't agree to go into a field without the owner being present and take horses out to be put down unless they were mine, I would also always make sure that all the owners of any horses sharing with mine knew what was happening so they could decide whether to avoid the yard that morning, move their horse to another field or choose to be present to make sure their own horse was not galloping around the field upset

However I know nothing about this awful situation, only what has been reported, I just feel so sorry for the owner that it has happened, to the majority of us we can't imagine how it could of happened, but it did and maybe we will all learn something from some other person's total distress
		
Click to expand...

I don't dispute anything you've said. I'm a law abiding person just like you and unfortunately (IME) am far to trusting. No one asked me for my cats documents - she was a stray and wasn't microchipped. I guess me paying thousands for her cancer treatment was proof enough she was mine.

Horses are a bit different to domestic animals though and I'm just so sad for the owner and now that I see the gaping flaw in the law I now know how easy it is for people to get it wrong unintentionally.... (and indeed intentionally (for a whole host of illegitimate reasons!)). There's a few greys on our yard and to the untrained eye they do look similar apart from maybe an inch in height diff. (all related). I can just imagine it happening to me with no one to check the paperwork and check the distinguishing features (e.g. chestnuts if recorded) even if the onus is on the owner. If I wasn't there, as in this case, and the passport wasn't there (as there's no requirement for it to be) then any one of those horses cold be pts if the reason wasn't visible. IF there was some responsibility of the person doing the deed to check, there would be a degree of inspection going on and someone to sign and say "this equine no longer lives" before it was sent back to PIO.


----------



## tallyho! (22 October 2017)

To add... in death, what is the point of a microchip? It's only useful while the horse is alive it would seem to prevent theft. Seems it's missing a job.


----------



## GirlFriday (23 October 2017)

Micro chip might be more to the point actually - a passport is not really designed with the 'pet' animal in mind whereas obviously chips are often used for theft prevention/recovery. Plus, way harder to mix up.

All vets will have a small scanner so very easy to check without passport being present/owner needing to be in fit state, or even there. If microchip <> that on vet record of animal booked in for PTS, no go. (Unless records show no chip expected and no chip found - a problem which will diminish over time). Obvious exception for emergency, unplanned treatment of the kind an owner hasn't necessarily authorised at all - eg loose horse injured on road/vet called by police.

BUT Then you'd also need to require hunts, knacker men & abattoirs to do the same. And they won't have records of horses available to check so would need to check passports.

I recently asked a vet practice to ID a stray they recognised just to double check ID was correct (it was) before return to owner. I can see why people would want to have the 'safe guard' that an incorrectly identified animal (due to accident/theft/malicious intent) couldn't be killed so easily without a check. And it *could* be argued it would help with the original intention of passports too...


----------



## popsdosh (23 October 2017)

In spain at the moment a system is being trialled where the micro chip is the passport and holds all the info on it. This whole thing happened through a cock up it is rare and no amount of legislation will change it . It was human error nothing to do with legislation


----------



## popsdosh (23 October 2017)

tallyho! said:



			To add... in death, what is the point of a microchip? It's only useful while the horse is alive it would seem to prevent theft. Seems it's missing a job.
		
Click to expand...

Try telling Wetherbys they use micro chips as ID in racing and a horse is checked several times when racing. I have a chip reader on my phone as all the cattle here have electronic id . The truth is though there is no mandatory requirement that is being enforced for horse passports to be returned. With our cattle we have 4days to inform BCMS and we have to return the passport even then the only time at death there will be an ID check is if the animal is going into the food chain.
However you can blame whoever you like but in the past the biggest oposition to mandatory passports and id  has come from the owners of horses themselves which is evidenced by the still huge number of young horses still being sold without a chip or passport all privately via adds.
The general horse owner will never accept the tough regime required to make a passport system work or the penalties for not complying you would not believe the possible fines that cattle farmers face ,it can run into many K. Just to add you cannot expect the veterinary proffession to police the system for you. At the end of the day many people can be responsible for the destruction of a horse .


----------



## tallyho! (23 October 2017)

popsdosh said:



			Try telling Wetherbys they use micro chips as ID in racing and a horse is checked several times when racing. I have a chip reader on my phone as all the cattle here have electronic id . The truth is though there is no mandatory requirement that is being enforced for horse passports to be returned. With our cattle we have 4days to inform BCMS and we have to return the passport even then the only time at death there will be an ID check is if the animal is going into the food chain.
However you can blame whoever you like but in the past the biggest oposition to mandatory passports and id  has come from the owners of horses themselves which is evidenced by the still huge number of young horses still being sold without a chip or passport all privately via adds.
The general horse owner will never accept the tough regime required to make a passport system work or the penalties for not complying you would not believe the possible fines that cattle farmers face ,it can run into many K. Just to add you cannot expect the veterinary proffession to police the system for you. At the end of the day many people can be responsible for the destruction of a horse .
		
Click to expand...

Excuse my naivety. 

I've finally realised what many people already know it seems. That the whole system is a joke. 

With no enforcement, I may as well wipe my arse with the passports


----------



## rabatsa (23 October 2017)

Donkey was an impulse buy at the horse sales.  His microchip and passport do not match as was found out when he got sedated for his teeth and the ages did not match up.  The vet then scanned for the chip.

As an average owner with no access to a scanner how was I to know the passport was the wrong one?  The lack of whorls do match my boy as do the three that actually got recorded.


----------



## ycbm (23 October 2017)

tallyho! said:



			Excuse my naivety. 

I've finally realised what many people already know it seems. That the whole system is a joke. 

With no enforcement, I may as well wipe my arse with the passports 

Click to expand...

No!   It's a handy form for the flu jabs and it's got a pretty plastic cover .  I think chipping has deterred theft and dealer misrepresentation, too, so I'm all in favour of that being in it.

Other than that, they're pretty useless for mongrels.


----------



## ycbm (23 October 2017)

rabatsa said:



			Donkey was an impulse buy at the horse sales.  His microchip and passport do not match as was found out when he got sedated for his teeth and the ages did not match up.  The vet then scanned for the chip.

As an average owner with no access to a scanner how was I to know the passport was the wrong one?  The lack of whorls do match my boy as do the three that actually got recorded.
		
Click to expand...

Shouldn't that have been checked by the auction house? Because it might go for meat, I thought that was a legal requirement.


----------



## Cecile (23 October 2017)

tallyho! said:



			To add... in death, what is the point of a microchip? It's only useful while the horse is alive it would seem to prevent theft. Seems it's missing a job.
		
Click to expand...

I suspect so many people don't have a microchip in their horses, its never been registered under their name or it doesn't match up.  It would seem anyone can put in a microchip even at the dog grooming they were offering to do it, I wonder how difficult it is to obtain the equipment, for me very difficult as I wouldn't know where to begin, to others no problem at all

Imagine how the owners felt when they were informed someone found their horses microchip in a shipment of meat
Don't press link if you are sensitive
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/26/horsemeat-trial-shines-light-international-fraud


----------



## Cecile (23 October 2017)

tallyho! said:



			I don't dispute anything you've said. I'm a law abiding person just like you and unfortunately (IME) am far to trusting. No one asked me for my cats documents - she was a stray and wasn't microchipped. I guess me paying thousands for her cancer treatment was proof enough she was mine.

Horses are a bit different to domestic animals though and I'm just so sad for the owner and now that I see the gaping flaw in the law I now know how easy it is for people to get it wrong unintentionally.... (and indeed intentionally (for a whole host of illegitimate reasons!)). There's a few greys on our yard and to the untrained eye they do look similar apart from maybe an inch in height diff. (all related). I can just imagine it happening to me with no one to check the paperwork and check the distinguishing features (e.g. chestnuts if recorded) even if the onus is on the owner. If I wasn't there, as in this case, and the passport wasn't there (as there's no requirement for it to be) then any one of those horses cold be pts if the reason wasn't visible. IF there was some responsibility of the person doing the deed to check, there would be a degree of inspection going on and someone to sign and say "this equine no longer lives" before it was sent back to PIO.
		
Click to expand...

With your situation on the yard this may work
If a horse is to be put down, the YO informs everyone on the yard that it is taking place on x day and if anyone wishes to move their horse, keep it in or whatever they wish to do arrangements should be made

Only problem I see with this is there will always be the odd person who wishes to involve themselves in other people's business eg You are cruel, I could save it or you should try tulip leaves as that is a wonder cure


----------



## Cecile (23 October 2017)

Cecile said:



			With your situation on the yard this may work
If a horse is to be put down, the YO informs everyone on the yard that it is taking place on x day and if anyone wishes to move their horse, keep it in or whatever they wish to do arrangements should be made

Only problem I see with this is there will always be the odd person who wishes to involve themselves in other people's business eg You are cruel, I could save it or you should try tulip leaves as that is a wonder cure
		
Click to expand...

That idea is flawed ^^
There will always be one who didn't get the message and lay blame on the YO and then they would become the guilty party


----------



## tallyho! (23 October 2017)

Cecile said:



			That idea is flawed ^^
There will always be one who didn't get the message and lay blame on the YO and then they would become the guilty party
		
Click to expand...

Yep. 

I have purebreeds as well so I see *some* value in passporting and microchipping these as there is a degree of self-regulation going on. The rest however, like ycbm points out is a con.


----------



## GirlFriday (23 October 2017)

ycbm said:



			Other than that, they're pretty useless for mongrels.
		
Click to expand...

Well, they're supposed to be useful for people who might eat mongrels, rather than mongrels or even their owners ;-)

For TallyHo and others - Passports were never intended to prevent any horse being PTS - only to keep some of them out of the food chain.

Re: Donkey with wrong passport - Vets at auction houses (or during a vetting in a private sale etc) should have scanners available. In the States there are volunteers who scan anything that might go for meat (sale price below a set amount) but I don't think (either here or there) there is a legal requirement to scan everything at auctions. But yes, there will be vets around who would be able to scan for you if you requested. Possibly equine market watch may be able to help/advise too?


----------



## tallyho! (23 October 2017)

GirlFriday said:



			For TallyHo and others - Passports were never intended to prevent any horse being PTS - only to keep some of them out of the food chain.
		
Click to expand...

 Of course! ha! yes that idea works really well


----------



## Lanky Loll (23 October 2017)

GirlFriday said:



			Well, they're supposed to be useful for people who might eat mongrels, rather than mongrels or even their owners ;-)

For TallyHo and others - Passports were never intended to prevent any horse being PTS - only to keep some of them out of the food chain.
		
Click to expand...

But they have also helped in competitive sport to reduce the number of "ringers" I can certainly remember in the days before microchipping ponies being renamed and reappearing as a "novice" once they'd reached their jumping limit.  Stricter passports went someway towards helping deal with this.


----------



## GirlFriday (23 October 2017)

tallyho! said:



 Of course! ha! yes that idea works really well 

Click to expand...

Agree that is funny - but again, passports were not really intended as a magic way of preventing crime - just a means of making information available. I'm totally cool with criticisms of both the objective and implementation... but it isn't really fair to complain they aren't any good at a whole bunch of stuff they never claimed to be useful for!


----------



## tallyho! (23 October 2017)

GirlFriday said:



			Agree that is funny - but again, passports were not really intended as a magic way of preventing crime - just a means of making information available. I'm totally cool with criticisms of both the objective and implementation... but it isn't really fair to complain they aren't any good at a whole bunch of stuff they never claimed to be useful for!
		
Click to expand...

Fine, I'll stop complaining.

Don't want to get accused of jinxing the freedom of "information" - in whatever form that might be. 

Whatever it is, it's a magic way of making money!


----------

