# The PTS society



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

I don't personally own a horse anymore because although I could afford to keep it, shoe it, feed it etc, I couldn't afford any massive vet bills, ie going beyond insurance..............

Alot of people choose to keep and struggle with money (not talking about circumstances changing like loss of a job) but ppl actively go and buy a horse when they are struggling with finance, and often see a serious condition (treatable) arise and are advised to have the horse PTS or come to that conclusion themselves.

I personally had a very expensive horse who I kept as a pet at livery for 6 yrs rather than have him put down ( he was unridable with a heart condition) but was happy as a field ornament on heart meds etc (16.2hh TB) so not cheap on drugs and food and shoeing (lame without shoes),  I then decided after the sad day came when he kidneys were affected to have him PTS and couldn't afford to do that again with another horse.

I can't help but think sometimes horses are put down because of financial reasons and if you didn't buy this horse in the first place, someone with lots of money may have bought them and they would not have been PTS........

I know this  sounds a bit idealistic, but it makes me mad how freely PTS is recommended on this site, do right by your horse etc, well i sometimes feel its not right, its not right at all!

People replying to this thread please read carefully what I wrote before you twist my words, as I can't be doing with getting angry on such a nice sunny day!


----------



## dawnpetenathshir (25 May 2011)

I can see were you are coming from and to a point I agree with what you are saying.  I will say though that others are often doing this rather than worry about their horse going to an unsuitable home and not being looked after properly.  It must be an incredibly hard decision to make and would say it is not made lightly.


----------



## chickeninabun (25 May 2011)

Without wanting to make you angry DD, I have two horses, I don't have pots of money and it would make my life very difficult if either had a condition which went above and beyond my insurance payouts. But you can't live your life on "what-if's", as you'd never do anything. So you can't own a horse because "what if" it breaks a leg, you can't cross the road because "what if" you got run over..... etc etc.

In an ideal world, no horses wouldn't be PTS because of an owners financial situation but we are all far from ideal....


----------



## joeanne (25 May 2011)

Sorry, but I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
IF there are all these "rich" buyers, why are animals going through sales for peanuts?
There are worse things than a well placed bullet.
Thousands of TB's are sent to slaughter each year....they are a by product of racing, and were likely owned by said "rich" people. Said rich person still had no qualms about sending his no longer required animal to slaughter.....but it beats being sold to an unsuitable home and the rich person knows that and therefore IMO does the right thing by the horse.


----------



## BSJAlove (25 May 2011)

joeanne said:



			Sorry, but I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
IF there are all these "rich" buyers, why are animals going through sales for peanuts?
There are worse things than a well placed bullet.
Thousands of TB's are sent to slaughter each year....they are a by product of racing, and were likely owned by said "rich" people. Said rich person still had no qualms about sending his no longer required animal to slaughter.....but it beats being sold to an unsuitable home and the rich person knows that and therefore IMO does the right thing by the horse.
		
Click to expand...

agreed.


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

joeanne said:



			Sorry, but I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
IF there are all these "rich" buyers, why are animals going through sales for peanuts?
There are worse things than a well placed bullet.
Thousands of TB's are sent to slaughter each year....they are a by product of racing, and were likely owned by said "rich" people. Said rich person still had no qualms about sending his no longer required animal to slaughter.....but it beats being sold to an unsuitable home and the rich person knows that and therefore IMO does the right thing by the horse.
		
Click to expand...

I take what you are saying on board, and maybe I am writing it as too black and white!  But I think you understand what I am saying.  

I would love another horse or two, but won't as I can't provide for the what if's, this is how I feel about animals.

I have recently spent £300 on my dog for an eye removal, and I know this isnt alot of money, but I afforded it easily and didn't hesitate, I know some people won't even call a vet as they can't afford the bills, this includes any pet owner!  As a Vetnurse I see ppl every single day come in whinging they can't afford the vets bills, well why have the fricken animal first??  Makes me mad!


----------



## Hedwards (25 May 2011)

I think it would be really lovely if the people who could afford a field ornament would be the people who end up buying them (before or after they become ornaments), however, I have to agree with you when you said it is a bit idealistic. Looking at it from another point of view, any horse could end up in a home where they are a field ornament, but they dont get the care they need - regardless of being able to afford it or not, so actually end up suffering even more, and would maybe have been better off being pts.

Its such a difficult thing, I have posted on here myself about whether it was time to give up with my current mare, many people did suggest pts, while others didnt, at the time i really thought pts was the best thing for her. However I have given her a bit more time, she is uneaven while ridden so is basically retired, other than plods around fields, and I'll keep her this way until i decide she isnt happy any more, she isnt cheap to keep due to her shoeing, but it's what i've decided to do. However, I would understand if someone in the same position would have had her pts.


----------



## L&M (25 May 2011)

My view is you don't have the money or the time, you shouldn't own a horse, end of.

I know this also sounds brutal but running a small livery yard, I have experienced a small minority of clients moaning that they don't have time to do their poo picking etc, putting their social life first, and won't call out a vet because they don't want to pay a bill.

I have had 2 recent cases of liveries trying to 'get rid' off elderley horses, whether selling or giving away, because they are no longer prepared to pay bills for them. If you are not prepared to look after your older horse, why expect somone else to want to do it for you? This 'disposable' society drives me up the wall......

Buying a horse is akin to having a child in my eyes - it is a huge committment and responsibility and some people go into horse ownership without taking this into consideration. 

So yes, I do agree with you if we lived in an 'ideal' world, but would still advocate pts if the horse is dangerous as don't agree with passing these types of horses on.


----------



## Damnation (25 May 2011)

I am 19, I feed, shoe, pay livery, insurance etc for my horse on my own.

Yes I struggle towards the end of the month but you know what, you only live once!

I would rather see a horse PTS then left to suffer because the owner can't afford the thousands of pounds in vets bills. If they had a good quality of life before hand, and were well looked after, its quality not quantity.

I know a girl, who I want to personally slap. Her horse has a calcified hock, he isn't insured and she can't even afford painkillers or for the horse to be PTS. Now THAT is when you cannot afford a horse.


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

joeanne said:



			Sorry, but I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
IF there are all these "rich" buyers, why are animals going through sales for peanuts?
There are worse things than a well placed bullet.
Thousands of TB's are sent to slaughter each year....they are a by product of racing, and were likely owned by said "rich" people. Said rich person still had no qualms about sending his no longer required animal to slaughter.....but it beats being sold to an unsuitable home and the rich person knows that and therefore IMO does the right thing by the horse.
		
Click to expand...


Also I didn't mean rich people, often its the people with very very little money who struggle through and pay the bills and go without food.

I find it very difficult when people say things like you have to live life, get a horse if it gets sick and you can't afford it cross that bridge when you get to it?

I won't comment too much more on this thread, I suspect it will be chewed over and spat out, but as someone once said to me that its often the nice people who don't comment on here and makes this place look so one sided


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

Damnation said:



			I am 19, I feed, shoe, pay livery, insurance etc for my horse on my own.

Yes I struggle towards the end of the month but you know what, you only live once!

I would rather see a horse PTS then left to suffer because the owner can't afford the thousands of pounds in vets bills. If they had a good quality of life before hand, and were well looked after, its quality not quantity.

I know a girl, who I want to personally slap. Her horse has a calcified hock, he isn't insured and she can't even afford painkillers or for the horse to be PTS. Now THAT is when you cannot afford a horse.
		
Click to expand...

omg!


----------



## joeanne (25 May 2011)

I do understand what you are saying, if you can't bear the thought of having to have a horse PTS then no, I would say you are right in not owning a horse.
I do however think you are being unreasonably harsh on those who can cope with it (myself included....I have had three PTS in under a year).
I dont judge you for not wanting to run the risk of struggling with a large vets bill. But on the flip side, dont judge those of us that do!


----------



## Ellies_mum2 (25 May 2011)

joeanne said:



			Sorry, but I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
IF there are all these "rich" buyers, why are animals going through sales for peanuts?
There are worse things than a well placed bullet.
Thousands of TB's are sent to slaughter each year....they are a by product of racing, and were likely owned by said "rich" people. Said rich person still had no qualms about sending his no longer required animal to slaughter.....but it beats being sold to an unsuitable home and the rich person knows that and therefore IMO does the right thing by the horse.
		
Click to expand...



Agreed.


I know of a race horse breeder who last year had 3 horses PTS because they didn't make the grade. I asked why he didn't sell them and at least make some of the money back he had invested in them. He said they would face an uncertain future and at least this way he knew what had happened to them. 


Can't fault him for that. As has been said before - there are fates worth than being PTS


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

Sidney said:



			My view is you don't have the money or the time, you shouldn't own a horse, end of.

I know this also sounds brutal but running a small livery yard, I have experienced a small minority of clients moaning that they don't have time to do their poo picking etc, putting their social life first, and won't call out a vet because they don't want to pay a bill.

I have had 2 recent cases of liveries trying to 'get rid' off elderley horses, whether selling or giving away, because they are no longer prepared to pay bills for them. If you are not prepared to look after your older horse, why expect somone else to want to do it for you? This 'disposable' society drives me up the wall......

Buying a horse is akin to having a child in my eyes - it is a huge committment and responsibility and some people go into horse ownership without taking this into consideration. 

So yes, I do agree with you if we lived in an 'ideal' world, but would still advocate pts if the horse is dangerous as don't agree with passing these types of horses on.
		
Click to expand...

Oh yes of course, I meant perfectly treatable conditions that cost a lot of money!

I am pro euthanasia if its for the horses sake!  I just hate the attitude on here of i gave it a good few years, can't afford it now it needs me, pts


----------



## joeanne (25 May 2011)

Damnation said:



			I know a girl, who I want to personally slap. Her horse has a calcified hock, he isn't insured and she can't even afford painkillers or for the horse to be PTS. Now THAT is when you cannot afford a horse.
		
Click to expand...

THAT is the kind of scenario I would totally understand your reasoning on. However I would not have a problem with the girl going down the PTS route if treatment proved too costly!


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

Ellies_mum2 said:



			Agreed.


I know of a race horse breeder who last year had 3 horses PTS because they didn't make the grade. I asked why he didn't sell them and at least make some of the money back he had invested in them. He said they would face an uncertain future and at least this way he knew what had happened to them. 


Can't fault him for that. As has been said before - there are fates worth than being PTS
		
Click to expand...

Thats pretty selfish imo, ppl are so up their own arses they assume know one else could look after horses, alot of ppl do look after horses well, including ex racers, why pts incase its not looked after properly, I am sure the horse would use life and see what happens...


----------



## Natch (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			I can't help but think sometimes horses are put down because of financial reasons and if you didn't buy this horse in the first place, someone with lots of money may have bought them and they would not have been PTS........
		
Click to expand...

Agree.  Mostly.  I think PTS is a good option for some situations. 

I think in general the economy had such a high that everyone thought they could own a horse, then when the recession hit stuff hit the fan and maybe not everybody's attitudes are revised yet that money doesn't grow on trees.


----------



## joeanne (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			Thats pretty selfish imo, ppl are so up their own arses they assume know one else could look after horses, alot of ppl do look after horses well, including ex racers, why pts incase its not looked after properly, I am sure the horse would use life and see what happens...
		
Click to expand...

Selfish or responsible?
Tb's are the ones who sadly seem to suffer the most as the by product of racing. Supply far exceeds the demand and as such many end up in the sales.
For me personally, I feel the ones who are PTS rather than sent to the sales ring are the lucky ones!


----------



## Spudlet (25 May 2011)

I would sooner see a horse PTS that passed on and on and on in a downward spiral, because I have seen the bottom of that spiral and it ain't pretty. I've no wish to see horses shot. But I would rather that than see some of the other stuff I've seen - and still see, some nights when I'm asleep. 

Horses are kept safe from harm because they have financial value, and sentimental value. Sadly, an unrideable horse with ongoing health or behavioural problems has little financial value, and unless it's your horse, that you love, it has little sentimental value either, at least not to anyone else. So what keeps those horses safe when they're given away? You are really shoving them out there into the cold. When you take on an animal, you take on the responsibility to keep it safe and protect it from harm, to the best of your ability, for the rest of its life. That means you feed it, and water it, and care for it, and make it well when it's sick, and if you can't do that any more you find it a good and trusted home, and if you can't do that, you face the fact that actually, death is not the worst fate that animal can suffer. And you cry your tears and you live with the guilt, because that is the deal. That's the bargain. They give us everything, and they ask for so little in return - but part of our half of the bargain is a peaceful ending, without fear or pain.

And I'm sorry if people don't like it. I'm sorry if people think I'm a horse killing psycho. But I will carry on saying what I do, because I believe it to be right.


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

joeanne said:



			I do understand what you are saying, if you can't bear the thought of having to have a horse PTS then no, I would say you are right in not owning a horse.
I do however think you are being unreasonably harsh on those who can cope with it (myself included....I have had three PTS in under a year).
I dont judge you for not wanting to run the risk of struggling with a large vets bill. But on the flip side, dont judge those of us that do!
		
Click to expand...

MISREAD AS USUAL!!!

When did I say I couldn't bear putting something to sleep?? I put about 4 animals to sleep on a daily basis!  I often make the decision on my own pets earlier than others would, this is what makes me mad, ppl not reading properly what I say!  Putting horses to sleep because you can't afford it or because you think other ppl can't look after your pet as well as you can makes me mad, can't afford them don't have them, end of!


----------



## BSJAlove (25 May 2011)

im 18 and i have 3 horses, i pay for it all myself and im skint at the end of each month but they make me happy and i make them happy. when i cant afford them anymore, ill try and sell them t good homes and if they dont, id rather have them PTS then put through market. where else would they go? and if i were faced with huge vet bills, if i couldnt afford it, i wouldnt hesitate to PTS after all the alternate options had been explored. as someone said above, theres alot worse that could happen to a horse then a well placed bullet.


----------



## Flame_ (25 May 2011)

OP, are you OK with healthy young lambs being killed for food?


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

Spudlet said:



			I would sooner see a horse PTS that passed on and on and on in a downward spiral, because I have seen the bottom of that spiral and it ain't pretty. I've no wish to see horses shot. But I would rather that than see some of the other stuff I've seen - and still see, some nights when I'm asleep. 

Horses are kept safe from harm because they have financial value, and sentimental value. Sadly, an unrideable horse with ongoing health or behavioural problems has little financial value, and unless it's your horse, that you love, it has little sentimental value either, at least not to anyone else. So what keeps those horses safe when they're given away? You are really shoving them out there into the cold. When you take on an animal, you take on the responsibility to keep it safe and protect it from harm, to the best of your ability, for the rest of its life. That means you feed it, and water it, and care for it, and make it well when it's sick, and if you can't do that any more you find it a good and trusted home, and if you can't do that, you face the fact that actually, death is not the worst fate that animal can suffer. And you cry your tears and you live with the guilt, because that is the deal. That's the bargain. They give us everything, and they ask for so little in return - but part of our half of the bargain is a peaceful ending, without fear or pain.

And I'm sorry if people don't like it. I'm sorry if people think I'm a horse killing psycho. But I will carry on saying what I do, because I believe it to be right.
		
Click to expand...

you are going off track..................... passing horses on is a different subject!  I too see abuse in my job, it aint pretty!  I am fed up with ppl having animals because they want a nice life themselves, but can't afford treatment when the worst happens, i think you should plan for the worst and see if you can afford it


----------



## Amymay (25 May 2011)

I can't help but think sometimes horses are put down because of financial reasons
		
Click to expand...

In most cases I'd say.  And very sensibly too if the funds dictate.


----------



## joeanne (25 May 2011)

Not misread at all. 
If I felt that xxxxx amount of £'s was not feasable to treat a condition, then yes I would PTS if it was going to affect the quality of that animals life by NOT having said treatment.


----------



## Natch (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			Thats pretty selfish imo, ppl are so up their own arses they assume know one else could look after horses, alot of ppl do look after horses well, including ex racers, why pts incase its not looked after properly, I am sure the horse would use life and see what happens...
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I think this is in an ideal world, and we don't live in that one at the moment.  The racehorse rehab charities do a brilliant job but don't have nearly enough resources to take on any reasonable percentage of the horses who come out of racing. The amount of people who have the skill, knowledge and finance to take on an ex-racer and turn it around into a decent "other" riding horse are few, can only take so many horses, and let's face it, they aren't everyone's cup of tea anyway.

 That leaves Jo Bloggs down the road who thinks they might have enough knowledge and just about have enough money to meet its basic needs, and then we're back to the situation in the original post about taking on horses when you don't have the money (or skill, knowledge, help etc).


----------



## Meowy Catkin (25 May 2011)

On the other side of the coin...

where I used to live I would hack past a field with a horse that quite frankly looked like the living dead. It was so thin and weak. It normally had a rug on and was in a field with alot of grass. Once it had no rug on and I actually cried at the sight. It still brings tears to my eyes now. 

The first time that I saw him, I asked my YO (who knew everyone horsey in the area) about the horse. She knew exactly which horse it was before I even described where he was. She explained that in her opinion the horse should have been PTS 10 years ago. Yes, that's correct, _10 years_.

He had alot of chronic health problems and it was quite frankly selfish to keep him alive in that state. The owner did care for him as best she could and spent alot of money on him but he was never going to get better. Every Vet that saw him (apparenly the owner had gone throgh every vet in the area because as soon as they said PTS, she wouldn't use them again) said that 'there is nothing that you can do to improve his quality of life, he needs to be PTS'.

Just horrible and cruel. I promised my horses that I would never do that to them. 

We had another owner who wasn't as bad, but she did keep her horse alive a good two years longer than was really kind. Every time he lay down, he couldn't get up again, so he was regularly hoisted up with a tractor. Finally he cast himself in his stable and the farmer refused to demolish the stable around him. The owner called another farmer but he said 'no' too, so she had to PTS.


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

Flame_ said:



			OP, are you OK with healthy young lambs being killed for food?
		
Click to expand...

Valid point!  But I feel very differently from farm animals and pets, I would happily eat horse if it was bred for that purpose.   But then I strongly disagree with farmers not treating their animals when the vet is needed, i feel this thread is going a bit down the wrong route


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

Faracat said:



			On the other side of the coin...

where I used to live I would hack past a field with a horse that quite frankly looked like the living dead. It was so thin and weak. It normally had a rug on and was in a field with alot of grass. Once it had no rug on and I actually cried at the sight. It still brings tears to my eyes now. 

The first time that I saw him, I asked my YO (who knew everyone horsey in the area) about the horse. She knew exactly which horse it was before I even described where he was. She explained that in her opinion the horse should have been PTS 10 years ago. Yes, that's correct, _10 years_.

He had alot of chronic health problems and it was quite frankly selfish to keep him alive in that state. The owner did care for him as best she could and spent alot of money on him but he was never going to get better. Every Vet that saw him (apparenly the owner had gone throgh every vet in the area because as soon as they said PTS, she wouldn't use them again) said that 'there is nothing that you can do to improve his quality of life, he needs to be PTS'.

Just horrible and cruel. I promised my horses that I would never do that to them. 

We had another owner who wasn't as bad, but she did keep her horse alive a good two years longer than was really kind. Every time he lay down, he couldn't get up again, so he was regularly hoisted up with a tractor. Finally he cast himself in his stable and the farmer refused to demolish the stable around him. The owner called another farmer but he said 'no' too, so she had to PTS.
		
Click to expand...

If the horse needs PTS then course it should be done, i am referring to horses put to sleep because owners can't afford a bill!


----------



## Amymay (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			Thats pretty selfish imo, ppl are so up their own arses they assume know one else could look after horses, alot of ppl do look after horses well, including ex racers, why pts incase its not looked after properly, I am sure the horse would use life and see what happens...
		
Click to expand...

Have you read BJ666 heartbreaking post???


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

Naturally said:



			Unfortunately I think this is in an ideal world, and we don't live in that one at the moment.  The racehorse rehab charities do a brilliant job but don't have nearly enough resources to take on any reasonable percentage of the horses who come out of racing. The amount of people who have the skill, knowledge and finance to take on an ex-racer and turn it around into a decent "other" riding horse are few, can only take so many horses, and let's face it, they aren't everyone's cup of tea anyway.

 That leaves Jo Bloggs down the road who thinks they might have enough knowledge and just about have enough money to meet its basic needs, and then we're back to the situation in the original post about taking on horses when you don't have the money (or skill, knowledge, help etc).
		
Click to expand...


Yes I agree!  Then we go down other routes of arguing about being too many horses around and too many horses disposible after they have done their job..... a whole new debate.. I sound like I am on question time!


----------



## BSJAlove (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			If the horse needs PTS then course it should be done, i am referring to horses put to sleep because owners can't afford a bill!
		
Click to expand...

then whats your solution? if you couldnt afford the bill. what would you do?


----------



## Amymay (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			Valid point!  But I feel very differently from farm animals and pets, I would happily eat horse if it was bred for that purpose.   But then I strongly disagree with farmers not treating their animals when the vet is needed, i feel this thread is going a bit down the wrong route
		
Click to expand...

Yet you criticise the race horse trainer for putting down horses not up to the job.  His _business_ is producing a winning racehorse - not a pet.


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

joeanne said:



			Not misread at all. 
If I felt that xxxxx amount of £'s was not feasable to treat a condition, then yes I would PTS if it was going to affect the quality of that animals life by NOT having said treatment.
		
Click to expand...

right, ok .......


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

amymay said:



			Yet you criticise the race horse trainer for putting down horses not up to the job.  His _business_ is producing a winning racehorse - not a pet.
		
Click to expand...

I don't want to go down the whole racehorse cruel sport debate, this is why i didn't get drawn into it!


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

amymay said:



			Yet you criticise the race horse trainer for putting down horses not up to the job.  His _business_ is producing a winning racehorse - not a pet.
		
Click to expand...

go poke yourself in the eye and get some chloramphenical!


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			go poke yourself in the eye and get some chloramphenical!
		
Click to expand...

I do hope you were the lady i was joking about golden eye ointment with, if not I have just told you to go poke yourself in the eye for no reason!!!!!


----------



## joeanne (25 May 2011)

DD....I have concluded....you are quite frankly barking!


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

BSJAlove said:



			then whats your solution? if you couldnt afford the bill. what would you do?
		
Click to expand...

Well this is why I haven't replaced my old horse, so I am not put in that situation


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

joeanne said:



			DD....I have concluded....you are quite frankly barking!
		
Click to expand...

I could have told you that way before the beginning of this thread   One in a million me!!

Maybe I am painting myself as whiter than white because I choose not to have another horse until I have lots of spare cash?

I would love another horse, I miss it so much, am I self righteous then?

Do I think I am better than you all because I think we should be financially sound before we have a very expensive pet?


----------



## Luci07 (25 May 2011)

Just to add more fuel to the fire - so what do YOU consider enough money as a back up? So both my horses are insured for vets fees. Now my old mare is only covered for external injuries being 22 but on thinking about it, that was a mute point pretty much as I woudn't put her through a major surgery even if money was no issue.  My youngster is covered upto £5K. So just how much money should be put aside as a back up on that?


----------



## joeanne (25 May 2011)

Let you into a little secret shall I......I have financed my vets new car this year I think.....and guess what....it was the bl**dy DOGS, not the horses that caused that!
Should I not have dogs either then?


----------



## Amymay (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			I don't want to go down the whole racehorse cruel sport debate, this is why i didn't get drawn into it!
		
Click to expand...

But the differences between you and I having our 'pets' and the trainer/producer/competitor who has their horse for 'business' are very different sides of the same coin.  

You can't state that trainers are 'up their own arses' for sending 'no gooder's' to slaughter, yet happily accept the farmer sending his stock to the same place......

Business / Leisure.  Two very different industries - so when debating, you need to decide what your debating, and the aims of your debate.......


----------



## Murphy88 (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			you are going off track..................... passing horses on is a different subject!  I too see abuse in my job, it aint pretty!  I am fed up with ppl having animals because they want a nice life themselves, but can't afford treatment when the worst happens, i think you should plan for the worst and see if you can afford it
		
Click to expand...

But in some cases you really can't plan for the worst. A SIMPLE colic surgery costs in the region of £5000, this rises exponentially the moment you hit problems. Alot of veteran insurance policies don't cover colic, and even policies that do usually have £5000 limits. I am very lucky in that over 5 years of vet school I have managed to save a reasonable amount, so I could pay for even a complicated colic surgery or fracture repair. But not everyone is lucky enough to have thousands of pounds sitting in a bank account 'just in case'. It is truly heartbreaking when we have horses referred to uni for colic or other things and the owners desperately want to save their horse, but just can't afford however many thousands. Imagine if the only people who owned horses were those with £5000 put away for every horse they owned? That would be a hell of a lot of horses wandering round ownerless!

In small animals I think it is slightly different, simply because on the whole bills are not as huge, and I agree in that I get annoyed too when owners quibble about paying £200-300 bills - I recently saw a dog with a fracture that should have been repaired by surgery but the owner point blank refused to pay, they even complained about the cost of casting the limb even though the vet was already giving them a significant discount just to get the poor dog treated. 

I don't think you can plan for every eventuality, especially when horses think of such inventive and expensive ways to injure themselves. My only thing is that I don't think people should place their animals at extra risk if they know they can't afford it - by this I mainly mean those who breed (dogs and horses) and then turn around and say 'oh, i can't afford the caesarian'. Having seen more than one mare shot because the foal was too big to be delived naturally, I find this a complete waste of life - every pregnancy has a risk of problems, if you put your mare in foal, you need to be able to pay for those complications!


----------



## councillor (25 May 2011)

I think you are very idealistic....and narrow minded. When I first got my horse's I was in the lovely position you are probably in, far from loaded, but comfortable and paying for what they need was not a problem....now I am not. 
I have a very sick pony, I don't have the money to pay for his treatment, his insurance paid out on the same thing last year and now will not cover it. I am talking thousands here, I can't risk putting myself in a huge amount of debt with the vet. I love my little man, deeply, but I have a family and a mortgage and that is my priority. He is under vet treatment before anyone jumps in on that...its the very expensive travelling and operation I can't afford. 
So all those years ago, when I comfortably ran my horse and my daughters pony in a lovely yard on part livery I should have said "oh well I better not as I may not be able to spend thousands they may need in a few years time" I shall take up knitting instead.
You don't know the full history of some of those people who are questioning the time to PTS as they have no money for treatment.
 If you put yourself on the moral high ground prepare to have mud slung at you.


----------



## Amymay (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			I would love another horse, I miss it so much, am I self righteous then?

Do I think I am better than you all because I think we should be financially sound before we have a very expensive pet?
		
Click to expand...

No, just a bloody sight more sensible than the rest of us!!


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

joeanne said:



			Let you into a little secret shall I......I have financed my vets new car this year I think.....and guess what....it was the bl**dy DOGS, not the horses that caused that!
Should I not have dogs either then?
		
Click to expand...

Yes you should have dogs as you paid for their treatment!  Welldone!

But i see people daily who can't pay for their dog/cat bills, they shouldn't have pets!!


----------



## Spudlet (25 May 2011)

People shouldn't be taking on animals in the knowledge that they might have issues with big bills, but at the same time people's circumstances can change in a heartbeat, through redundancy, illness or injury. And even with insurance in place, that reserve of cash can be burnt out very quickly indeed, and when it's gone, what do you do? If it comes down to the bill or a roof over your family's head, what do you choose? If you were managing ok, then something completely unexpected happened and before you know it that insurance limit has been reached, what do you do?

So no, passing on horses is not going off track, because you could shut your eyes very tightly and pass that horse on and tell yourself that it's all going to end happily ever after... but you'd be taking an awful risk, and if it went wrong the one to suffer would be the horse. Sell it? With a health problem? In this market? I think not. And it's too late at that point to say 'well you shouldn't have had it!' because rightly or wrongly, you are in that situation there and then, and you have to deal with the real world, not the world as it ought to be.


----------



## bensababy (25 May 2011)

I think it totally depends on each situation, i personnally would rather have PTS if i now came into financial issues, knowing my boy needs too much care - and someone may not be able to give him what he needs.. in that case i would rather PTS than re-home.


----------



## joeanne (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			But i see people daily who can't pay for their dog/cat bills, they shouldn't have pets!!
		
Click to expand...

Ok...."theorised case study"
Old lady, had her little yorkie years, now retired, can no longer afford big bills for her little dog.
Little dog needs an operation. Old lady either has to PTS or come to an arrangement to pay installments to the vet.
Is she wrong to have her dog?
Its really not that simple huh!

I think you are FAR to judgemental DD......


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

councillor said:



			I think you are very idealistic....and narrow minded. When I first got my horse's I was in the lovely position you are probably in, far from loaded, but comfortable and paying for what they need was not a problem....now I am not. 
I have a very sick pony, I don't have the money to pay for his treatment, his insurance paid out on the same thing last year and now will not cover it. I am talking thousands here, I can't risk putting myself in a huge amount of debt with the vet. I love my little man, deeply, but I have a family and a mortgage and that is my priority. He is under vet treatment before anyone jumps in on that...its the very expensive travelling and operation I can't afford. 
So all those years ago, when I comfortably ran my horse and my daughters pony in a lovely yard on part livery I should have said "oh well I better not as I may not be able to spend thousands they may need in a few years time" I shall take up knitting instead.
You don't know the full history of some of those people who are questioning the time to PTS as they have no money for treatment.
 If you put yourself on the moral high ground prepare to have mud slung at you.
		
Click to expand...

If you read carefully I stated not ppl whose circumstances change!  I said people who go into the whole buying a horse on a budget milarky and don't budget for illness!  So if you are going to call me narrow minded and start with the insults please take the time to read every comment I have made, as usual this has gone to the dogs with the opinions of ppl on here, so will say no more on the matter, i have explained what I think in detail.


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

Luci07 said:



			Just to add more fuel to the fire - so what do YOU consider enough money as a back up? So both my horses are insured for vets fees. Now my old mare is only covered for external injuries being 22 but on thinking about it, that was a mute point pretty much as I woudn't put her through a major surgery even if money was no issue.  My youngster is covered upto £5K. So just how much money should be put aside as a back up on that?
		
Click to expand...

I think you need to make sure you have savings or in a position to get your hands on money, not on a completly right budget and relying on insurance alone, because insurance will often get out of paying money if they can anyway!  IE a regular income were every penny you have coming in isnt accounted for.


----------



## joeanne (25 May 2011)

No No no DD you stated that people who struggle to pay vets bills and have said animal PTS are in your opinion not fit to own a horse.
Dont move the goal posts because your argument is not going the route you want it to!


----------



## ozpoz (25 May 2011)

Spudlet said:



			I would sooner see a horse PTS that passed on and on and on in a downward spiral, because I have seen the bottom of that spiral and it ain't pretty. I've no wish to see horses shot. But I would rather that than see some of the other stuff I've seen - and still see, some nights when I'm asleep. 

Horses are kept safe from harm because they have financial value, and sentimental value. Sadly, an unrideable horse with ongoing health or behavioural problems has little financial value, and unless it's your horse, that you love, it has little sentimental value either, at least not to anyone else. So what keeps those horses safe when they're given away? You are really shoving them out there into the cold. When you take on an animal, you take on the responsibility to keep it safe and protect it from harm, to the best of your ability, for the rest of its life. That means you feed it, and water it, and care for it, and make it well when it's sick, and if you can't do that any more you find it a good and trusted home, and if you can't do that, you face the fact that actually, death is not the worst fate that animal can suffer. And you cry your tears and you live with the guilt, because that is the deal. That's the bargain. They give us everything, and they ask for so little in return - but part of our half of the bargain is a peaceful ending, without fear or pain.

And I'm sorry if people don't like it. I'm sorry if people think I'm a horse killing psycho. But I will carry on saying what I do, because I believe it to be right.
		
Click to expand...

So true. 
If you look at the racehorse rehoming websites they often have a waiting list for taking on new horses, as it can take a long time to find suitable homes for ones they are trying to rehome.  Thats, AFTER lots of re training, vet input, farriery etc. And they take on the horses they feel have a good chance of being rehomed. 
Also, how many horses would suffer by simply not being able to winter without rugs and shelter in the wrong hands, never mind adequate feed, and knowledgeable care.


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

Murphy88 said:



			But in some cases you really can't plan for the worst. A SIMPLE colic surgery costs in the region of £5000, this rises exponentially the moment you hit problems. Alot of veteran insurance policies don't cover colic, and even policies that do usually have £5000 limits. I am very lucky in that over 5 years of vet school I have managed to save a reasonable amount, so I could pay for even a complicated colic surgery or fracture repair. But not everyone is lucky enough to have thousands of pounds sitting in a bank account 'just in case'. It is truly heartbreaking when we have horses referred to uni for colic or other things and the owners desperately want to save their horse, but just can't afford however many thousands. Imagine if the only people who owned horses were those with £5000 put away for every horse they owned? That would be a hell of a lot of horses wandering round ownerless!

In small animals I think it is slightly different, simply because on the whole bills are not as huge, and I agree in that I get annoyed too when owners quibble about paying £200-300 bills - I recently saw a dog with a fracture that should have been repaired by surgery but the owner point blank refused to pay, they even complained about the cost of casting the limb even though the vet was already giving them a significant discount just to get the poor dog treated. 

I don't think you can plan for every eventuality, especially when horses think of such inventive and expensive ways to injure themselves. My only thing is that I don't think people should place their animals at extra risk if they know they can't afford it - by this I mainly mean those who breed (dogs and horses) and then turn around and say 'oh, i can't afford the caesarian'. Having seen more than one mare shot because the foal was too big to be delived naturally, I find this a complete waste of life - every pregnancy has a risk of problems, if you put your mare in foal, you need to be able to pay for those complications!
		
Click to expand...

I do agree with you completely!!!!  ALot of practices allow a payment plan, but some of these people can't even afford an extra £20 a week on top of insurance etc, this is my point


----------



## Flame_ (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			Valid point!  But I feel very differently from farm animals and pets, I would happily eat horse if it was bred for that purpose.   But then I strongly disagree with farmers not treating their animals when the vet is needed,
		
Click to expand...

How does how you feel make any difference to the animals? Either killing healthy animals is cruel or it isn't. I believe it isn't, as long as its done properly and the animal is kept relaxed and comfortable up to the end. It makes not one iota of difference to the animal if there is someone outside crying about it, what it was bred for, if its going to be eaten or not, if its facing a big vet bill or not, etc, etc. All the animal cares about is that its needs are being met (so I agree with you that farmers - and all animal owners - should get the vet when needed) and if suddenly it is dead, how is that a problem, apart from you would miss your friend if the animal happened to be your pet?

I think you are viewing horses purely as pets and basing your objections on emotions and sentimentality.


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

joeanne said:



			No No no DD you stated that people who struggle to pay vets bills and have said animal PTS are in your opinion not fit to own a horse.
Dont move the goal posts because your argument is not going the route you want it to![/QUOTE

I didn't put it so harshly as aren't fit to own the horse!  But no I think you should be finacially sound before you own a horse, its your duty as an owner... they didn't ask to be owned by someone who can't put a rightable illness right!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Dizzydancer (25 May 2011)

I agree with what you said OP. I currently have a 16.2 IDxTB who is a field ornament at livery and costs alot to keep due to his problems. However at present he loves his life and is always happy. I cannot afford another horse whilst still having him but he has served me well for 12years so deserves a nice retirement. Therefore I put an advert up looking to share and have totally fallen on my feet, now riding a gorgeous ex racer and owner didnt even want a contribution towards him, so now with my spare cash i spoil them both!!


----------



## joeanne (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			I can't help but think sometimes horses are put down because of financial reasons and if you didn't buy this horse in the first place, someone with lots of money may have bought them and they would not have been PTS........
		
Click to expand...

Might be time to rethink your argument DD.....


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

Flame_ said:



			How does how you feel make any difference to the animals? Either killing healthy animals is cruel or it isn't. I believe it isn't, as long as its done properly and the animal is kept relaxed and comfortable up to the end. It makes not one iota of difference to the animal if there is someone outside crying about it, what it was bred for, if its going to be eaten or not, if its facing a big vet bill or not, etc, etc. All the animal cares about is that its needs are being met (so I agree with you that farmers - and all animal owners - should get the vet when needed) and if suddenly it is dead, how is that a problem, apart from you would miss your friend if the animal happened to be your pet?

I think you are viewing horses purely as pets and basing your objections on emotions and sentimentality.
		
Click to expand...

I think you have hit the nail on the head!!!!

This is why I am not agreeing with people isnt it?  I think of horses as family pets and alot of people think of them as having a job!  I am a horse for life kinda owner!

Makes it all clearer now, thanks


----------



## Rueysmum (25 May 2011)

My toy is broken and I want a new one.  I couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## Hippona (25 May 2011)

Damnation said:



			I am 19, I feed, shoe, pay livery, insurance etc for my horse on my own.

I would rather see a horse PTS then left to suffer because the owner can't afford the thousands of pounds in vets bills. If they had a good quality of life before hand, and were well looked after, its quality not quantity.

.
		
Click to expand...

What a very mature young lady you are. Totally agree with you. 

I can afford my horses....but if it came to spending £5k on vets bills or giving the money to my kids for Uni etc....then I'm sorry- thers no contest. Not everyone has surplus cash hanging around that wouldn't be needed for other purposes.

My horses will never suffer.....and being PTS is not suffering.


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

dizzydancer said:



			I agree with what you said OP. I currently have a 16.2 IDxTB who is a field ornament at livery and costs alot to keep due to his problems. However at present he loves his life and is always happy. I cannot afford another horse whilst still having him but he has served me well for 12years so deserves a nice retirement. Therefore I put an advert up looking to share and have totally fallen on my feet, now riding a gorgeous ex racer and owner didnt even want a contribution towards him, so now with my spare cash i spoil them both!!
		
Click to expand...

How lovely!!!!!!  My boy loved being retired, i took him for walks like a dog to the river to play etc, I now have free access to 2 horses to ride when I want, and don't have to pay for anything.

Someone has suggested the reason why I am getting frustrated and not understanding is because I look upon horses as pets, I think they are right, I am a softie, don't think of animals as having a job and place (glad I don't too)


----------



## Meowy Catkin (25 May 2011)

I think you are viewing horses purely as pets and basing your objections on emotions and sentimentality.
		
Click to expand...

I cannot speak for the lady with the thin horse because I never met her. However the lady with the horse that couln't get up after laying down, I did know. The quote above was very much her stance on her horses. They were her pets and she couldn't bare to part with them. 

I do understand that you are only really talking about certain PTS situations.


----------



## councillor (25 May 2011)

I did read what you said...and laughed....as I said at the time I had the money...now I don't...but the pony is still here, and sadly my magic spy glass to let me see the future was broken the day I took my horses home. You were very sweeping in your statements and worded it to read like you were condemning ALL who are put in to the hard PTS choice's, even your thread title is sweeping. In an ideal world we would all have loads of money from our money tree at the bottom of the garden...but we don't, and people who cant afford pets get them....reality sucks doesn't it...still no reason to live life on a what if. Horses get caught up in the mess we humans make, all things do, doesn't give others the right to condemn.


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

councillor said:



			I did read what you said...and laughed....as I said at the time I had the money...now I don't...but the pony is still here, and sadly my magic spy glass to let me see the future was broken the day I took my horses home. You were very sweeping in your statements and worded it to read like you were condemning ALL who are put in to the hard PTS choice's, even your thread title is sweeping. In an ideal world we would all have loads of money from our money tree at the bottom of the garden...but we don't, and people who cant afford pets get them....reality sucks doesn't it...still no reason to live life on a what if. Horses get caught up in the mess we humans make, all things do, doesn't give others the right to condemn.
		
Click to expand...

I am not laughing at your statement, it makes me feel sad!  Life sucks, live life, horses get caught up in the mess we humans make....... 

Makes me sick actually that attitude!


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

Faracat said:



			I cannot speak for the lady with the thin horse because I never met her. However the lady with the horse that couln't get up after laying down, I did know. The quote above was very much her stance on her horses. They were her pets and she couldn't bare to part with them. 

I do understand that you are only really talking about certain PTS situations.
		
Click to expand...

Thats right, I strongly agree with euthansia, I hate it when people leave it too long, its very sad.  I personally have my pets put to sleep that split moment in time when they are still OK but the time is right.  My horse was perfectly alright when I chose to have him put down, but having kidney infections with a bad heart was a sign that he was going to go down hill in the near future, he was treated and well still on his meds... we then had him put to sleep before he got sick again,  he was 22 and I had him on heart meds for 6 yrs paying DIY livery and shoes, I don't think I am a fluffy bunny.. but I find alot of ppl very insulting on here


----------



## Damnation (25 May 2011)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damnation  
I am 19, I feed, shoe, pay livery, insurance etc for my horse on my own.

I would rather see a horse PTS then left to suffer because the owner can't afford the thousands of pounds in vets bills. If they had a good quality of life before hand, and were well looked after, its quality not quantity.

. 

What a very mature young lady you are. Totally agree with you. 

I can afford my horses....but if it came to spending £5k on vets bills or giving the money to my kids for Uni etc....then I'm sorry- thers no contest. Not everyone has surplus cash hanging around that wouldn't be needed for other purposes.

My horses will never suffer.....and being PTS is not suffering. 


 Why thank you!

My opinion is that sometimes you have to be hard hearted. What type of life is it for a horse who gets abandoned because the owners who used to be able to afford it now cannot? And morally they feel they cannot PTS. Rescue centeres are full, people are indiscriminately breeding so as a country we seem to be overwhelmed by horses. And as a country we cannot physically care for all of them.

As I said before its quality not quantity.

My last mare was PTS at aged 7. Slipped disk in her back. I was told she could undergo physio but would never do what I wanted her to do and would probibily never be completely pain free so she was PTS.
She wasn't passed from pillar to post, I know damned well she had a good life with me. I had ambitions, which I could not fulfil with her and I certainly could not afford the cost of 2, especially when one would need so much attention with no real guarentee of recovery.

It was both the hardest decision of my life and the best. 

Would that make me part of your "PTS Society" ??


----------



## TallyHo123 (25 May 2011)

chickeninabun said:



			Without wanting to make you angry DD, I have two horses, I don't have pots of money and it would make my life very difficult if either had a condition which went above and beyond my insurance payouts. But you can't live your life on "what-if's", as you'd never do anything. So you can't own a horse because "what if" it breaks a leg, you can't cross the road because "what if" you got run over..... etc etc.

In an ideal world, no horses wouldn't be PTS because of an owners financial situation but we are all far from ideal....
		
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Some of the best looked after horses on my yard are owned by people who don't have a single other penny after the horses are payed. And even if something happned and they had to be PTS they have had a fab life with these owners. There are horses suffering their whole lives with crappy owners who are loaded. It's not a case where things can be generalised imo.


----------



## councillor (25 May 2011)

Didn't say I liked the fact....just that is what it is....a fact. I love my horses and if it were just me I would give up everything I have in the world for them to get what they need, but I have a family and I will put what they need first, as that is what I have to do as a mother. 
I don't have an attitude, I have a grip on the reality of the world we have made....it isn't nice and it is far from easy.


----------



## Megibo (25 May 2011)

i have kinda lost the main point/question of this thread ? 
remind me...? 

but in reference to a comment made earlier, i know a lady who had an ex racer who she'd reschooled and had for a good few years. horse was definitely over 16 though not sure of her exact age now but she reached a point where rather than sell her she had her PTS as she didnt trust anyone else with her. if in however many years time when my pony is over 16 (and i know 16 isnt old in todays world) and i wouldnt be able to keep her i would have owned her since she was just 6, i love her to bits now (she's 12) so if in another good few years i had that situation i would rather PTS than send her into the market to god knows where....
and neither of us are stuck up our own arses. 
furthermore, she went on loan for 6 months last year or so and the times i went to visit they'd ignored our advice-she was fat, rubbed her mane and tail to bits and it was almost pitiful how when she saw our car pull up she'd come straight to us and just stand with me rather than allow the loaners to catch her. the kid who had her was also scared of her and i couldnt have been happier when she came back. after that experience i'd never loan her again let alone sell!


----------



## Miss L Toe (25 May 2011)

I read this posting because I thought it was a Society to support people who were considering have their horse put to sleep!
Lots of thoughts here, I would find it very very difficult to have my horse put down (my preferred term) if he could possibly  have a better alternative, but I would not let him out of my sight if I had any doubts as to his future with another owner, for that reason alone, no matter what the circumstances, I would never sell him below market value or give him away.
He is the main beneficiary in my will, that is to say a charity will take him and find him a loan home when i  have expired or been pts (DNR)


----------



## Luci07 (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			I think you need to make sure you have savings or in a position to get your hands on money, not on a completly right budget and relying on insurance alone, because insurance will often get out of paying money if they can anyway!  IE a regular income were every penny you have coming in isnt accounted for.
		
Click to expand...


Yes but how much? I do have some savings but tend to do so because I am saving for something specific. I can "normally" get my hands on extra money or cut back if needed but you still don't say how much extra you think someone should have access to?


----------



## jsr (25 May 2011)

Well how many of you have had children and how do you cope with them and the massive financial cost if something unforseen happens? 

I cannot have and luckily for me don't want children but for me my animals (and before you say it NO THEY ARE NOT CHILD SUBSITUTES THEY ARE PETS!) are my selfish pleasure. I have many dogs...and an expensive horse..and I struggle for money monthly and if anything serious happened to any of them I'm not sure where I'd get the money but get the money I would and *they* most certainly wouldn't suffer. I most likely would but they won't, they didn't make the choice to live with me so I must take *full* responsiblity for their care come what may. I would never ever ever make the decision to PTS based on financial reasons and anyone that does so is selfish.  

Don't really care what anyone thinks of that but to me the choice to bring children into this expensive, unhappy, unfragmented, unsociable dangerous society is selfish and us having animals we cannot afford is selfish...but we still do it and MUST face the consequences of it.  Those who PTS because they cannot afford the animals are a disgrace in my opinion.


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

MrsD123 said:



			I read this posting because I thought it was a Society to support people who were considering have their horse put to sleep!
Lots of thoughts here, I would find it very very difficult to have my horse put down (my preferred term) if he could possibly  have a better alternative, but I would not let him out of my sight if I had any doubts as to his future with another owner, for that reason alone, no matter what the circumstances, I would never sell him below market value or give him away.
		
Click to expand...

Yes like I said before I think I wrote it a bit black and white, but as usual people twisted what I wrote, I suppose I was saying I don't think people should commit to buy unless they are financially sounds and not struggling.  But alot of people think of horses as piece of living meat for a job in hand, i think if them sentimentally, this is why so much disagreement going on......


----------



## Amaranta (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			Thats pretty selfish imo, ppl are so up their own arses they assume know one else could look after horses, alot of ppl do look after horses well, including ex racers, why pts incase its not looked after properly, I am sure the horse would use life and see what happens...
		
Click to expand...

I would call it responsible, sorry but too many people take on ex racers when they just don't have the experience, they bought them because they were cheap as chips and have no idea how to deal with them, the horse then becomes neglected or sold off to a bin end dealer.  There have been cases of ex racers turning up in France having entered the meat chain. Having said that there are also people who do and can take on an ex racer who do have the wherewithall, sadly these people are outnumbered by the above types.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand your point of view and in fact still have my old horse, now into her mid 30s, but and it is a big but, if I was unable financially to keep her, she would have been pts.  

IMO worse by far are those people who try to sell their injured or elderly horses on to an uncertain future to suffer God knows what fate.


----------



## Tinypony (25 May 2011)

DD, in the thread that has set this off, the Op gave us two options - to give her horse with kissing spine away without him having had the op, or to have him put to sleep.
Faced with those two options, I maintain that pts is the right choice.  Reality is that no knight in shining armour is going to come riding over the hill waving a cheque for £3,000 (or more) for that horse.  He may or may not be worth £3k if sound, but even if someone was prepared to take him, pay for his op and support him through his rehab, there would be no guarantee as to his physical abilities at the end.  
The more likely outcome, based even on what we see over and over again in these forums, would be that he would be taken on by someone much less principled and come to an unhappy end.  There's a tidy profit to be made from picking him up and selling him straight on for slaughter, even if you don't consider the possibility that he could get sold on as a riding horse.
So, given that the poster had no intention of providing him with a safe retirement home with her, what is the kindest option for the horse?  
I don't think people were generalising on the thread, they were giving their heartfelt opinions based on the facts presented.  It is easy to assume that people respond from some theoretical point of view, but this is often far from the case.  Some have very real and heartbreaking experiences of similar situations and their opinions remain the same.  If you can't (and sometimes circumstances change and people CAN'T) or won't take responsibility for your disabled horse's safe and secure future, then do the kind thing and have it put to sleep at home and under your control.
Anyone who thinks that there is an army of horse rescuers who will take on the unwanted horses in this country then they need to go an speak to some equine rescues and get a reality check.  They are turning equines away.  If there was some sort of benevolent army with unlimited resources to take horses in, the rescues and sanctuaries would be empty.


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

Luci07 said:



			Yes but how much? I do have some savings but tend to do so because I am saving for something specific. I can "normally" get my hands on extra money or cut back if needed but you still don't say how much extra you think someone should have access to?
		
Click to expand...

You are trying to prove a point !  If you can get your hands on loans and extra money then imo you are financially sound.  Someone who can't get their hands on money because they are stretched to their limit financially and refuse credit cards, and loans because they are maxed out, I would think daft to buy a horse, there is no set fee!  Also while we are on the subject I think everyone will have a reasonable amount in their head, I mean if it cost £15k to get a horse right then you really to have to question the treatment!  I am talking reasonable amounts of money to say get your horse fit and well if treatable some people can't even afford £1k to spend on their horse!


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

Tinypony said:



			DD, in the thread that has set this off, the Op gave us two options - to give her horse with kissing spine away without him having had the op, or to have him put to sleep.
Faced with those two options, I maintain that pts is the right choice.  Reality is that no knight in shining armour is going to come riding over the hill waving a cheque for £3,000 (or more) for that horse.  He may or may not be worth £3k if sound, but even if someone was prepared to take him, pay for his op and support him through his rehab, there would be no guarantee as to his physical abilities at the end.  
The more likely outcome, based even on what we see over and over again in these forums, would be that he would be taken on by someone much less principled and come to an unhappy end.  There's a tidy profit to be made from picking him up and selling him straight on for slaughter, even if you don't consider the possibility that he could get sold on as a riding horse.
So, given that the poster had no intention of providing him with a safe retirement home with her, what is the kindest option for the horse?  
I don't think people were generalising on the thread, they were giving their heartfelt opinions based on the facts presented.  It is easy to assume that people respond from some theoretical point of view, but this is often far from the case.  Some have very real and heartbreaking experiences of similar situations and their opinions remain the same.  If you can't (and sometimes circumstances change and people CAN'T) or won't take responsibility for your disabled horse's safe and secure future, then do the kind thing and have it put to sleep at home and under your control.
Anyone who thinks that there is an army of horse rescuers who will take on the unwanted horses in this country then they need to go an speak to some equine rescues and get a reality check.  They are turning equines away.  If there was some sort of benevolent army with unlimited resources to take horses in, the rescues and sanctuaries would be empty.
		
Click to expand...

this wasn't really the thread that started it off for me to be honest, I actually feel sorry for that lady!  I haven't researched the ins and outs of kissing spine and the outcome, i am referring to treatments that will cure an animal, something with not a 100% cure rate and thousands of pounds is a different story, u then have to weigh up pain to the animal during surgery, quality of life etc


----------



## Tickles (25 May 2011)

I'm a non-owner precisely becasue whilst I could afford day-to-day (and even emergency) expenses right now it is quite possible I wouldn't be able to later. I wouldn't want to have to PTS an animal I'd taken on becasue I didn't have funds to treat it. IMHO that would be irresponsible and selfish.

I'm not by any measn perfect. You don't have to be. I just wish more people were realistic.


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

Amaranta said:



			I would call it responsible, sorry but too many people take on ex racers when they just don't have the experience, they bought them because they were cheap as chips and have no idea how to deal with them, the horse then becomes neglected or sold off to a bin end dealer.  There have been cases of ex racers turning up in France having entered the meat chain. Having said that there are also people who do and can take on an ex racer who do have the wherewithall, sadly these people are outnumbered by the above types.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand your point of view and in fact still have my old horse, now into her mid 30s, but and it is a big but, if I was unable financially to keep her, she would have been pts.  

IMO worse by far are those people who try to sell their injured or elderly horses on to an uncertain future to suffer God knows what fate.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I agree! but racing and horses with jobs is beyond me as stated before


----------



## touchstone (25 May 2011)

Spudlet said:



			I would sooner see a horse PTS that passed on and on and on in a downward spiral, because I have seen the bottom of that spiral and it ain't pretty. I've no wish to see horses shot. But I would rather that than see some of the other stuff I've seen - and still see, some nights when I'm asleep. 

Horses are kept safe from harm because they have financial value, and sentimental value. Sadly, an unrideable horse with ongoing health or behavioural problems has little financial value, and unless it's your horse, that you love, it has little sentimental value either, at least not to anyone else. So what keeps those horses safe when they're given away? You are really shoving them out there into the cold. When you take on an animal, you take on the responsibility to keep it safe and protect it from harm, to the best of your ability, for the rest of its life. That means you feed it, and water it, and care for it, and make it well when it's sick, and if you can't do that any more you find it a good and trusted home, and if you can't do that, you face the fact that actually, death is not the worst fate that animal can suffer. And you cry your tears and you live with the guilt, because that is the deal. That's the bargain. They give us everything, and they ask for so little in return - but part of our half of the bargain is a peaceful ending, without fear or pain.

And I'm sorry if people don't like it. I'm sorry if people think I'm a horse killing psycho. But I will carry on saying what I do, because I believe it to be right.
		
Click to expand...


I also agree with this, you've got to also consider that by not owning in case of unforseen circumstances, you may be depriving a horse that is currently in need of a decent home of a loving home with you for as long as cicumstances permit.  My mare has been a field ornament for extended periods of time due to injury and I wouldn't consider pts as long as she had quality of life, however if I couldn't afford to keep her comfortable and happy then I would pts without hesitation and be thankful of the many years we have shared together with her in a loving home.  
If only the wealthy were permitted to own horses then how many more will be turned away to face an uncertain future? Better a few years well looked after than no hope at all.  There are some owners who sacrifice all sorts in order to provide for a horse and give them an excellent loving home  and to judge them as selfish if they were pushed to the limits and unable to keep their horse is a bit naive and unfair I think.  
There are certainly fates worse than death, so if I am judged as unfair and selfish for being part of the pts brigade then so be it, but I stand by what I feel is morally right for the welfare of the horse.


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

jsr said:



			Well how many of you have had children and how do you cope with them and the massive financial cost if something unforseen happens? 

I cannot have and luckily for me don't want children but for me my animals (and before you say it NO THEY ARE NOT CHILD SUBSITUTES THEY ARE PETS!) are my selfish pleasure. I have many dogs...and an expensive horse..and I struggle for money monthly and if anything serious happened to any of them I'm not sure where I'd get the money but get the money I would and *they* most certainly wouldn't suffer. I most likely would but they won't, they didn't make the choice to live with me so I must take *full* responsiblity for their care come what may. I would never ever ever make the decision to PTS based on financial reasons and anyone that does so is selfish.  

Don't really care what anyone thinks of that but to me the choice to bring children into this expensive, unhappy, unfragmented, unsociable dangerous society is selfish and us having animals we cannot afford is selfish...but we still do it and MUST face the consequences of it.  Those who PTS because they cannot afford the animals are a disgrace in my opinion.[/QUOTE

Thanks.... don't start me on ppl having kids for the massive child benefits!

I would never put a price on my dogs heads either, they have been my world for the 16 yrs and 13 yrs i have had them, my dog could have had drops for his eyes for ever in a blind painful eye, or be painfree by having it removed, I found the money without a second thought! at 13 some ppl would have said hes had a good innings!  But he was recovered within 10 days and hopefully will live another 5 yrs+ 

My kids are well clothed and looked after and now I have them I can't afford to replace my old horse who had a home for life!

I would like a 3rd child, but won't have one because I think I comfortably manage 2, its a shame we live in a society where ppl want things so have them regardless of the consequences.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Amymay (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			Yes I agree! but racing and horses with jobs is beyond me as stated before
		
Click to expand...

Surely not???


----------



## Tinypony (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			You are trying to prove a point !  If you can get your hands on loans and extra money then imo you are financially sound.  Someone who can't get their hands on money because they are stretched to their limit financially and refuse credit cards, and loans because they are maxed out, I would think daft to buy a horse, there is no set fee!  Also while we are on the subject I think everyone will have a reasonable amount in their head, I mean if it cost £15k to get a horse right then you really to have to question the treatment!  I am talking reasonable amounts of money to say get your horse fit and well if treatable some people can't even afford £1k to spend on their horse!
		
Click to expand...

I think you are being a bit naive but well meaning.  You have to understand that there are people who have stable and secure lives and incomes, and who through no fault of their own can lose everything.  It can happen that someone can go from being financially very secure to the opposite, and unable to access anything more than a basic bank account and debit card.  No credit cards, loans or overdrafts.  Until you have been in their situation (and I hope you never will be) you cannot know the dread and heartbreak they go through trying to care for family and animals.

You refered to the other thread earlier in this one, so I think it was reasonable to think that it had sparked you off.  However, I think the points being made are still valid.

You also said 



			I won't comment too much more on this thread, I suspect it will be chewed over and spat out, but as someone once said to me that its often the nice people who don't comment on here and makes this place look so one sided
		
Click to expand...

I think that was rather childish and insulting to many people here.  How can you label people as not "nice" just because they hold different opinions to yourself?  You have no idea of the stories behind the usernames, or the heartbreaking decisions those people may have had to make themselves.  There will be reasons why people hold opinions that you feel mean they are not "nice".


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

Tickles said:



			I'm a non-owner precisely becasue whilst I could afford day-to-day (and even emergency) expenses right now it is quite possible I wouldn't be able to later. I wouldn't want to have to PTS an animal I'd taken on becasue I didn't have funds to treat it. IMHO that would be irresponsible and selfish.

I'm not by any measn perfect. You don't have to be. I just wish more people were realistic.
		
Click to expand...

Nice attitude x


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

Tinypony said:



			I think you are being a bit naive but well meaning.  You have to understand that there are people who have stable and secure lives and incomes, and who through no fault of their own can lose everything.  It can happen that someone can go from being financially very secure to the opposite, and unable to access anything more than a basic bank account and debit card.  No credit cards, loans or overdrafts.  Until you have been in their situation (and I hope you never will be) you cannot know the dread and heartbreak they go through trying to care for family and animals.

You refered to the other thread earlier in this one, so I think it was reasonable to think that it had sparked you off.  However, I think the points being made are still valid.

You also said 

I think that was rather childish and insulting to many people here.  How can you label people as not "nice" just because they hold different opinions to yourself?  You have no idea of the stories behind the usernames, or the heartbreaking decisions those people may have had to make themselves.  There will be reasons why people hold opinions that you feel mean they are not "nice".
		
Click to expand...

No there are some damn right malicous people here!  Not all I grant you!  there are some very nice people here too.

I have also said more than once for people who openly buy a horse on a budget... I said not including people whose circumstances change!


----------



## Farma (25 May 2011)

I totally get what you are saying DD. 
I now only have 1 horse who is uninsurable other than for liability so I have a savings account that will only ever be used should she need any treatments/ops, I would however, have no hesitation in pts if her quality of life wasnt as good as I felt it should be. I feel that I owe her a good quality of life and make sure I have what I need to be able to provide for her as this is the responsibility I accepted when I bought her.


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

Farma said:



			I totally get what you are saying DD. 
I now only have 1 horse who is uninsurable other than for liability so I have a savings account that will only ever be used should she need any treatments/ops, I would however, have no hesitation in pts if her quality of life wasnt as good as I felt it should be. I feel that I owe her a good quality of life and make sure I have what I need to be able to provide for her as this is the responsibility I accepted when I bought her.
		
Click to expand...

Yes you do owe it to her and putting an animal to sleep is often a very precious gift to give to them xx


----------



## MerrySherryRider (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			Alot of people choose to keep and struggle with money (not talking about circumstances changing like loss of a job) but ppl actively go and buy a horse when they are struggling with finance, and often see a serious condition (treatable) arise and are advised to have the horse PTS or come to that conclusion themselves.............
.......................

I can't help but think sometimes horses are put down because of financial reasons and if you didn't buy this horse in the first place, someone with lots of money may have bought them and they would not have been PTS........

I know this  sounds a bit idealistic, but it makes me mad how freely PTS is recommended on this site, do right by your horse etc, well i sometimes feel its not right, its not right at all!

Click to expand...

I think you have a valid point. Your criticism is of people who go into horse ownership irresponsibly without thinking about the real cost of ownership and then when the going gets tough decide to have it PTS.

So often on here, posters seem to jump on the PTS bandwagon too easily. Is it right to have a horse PTS because its no longer rideable but could live quite happily in retirement but the owner wants something to ride ? Its not difficult to find a ride on someone else's horse while keeping their own in retirement.
 Is it ok to have a 'quirky' horse PTS because it needs a competent rider ? It may not be easy to match the horse to a new home, but surely worth time spent trying rather than reaching for the bullet as a first option ?

 Why do some owners think no one else can ever give as good or better, a home to a less than perfect horse ? How often have horses been more settled and better rides with a new owner that they clicked with ?

Selling, even the most perfect horse is a gamble. Once the deal is done, its future is no longer guaranteed, but responsible sellers do their best, stating a good home is more important than money.

I'm not saying never put a horse down, but its not a decision to be taken before all other options have been explored, but time and time again on this forum, my impression has been that the immediate response from some posters is PTS, without thought for the value of the horses life and exploring  alternative solutions.


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

horserider said:



			I think you have a valid point. Your criticism is of people who go into horse ownership irresponsibly without thinking about the real cost of ownership and then when the going gets tough decide to have it PTS.

So often on here, posters seem to jump on the PTS bandwagon too easily. Is it right to have a horse PTS because its no longer rideable but could live quite happily in retirement but the owner wants something to ride ? Its not difficult to find a ride on someone else's horse while keeping their own in retirement.
 Is it ok to have a 'quirky' horse PTS because it needs a competent rider ? It may not be easy to match the horse to a new home, but surely worth time spent trying rather than reaching for the bullet as a first option ?

 Why do some owners think no one else can ever give as good or better, a home to a less than perfect horse ? How often have horses been more settled and better rides with a new owner that they clicked with ?

Selling, even the most perfect horse is a gamble. Once the deal is done, its future is no longer guaranteed, but responsible sellers do their best, stating a good home is more important than money.

I'm not saying never put a horse down, but its not a decision to be taken before all other options have been explored, but time and time again on this forum, my impression has been that the immediate response from some posters is PTS, without thought for the value of the horses life and exploring  alternative solutions.
		
Click to expand...

Thankyou, you have taken the time to read carefully and understand where I was coming from x


----------



## Luci07 (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			You are trying to prove a point !  If you can get your hands on loans and extra money then imo you are financially sound.  Someone who can't get their hands on money because they are stretched to their limit financially and refuse credit cards, and loans because they are maxed out, I would think daft to buy a horse, there is no set fee!  Also while we are on the subject I think everyone will have a reasonable amount in their head, I mean if it cost £15k to get a horse right then you really to have to question the treatment!  I am talking reasonable amounts of money to say get your horse fit and well if treatable some people can't even afford £1k to spend on their horse!
		
Click to expand...

Yes I am trying to prove a point. In my mind, paying a rather large sum of insurance each month is so I don't HAVE to worry about what would happen if I was hit with a hefty vets bill and I don't give it another moments thought but you seem to suggest a 15K would be unreasonable but would that mean that say, 10K be OK? 

I totally understand the original meaning behind the post, i.e when taking on a horse, you need to ensure you are covered for most eventualities but its trying to work out just how far you need to go which is not clear here.  

There is another side here. I would personally, not choose to put a much older animal through a big surgery buts that my opinion and choice as I have seen how much surgery can really knock a healthy young horse for 6. 

I choose not to insure my dogs as the premiums on 2 staffies are extremely high. I do, however, have back up for them if they did become ill and don't have a problem paying for their standard yearly vets fees and treatments. However, with my dogs, a major op would be around the £2K mark and nothing like a horses (and the quote for 2 staffies were nearly as much as my equine insurance for 2 horses with NFU)


----------



## Vizslak (25 May 2011)

What about when peoples circumstances change then? When they did have money and then dont? Are they selfish for having their horses pts?


----------



## MerrySherryRider (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			Thankyou, you have taken the time to read carefully and understand where I was coming from x
		
Click to expand...

Got a little frustrated that your point was being twisted as you predicted.


----------



## Happy Horse (25 May 2011)

I have read your first post twice as I wasn't sure I understood what you were saying!  I had a horse very similar to yours for 14 years.  He was retired due to unsoundness and then kept as a pet until he developed internal tumours.  This was my personal choice as I couldn't have him put down while he was still happy and I couldn't afford another at the same time so I accepted the situation.  I can understand that some people feel horses have a job and if they can't do the job then they need to either be fixed at whatever expense or PTS.  The people I despise are the ones who will not take responsibility either way and try and pass the horse on 'free' or through sales so they don't have to make the call.  I worked in an equine vets and soon came to realise that PTS was not the worst thing that could happen to a horse.  Some of the neglect cases we saw made me sick to the stomach.


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

Vizslak said:



			What about when peoples circumstances change then? When they did have money and then dont? Are they selfish for having their horses pts?
		
Click to expand...

Its a hard one, and why I havent brought it into the discussion..... I have no right to judge someone who had enough money to buy a horse then the curcumstances change.

As for the other point about how much is right to spend on a horse, it would depend on guaranteed cure, how much pain you would put the animal through to acheive it, humanity etc... so I can't put a price on a scenerio can I !!

If it cost 15k to put a horse through 4 yrs of ops and suffering, then no i don't think thats fair!

If its 7k for emergency treatment for something acute then yes i would like to think i would fork it out, but again maybe not ona  geriatric, you have to weigh up every detail.


----------



## Maesfen (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			Thats pretty selfish imo, ppl are so up their own arses they assume know one else could look after horses, alot of ppl do look after horses well, including ex racers, why pts incase its not looked after properly, I am sure the horse would use life and see what happens...
		
Click to expand...

I think that's a pretty selfish response DD.  Why run the risk of the horse going in a downward spiral at all when it's in the owner's power to stop that straightaway?  I think your response to that is flawed and very immature.



Naturally said:



			Agree.  Mostly.  I think PTS is a good option for some situations. 

I think in general the economy had such a high that everyone thought they could own a horse, then when the recession hit stuff hit the fan and maybe not everybody's attitudes are revised yet that money doesn't grow on trees.
		
Click to expand...

Have to agree with this.  So many who were comfortably off have been made redundant and so on through no fault of their own and when you love something, you don't want to let it go, you'll hang on in the hope that another job will turn up.  I don't blame them at all for trying to hang on if it is a healthy horse but if it has long term expensive problems then I'd far rather they were realistic and put down rather than send to a market as it's the fair and responsible thing to do for the animal.



joeanne said:



			Selfish or responsible?
Tb's are the ones who sadly seem to suffer the most as the by product of racing. Supply far exceeds the demand and as such many end up in the sales.
For me personally, I feel the ones who are PTS rather than sent to the sales ring are the lucky ones!
		
Click to expand...

Agree with you.


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

Happy Horse said:



			I have read your first post twice as I wasn't sure I understood what you were saying!  I had a horse very similar to yours for 14 years.  He was retired due to unsoundness and then kept as a pet until he developed internal tumours.  This was my personal choice as I couldn't have him put down while he was still happy and I couldn't afford another at the same time so I accepted the situation.  I can understand that some people feel horses have a job and if they can't do the job then they need to either be fixed at whatever expense or PTS.  The people I despise are the ones who will not take responsibility either way and try and pass the horse on 'free' or through sales so they don't have to make the call.  I worked in an equine vets and soon came to realise that PTS was not the worst thing that could happen to a horse.  Some of the neglect cases we saw made me sick to the stomach.
		
Click to expand...


Yes I can imagine!!...  Where I ride they have a shetland with one testicle, she paid £900 to have the surgery, the vets were shocked and said most ppl would chose pts...............


----------



## councillor (25 May 2011)

Never twisted her point, just pointing out sh~t happens, and to think you can make some contingency plan for all eventualities is dreaming.  
I got my reality check when my husbands work dried  up and I had two kids, two horses and a big house to keep paying for.


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

I am afraid i now have to go and pick my car up from its MOT, I decided to pay for its treatment and see it through, I don't love it that much, but it serves a purpose to me... I also need a shower before I go and see the tasty mechanics, so I will leave you all here to argue amongst yourselves.  good byeeeeeeeeeeee


----------



## millreef (25 May 2011)

I'm with the Dumpling from Devon on this one.  If you read her post carefully you could have avoided a lot of arguments too.


----------



## Vizslak (25 May 2011)

Well I'm glad you don't think I'm selfish then. I sort of get where you are coming from, I actually feel that I wouldnt ever have another horse even when/if I can afford again, incase life bites me in the arse again in the future. This of course though is totally ridiculous, nobody would ever own horses if everyone thought like that. We don't have crystal balls, things can and do change very quickly for the better or worse and anything can happen to anyone. We cant all go through life trying to predict the future. 
I had 2 pts last August because I could no longer care for them (both retired) after my circumstances changed. In November my dog was very ill and spent 4 days in a coma...he's still here, it cost me £1200 and god knows where I found it but I did. So I do get your point, although I think the communication of it in the OP could have been worded a bit better!


----------



## MerrySherryRider (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			I don't personally own a horse anymore because although I could afford to keep it, shoe it, feed it etc, I couldn't afford any massive vet bills, ie going beyond insurance..............

Alot of people choose to keep and struggle with money* (not talking about circumstances changing like loss of a job)* but ppl actively go and buy a horse when they are struggling with finance, and often see a serious condition (treatable) arise and are advised to have the horse PTS or come to that conclusion themselves.

I personally had a very expensive horse who I kept as a pet at livery for 6 yrs rather than have him put down ( he was unridable with a heart condition) but was happy as a field ornament on heart meds etc (16.2hh TB) so not cheap on drugs and food and shoeing (lame without shoes),  I then decided after the sad day came when he kidneys were affected to have him PTS and couldn't afford to do that again with another horse.

I can't help but think sometimes horses are put down because of financial reasons and if you didn't buy this horse in the first place, someone with lots of money may have bought them and they would not have been PTS........

I know this  sounds a bit idealistic, but it makes me mad how freely PTS is recommended on this site, do right by your horse etc, well i sometimes feel its not right, its not right at all!

People replying to this thread please read carefully what I wrote before you twist my words, as I can't be doing with getting angry on such a nice sunny day!
		
Click to expand...




Vizslak said:



			What about when peoples circumstances change then? When they did have money and then dont? Are they selfish for having their horses pts?
		
Click to expand...

DD excluded those people in her orginal post.


----------



## councillor (25 May 2011)

Vizslak said:



			Well I'm glad you don't think I'm selfish then. I sort of get where you are coming from, I actually feel that I wouldnt ever have another horse even when/if I can afford again, incase life bites me in the arse again in the future. This of course though is totally ridiculous, nobody would ever own horses if everyone thought like that. We don't have crystal balls, things can and do change very quickly for the better or worse and anything can happen to anyone. We cant all go through life trying to predict the future. 
I had 2 pts last August because I could no longer care for them (both retired) after my circumstances changed. In November my dog was very ill and spent 4 days in a coma...he's still here, it cost me £1200 and god knows where I found it but I did. So I do get your point, although I think the communication of it in the OP could have been worded a bit better!
		
Click to expand...

I think I agree with you. I just got a bit annoyed with the OP as she came across as a little superior. And as I have had a giant dose of bad luck I got defensive. But I do think she needs a reality check. My husband has got a new job, and in a few months we will be back to financial normality. But my lack of money now has changed my views, and I have became more realistic about how hard life can be.


----------



## Ottinmeg (25 May 2011)

ok, here is a real life senario for you.
i have a 13 yr old 16hh horse bought for my daughter 5 years ago.He is cold backed and quirky to say the least and a one person horse.( Fabulous on the ground though, even with tiny tots) Aged 10 he developed arthritis in both hocks. He was treated at the time and put on joint supplement. That incident cost over 1k. A year later just as he was being brought back into proper work he did both suspensories, another 1k vet bill. Decided to retire him.daughter gone off to uni and i have the horse with me on my yard so no livery costs as such just the usual food/farrier costs. he is a happy field ornament and doesn't care if he is ridden or not although he is rideable and daughter rides him once in a blue moon when she comes home. No one else on the yard is mad enough to get on him!Loaning/selling him is not an option.

The insurance, i think it is safe to say, now excludes those back legs. So while he maintains his current condition and just needs joint supplement all is dandy BUT what happens if something else goes majorly wrong ?  Should i pay more expensive vet bills so he can live another 15 years doing nothing or do i call it a day and let him go? he is my daughters' baby' and she would probably have me shot before him  but she doesn't pay the bills.
I now don't personally have the money to pay another expensive vet bill but i CAN get it.

so out of interest ,what would the rest of you do? fix the horse again so he can carry on dossing for the rest of his life  or call it a day ?


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

councillor said:



			I think I agree with you. I just got a bit annoyed with the OP as she came across as a little superior. And as I have had a giant dose of bad luck I got defensive. But I do think she needs a reality check. My husband has got a new job, and in a few months we will be back to financial normality. But my lack of money now has changed my views, and I have became more realistic about how hard life can be.
		
Click to expand...

Did I really come across as superior tho?? or did I make you feel inferior because I have values and strongly believe them to stick to them?  I would friggen love another horse :-(  but darent as would be selfish of me if they got sick!


----------



## Devonshire dumpling (25 May 2011)

Ottinmeg said:



			ok, here is a real life senario for you.
i have a 13 yr old 16hh horse bought for my daughter 5 years ago.He is cold backed and quirky to say the least and a one person horse.( Fabulous on the ground though, even with tiny tots) Aged 10 he developed arthritis in both hocks. He was treated at the time and put on joint supplement. That incident cost over 1k. A year later just as he was being brought back into proper work he did both suspensories, another 1k vet bill. Decided to retire him.daughter gone off to uni and i have the horse with me on my yard so no livery costs as such just the usual food/farrier costs. he is a happy field ornament and doesn't care if he is ridden or not although he is rideable and daughter rides him once in a blue moon when she comes home. No one else on the yard is mad enough to get on him!Loaning/selling him is not an option.

The insurance, i think it is safe to say, now excludes those back legs. So while he maintains his current condition and just needs joint supplement all is dandy BUT what happens if something else goes majorly wrong ?  Should i pay more expensive vet bills so he can live another 15 years doing nothing or do i call it a day and let him go? he is my daughters' baby' and she would probably have me shot before him  but she doesn't pay the bills.
I now don't personally have the money to pay another expensive vet bill but i CAN get it.

so out of interest ,what would the rest of you do? fix the horse again so he can carry on dossing for the rest of his life  or call it a day ?
		
Click to expand...

No idea, but you sound lovely and sure you would make the right decision for the horse and you x  Don't think we could make a decision like that on an imaginary scenerio.


----------



## DragonSlayer (25 May 2011)

Here is one for you then.

We have had to cut down on horses over the last couple of years because of my OH being made redundant, then getting another job but at a MUCH lower wage now.

My AA is out on loan, purely because there was no interest to buy him, BUT.....he likes it at our place (I am only the 2nd owner he has had, and he is 16) and I can see the signs all ready, he is starting to be a twonk at his loan home, and will be shipped back to me at some point I am sure! Happened twice before, very experienced homes....but he 'just doesn't seem to like it here'....so acts the arse, then they send him home! The sod...and when he gets home? He is an angel, and the bad behaviour stops as quick as it started!

I could do a few things, try to sell him AGAIN, but what happens if he is an arse with new owner, and gets sold on.....and on.....and on....?

Loan him AGAIN, which is a pain...coz he will just come home again!

OR...bung him through a market, or sell him dirt cheap.

Those scenarios are NOT suitable in my mind, I think too much of the horse to let him end up at the meat-market or some person who has not got a clue.

He is 16, had a top-class life, and knows where his bread is buttered.

What would you do?

My thoughts are leaning towards PTS at the home he seems to love so much, at the end of a good life. He is not the only horse getting sold BTW, just so you know.....

Rather that, than a cattle waggon to the abbatoir.....


----------



## Megibo (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			No idea, but you sound lovely and sure you would make the right decision for the horse and you x  Don't think we could make a decision like that on an imaginary scenerio.
		
Click to expand...

it isnt an imaginary scenario though. he's a lovely boy just a big friendly field ornament.

but yeah the right decision would be made


----------



## Ottinmeg (25 May 2011)

DragonSlayer said:



			Here is one for you then.

We have had to cut down on horses over the last couple of years because of my OH being made redundant, then getting another job but at a MUCH lower wage now.

My AA is out on loan, purely because there was no interest to buy him, BUT.....he likes it at our place (I am only the 2nd owner he has had, and he is 16) and I can see the signs all ready, he is starting to be a twonk at his loan home, and will be shipped back to me at some point I am sure! Happened twice before, very experienced homes....but he 'just doesn't seem to like it here'....so acts the arse, then they send him home! The sod...and when he gets home? He is an angel, and the bad behaviour stops as quick as it started!

I could do a few things, try to sell him AGAIN, but what happens if he is an arse with new owner, and gets sold on.....and on.....and on....?

Loan him AGAIN, which is a pain...coz he will just come home again!

OR...bung him through a market, or sell him dirt cheap.

Those scenarios are NOT suitable in my mind, I think too much of the horse to let him end up at the meat-market or some person who has not got a clue.

He is 16, had a top-class life, and knows where his bread is buttered.

What would you do?

My thoughts are leaning towards PTS at the home he seems to love so much, at the end of a good life. He is not the only horse getting sold BTW, just so you know.....

Rather that, than a cattle waggon to the abbatoir.....
		
Click to expand...

that is exactly what i would do.
 We have a little mare who i call our bad penny, She was nearly sold once (5 stage vetting done ) and the people changed their minds,then we loaned her out and she was v naughty! so i guess we are stuck with the little madam! lol


----------



## jsr (25 May 2011)

In your case DS, suck it up, give up on certain 'luxuries' (cos lets face it there's always something we can give up to save money..I no longer have Sky TV, only have a mobile phone, no internet at home, no holidays, I drive an old van, don't go on journey's unless essential..am selling my beautiful little cottage in the country to buy a house in the middle of the town I work in...etc etc) and take responsiblity for the horses life you committed too when you bought him.  Or are you telling me killing a only 16 year old healthy horse down is a better option than you sacrificing something in your life in order to keep him???


----------



## Shilasdair (25 May 2011)

I haven't read the whole thread, but I have always thought that there are two types of horse owners - those who love horse and those who love riding.
Those who love horses will do their best for the animals in their care, will retire them if fit to do so, and will PTS when it is the best thing for the horse.
Those who love riding will try to maintain their horses' ability to work at minimal cost, will sell them on or PTS if they can no longer be ridden, and replace them with a younger, rideable model.
It is the latter group who can often be found shouting 'Put him to sleep' at every post reporting an injury, from a fly bite upwards.   
I spent a lot of money on one of mine last year (approx £10k) and am always amused by the people that say 'you could have bought a new one for that'.  I know this, but I want MY horse, not a new one.
S


----------



## jsr (25 May 2011)

Shilasdair said:



			I haven't read the whole thread, but I have always thought that there are two types of horse owners - those who love horse and those who love riding.
Those who love horses will do their best for the animals in their care, will retire them if fit to do so, and will PTS when it is the best thing for the horse.
Those who love riding will try to maintain their horses' ability to work at minimal cost, will sell them on or PTS if they can no longer be ridden, and replace them with a younger, rideable model.
It is the latter group who can often be found shouting 'Put him to sleep' at every post reporting an injury, from a fly bite upwards.   
I spent a lot of money on one of mine last year (approx £10k) and am always amused by the people that say 'you could have bought a new one for that'.  I know this, but I want MY horse, not a new one.
S 

Click to expand...

THANK YOU!!! What a perfect post to this thread.  Wish there was like button cos absolutely 100% spot on.


----------



## Flame_ (25 May 2011)

Ottinmeg said:



			ok, here is a real life senario for you.
i have a 13 yr old 16hh horse bought for my daughter 5 years ago.He is cold backed and quirky to say the least and a one person horse.( Fabulous on the ground though, even with tiny tots) Aged 10 he developed arthritis in both hocks. He was treated at the time and put on joint supplement. That incident cost over 1k. A year later just as he was being brought back into proper work he did both suspensories, another 1k vet bill. Decided to retire him.daughter gone off to uni and i have the horse with me on my yard so no livery costs as such just the usual food/farrier costs. he is a happy field ornament and doesn't care if he is ridden or not although he is rideable and daughter rides him once in a blue moon when she comes home. No one else on the yard is mad enough to get on him!Loaning/selling him is not an option.

The insurance, i think it is safe to say, now excludes those back legs. So while he maintains his current condition and just needs joint supplement all is dandy BUT what happens if something else goes majorly wrong ?  Should i pay more expensive vet bills so he can live another 15 years doing nothing or do i call it a day and let him go? he is my daughters' baby' and she would probably have me shot before him  but she doesn't pay the bills.
I now don't personally have the money to pay another expensive vet bill but i CAN get it.

so out of interest ,what would the rest of you do? fix the horse again so he can carry on dossing for the rest of his life  or call it a day ?
		
Click to expand...

Unless keeping him as a pet gave me a lot of pleasure and the problem needing treating wasn't a sure sign that his back legs were really giving up, call it a day.


----------



## DragonSlayer (25 May 2011)

jsr said:



			In your case DS, suck it up, give up on certain 'luxuries' (cos lets face it there's always something we can give up to save money..I no longer have Sky TV, only have a mobile phone, no internet at home, no holidays, I drive an old van, don't go on journey's unless essential..am selling my beautiful little cottage in the country to buy a house in the middle of the town I work in...etc etc) and take responsiblity for the horses life you committed too when you bought him.  Or are you telling me killing a only 16 year old healthy horse down is a better option than you sacrificing something in your life in order to keep him???
		
Click to expand...

What mobile phone, oh...the one that never has credit? Sky? WTF is that? We havent had a holiday in 3 years, the house is up for sale. 

You talk out your arse my dear. Who can predict redundancy? Can you? Jolly good, you will save people alot of heart-ache.

Are you daft? He is NOT the only one I have for sale. Read that as you wish.

Last time we we had a meal out?

Can't remember.

So get off your high-horse Sunshine, telling me to 'suck it up' when you know jack s**t about what people have gone through to get to this point., I fully know my responsibilities, and to have him PTS is a far better action than allowing the poor devil to suffer at the hands elsewhere.

When it comes to feeding my son or my horse, my son will win.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (25 May 2011)

Ottinmeg said:



			so out of interest ,what would the rest of you do? fix the horse again so he can carry on dossing for the rest of his life  or call it a day ?
		
Click to expand...

I have one in the same position, only she was lame just after I got her, can't say whether she was buted for the vetting or whether she injured herself in the field when she arrived. Insurance have excluded the legs and she can never do what she was bought for, even light hacking may not be possible. She is labour intensive with daily physio and expensive to keep with supplements and vet/physio/specialist shoeing etc. She is a constant financial drain which I can't afford but she is a lovely, happy mare and I plan to keep her until she is no longer enjoying life despite the sacrifices required on my budget.
She is not sellable, although dealer did initially offer to take her back, but I declined as it was highly likely she would be sent to market, but she was an honest but frightened horse who didn't deserve such betrayal.
For me, thats a part of horse ownership, accepting responsibility in sickness and in health. I would have her PTS if my circumstances meant she could no longer be looked after to an acceptable level but I'd have to have my back up against the wall first.


----------



## Rueysmum (25 May 2011)

Shilasdair said:



			I haven't read the whole thread, but I have always thought that there are two types of horse owners - those who love horse and those who love riding.
Those who love horses will do their best for the animals in their care, will retire them if fit to do so, and will PTS when it is the best thing for the horse.
Those who love riding will try to maintain their horses' ability to work at minimal cost, will sell them on or PTS if they can no longer be ridden, and replace them with a younger, rideable model.
It is the latter group who can often be found shouting 'Put him to sleep' at every post reporting an injury, from a fly bite upwards.   
I spent a lot of money on one of mine last year (approx £10k) and am always amused by the people that say 'you could have bought a new one for that'.  I know this, but I want MY horse, not a new one.
S 

Click to expand...

Very well put.  I wholeheartedly agree.  (Guess which camp I fall into?)


----------



## cptrayes (25 May 2011)

I think a lot of people avoid having horses put to sleep because they can't face their own pain.

I would rather see a perfectly healthy, economically unviable horse put to sleep than I would see a horse who should have been put down days, weeks, months or even years before kept alive because the owner can't face her own emotions.


----------



## marmalade76 (25 May 2011)

touchstone said:



			I also agree with this, you've got to also consider that by not owning in case of unforseen circumstances, you may be depriving a horse that is currently in need of a decent home of a loving home with you for as long as cicumstances permit.  My mare has been a field ornament for extended periods of time due to injury and I wouldn't consider pts as long as she had quality of life, however if I couldn't afford to keep her comfortable and happy then I would pts without hesitation and be thankful of the many years we have shared together with her in a loving home.  
If only the wealthy were permitted to own horses then how many more will be turned away to face an uncertain future? Better a few years well looked after than no hope at all.  There are some owners who sacrifice all sorts in order to provide for a horse and give them an excellent loving home  and to judge them as selfish if they were pushed to the limits and unable to keep their horse is a bit naive and unfair I think.  
There are certainly fates worse than death, so if I am judged as unfair and selfish for being part of the pts brigade then so be it, but I stand by what I feel is morally right for the welfare of the horse.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this.


----------



## Cop-Pop (25 May 2011)

I think I get what the OP is getting at.  A few years ago a woman bought herself a very nice TB despite knowing she was going to struggle financially when she bought it.  She bought him in the spring so had him on grass livery and was able to save up for a couple of second hand rugs.  His vaccinations were due but she couldnt afford the vet so let them slide and the same with worming although she did do him sporadically so better than nothing.  When he cut his leg open she couldn't afford the vet so treated it herself, sadly it ws a nasty wound needed stitches and it got infected.  The YO (farmer who just rented the field out and didn't have anything to do with it) spotted him a few days later and paid for him to be pts and taken away after she once again refused to have the vet out because she didn't have the money


----------



## Maesfen (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			I think a lot of people avoid having horses put to sleep because they can't face their own pain.

I would rather see a perfectly healthy, economically unviable horse put to sleep than I would see a horse who should have been put down days, weeks, months or even years before kept alive because the owner can't face her own emotions.
		
Click to expand...

Hear hear, well said.


----------



## PucciNPoni (25 May 2011)

Cop-Pop said:



			I think I get what the OP is getting at.  A few years ago a woman bought herself a very nice TB despite knowing she was going to struggle financially when she bought it.  She bought him in the spring so had him on grass livery and was able to save up for a couple of second hand rugs.  His vaccinations were due but she couldnt afford the vet so let them slide and the same with worming although she did do him sporadically so better than nothing.  When he cut his leg open she couldn't afford the vet so treated it herself, sadly it ws a nasty wound needed stitches and it got infected.  The YO (farmer who just rented the field out and didn't have anything to do with it) spotted him a few days later and paid for him to be pts and taken away after she once again refused to have the vet out because she didn't have the money 

Click to expand...

OMG, the kind of person who would do as described is rather irresponsible to say the least.  

I bought a horse, knowing it would be a struggle.  But I have afforded insurance, shoes, wormer, vaccinations, livery, feed - all at great expense to my self and my own "luxuries".  But a horse is a luxury, a huge one.  I may not be able to afford to retire comfortably (which my hubby gets annoyed by my selfishness in this regard).  But I may not live long enough to retire -so might enjoy my time on this earth NOW.  Yep, it's a struggle to afford it, but I would rather that than save for a rainy day that might never come.


----------



## minesadouble (25 May 2011)

Shilasdair said:



			I haven't read the whole thread, but I have always thought that there are two types of horse owners - those who love horse and those who love riding.
Those who love horses will do their best for the animals in their care, will retire them if fit to do so, and will PTS when it is the best thing for the horse.
Those who love riding will try to maintain their horses' ability to work at minimal cost, will sell them on or PTS if they can no longer be ridden, and replace them with a younger, rideable model.
It is the latter group who can often be found shouting 'Put him to sleep' at every post reporting an injury, from a fly bite upwards.   
I spent a lot of money on one of mine last year (approx £10k) and am always amused by the people that say 'you could have bought a new one for that'.  I know this, but I want MY horse, not a new one.
S 

Click to expand...

Agree Agree Agree!!
I have seen a prominent H&Her reply to a post by simply saying "shoot it" - I am no bunny hugger but that is just wrong!! 

I have three retired horses/ponies who are no longer rideable who have all been good servants. They owe me nothing - in fact I owe them for he amount of pleasure they have given over their years of service. NO Way would they be PTS simply because they had outlived their usefulness.

Yes I am lucky that we hve our own place and can afford to do this. However if I only had one horse who became unrideable and it was a choice between PTS or I could not afford to replace him then I would not replace him.


----------



## mymare (25 May 2011)

joeanne said:



			Selfish or responsible?
Tb's are the ones who sadly seem to suffer the most as the by product of racing. Supply far exceeds the demand and as such many end up in the sales.
For me personally, I feel the ones who are PTS rather than sent to the sales ring are the lucky ones!
		
Click to expand...

I agree.





Devonshire dumpling said:



			I think of horses as family pets and alot of people think of them as having a job!  I am a horse for life kinda owner!
		
Click to expand...

Me too, but if, God forbid, something awful happened that I could no longer afford the care my much loved horse/ponies deserved I would prefer to have them pts than have an uncertain future elsewhere.  Not everybody wants their horses for life and all the home checks and people vetting in the World won't stop horses ending up at sales, with dodgy dealers and a-rseholes like Jamie Gray.  So I would prefer to know that this would never happen to my "family pet" because I care.





DragonSlayer said:



			I fully know my responsibilities, and to have him PTS is a far better action than allowing the poor devil to suffer at the hands elsewhere.
		
Click to expand...

^^ this.


----------



## Ottinmeg (25 May 2011)

jsr said:



			In your case DS, suck it up, give up on certain 'luxuries' (cos lets face it there's always something we can give up to save money..I no longer have Sky TV, only have a mobile phone, no internet at home, no holidays, I drive an old van, don't go on journey's unless essential..am selling my beautiful little cottage in the country to buy a house in the middle of the town I work in...etc etc) and take responsiblity for the horses life you committed too when you bought him.  Or are you telling me killing a only 16 year old healthy horse down is a better option than you sacrificing something in your life in order to keep him???
		
Click to expand...

I understood  perfectly well where DS is coming from in her post,You on the other hand don't appear to.She is doing all she can given her current circumstances and as she pointed out is selling other horses, however this loveable little rogue of her's doesn't seem to  want to be anywhere else. The love she has for this horse comes through in her post and she is thinking of HIS welfare all the way. You make it sound like a case of ,don't want it so lets shoot it!


----------



## Ottinmeg (25 May 2011)

Here's one for you

A livery yard owner where i used to keep my horse was a ,don't call the vet unless it's leg is hanging off' type. She had a pony that she had had for 15 or so years,  Said pony was in her twenties and was healthy enough although to me looked like she had cushings (untreated of course ) She pretty much stood in the field all the years i knew her. One day I watched that pony,all bright eyed and bushy tailed  bounce up the road to her death and the reason she was being put down ? the YO needed her stable .


----------



## Sadiemay (25 May 2011)

Shilasdair, I dont know how to quote BUT what you have said is completely spot on  I WISH there was a like button!

There are defo two types of horse owners as you say.

I love horses first and foremost for the majestic animals they are in their own right, so not under saddle or doing a job for us humans.

My own situation is that I have a 24 year old mare who was my childhood pony, I got her when I just turned 14 and she was 5.  So we have been together for nearly 20 years.  When she was 9 and I was 19 I retired her for several reasons and because of my career and associated commitments I have had to have her on either full or part livery, and because of that she has cost me in upkeep a whopping 500 - 600 GBP a month for the last 15 or so years as she cannot be a "field ornament" as in just living out 24/7 cheaply.  

When my husband and I sat down recently and worked for the last 15 years to date what I have roughly spent on her, its something like 105,000GBP maybe a bit more  Now when its written down like that I can see that is a obscene amount of money in its own right. 

BUT she is worth every single penny of that, to see her face over the stable door is like magic to me each and every time, she is my heart and my best buddy.  I have suffered on and off from severe depression and other mental illnesses over the years and she has been better than any therapist or drugs. 

I bought her as a nieve 14 year old kid  from the moment I laid eyes on her at the market I knew she was the one. That night when we got her home I whispered in her ear that she would NEVER ever end up in a place like that again and would have a secure home for me for life and ever since that day in 1992 I have done everything in my power to give her that and I will continue to do so.

I realise very much so that I am lucky and fortunate to be able keep her in the manner she has become accustomed to  I do appreciate that, things may change tomorrow and our financial circumstances may change for the worse but we have several contingency plans/savings in place to ensure her future is as safe as possible as well as our own, after all she is part of our family and everything we plan for now and in the future has her taken into consideration as it does our other animals. Its the best we can do to safegaurd the future apart from having a crystal ball.

I cannot tell you just how many people have rolled their eyes, look completely aghast or bitch behind my back because of the decision I made to keep Sadie all those years ago especially as I couldnt just have her on DIY or grass livery.  

And yes I would LOVE and have done for years another horse that I could pootle about on but I just cant justify the cost of two on part/full livery.  I feel secure in the fact that with only having the one I/we can cover any situation financially that may need to be made about Sadies care but if I had two then that would not be the case and it would be a struggle so it would be irresponsible for me to get another and just hope that nothing would happen that cost alot of money to resolve. 

My first and foremost priority is to my sweet old girl, my desire to have another to ride will just have to wait until such a time its appropriate.

If god forbid it ever came to us not being able to keep her ourselves then she would be PTS via injection at home in my arms with me and my husband comforting and reasurring her until the very end.

Sadiemay


----------



## Flame_ (25 May 2011)

Ottinmeg said:



			One day I watched that pony,all bright eyed and bushy tailed  bounce up the road to her death and the reason she was being put down ? the YO needed her stable .
		
Click to expand...

The reasons don't matter to the animals, they aren't even aware of them let alone able to understand them. Either killing horses is cruel or it isn't, all our little moral disagreements about who does and doesn't love horses and who's doing the right thing and who's being selfish are neither here nor there to the animals. 

I think its sad, but i'm not against pts horses so i'm not going to start judging who's circumstances are worthy reasons for doing it and whose aren't.


----------



## Wagtail (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			I don't personally own a horse anymore because although I could afford to keep it, shoe it, feed it etc, I couldn't afford any massive vet bills, ie going beyond insurance..............

Alot of people choose to keep and struggle with money (not talking about circumstances changing like loss of a job) but ppl actively go and buy a horse when they are struggling with finance, and often see a serious condition (treatable) arise and are advised to have the horse PTS or come to that conclusion themselves.

I personally had a very expensive horse who I kept as a pet at livery for 6 yrs rather than have him put down ( he was unridable with a heart condition) but was happy as a field ornament on heart meds etc (16.2hh TB) so not cheap on drugs and food and shoeing (lame without shoes),  I then decided after the sad day came when he kidneys were affected to have him PTS and couldn't afford to do that again with another horse.

I can't help but think sometimes horses are put down because of financial reasons and if you didn't buy this horse in the first place, someone with lots of money may have bought them and they would not have been PTS........

I know this  sounds a bit idealistic, but it makes me mad how freely PTS is recommended on this site, do right by your horse etc, well i sometimes feel its not right, its not right at all!

People replying to this thread please read carefully what I wrote before you twist my words, as I can't be doing with getting angry on such a nice sunny day!
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this. I have a horse that would have been PTS if his previous owner had owned him at the point he was diagnosed. She had several horses and none of them were insured and she said she could not have afforded the £5k it cost to put the horse right. He is absolutely sound now after having fragments removed from his hock. The vet said the fragments would have been there for years and it was just luck/bad luck that he became lame a week after the date of inception of my insurance policy.


----------



## HashRouge (25 May 2011)

Shilasdair said:



			I haven't read the whole thread, but I have always thought that there are two types of horse owners - those who love horse and those who love riding.
Those who love horses will do their best for the animals in their care, will retire them if fit to do so, and will PTS when it is the best thing for the horse.
Those who love riding will try to maintain their horses' ability to work at minimal cost, will sell them on or PTS if they can no longer be ridden, and replace them with a younger, rideable model.
It is the latter group who can often be found shouting 'Put him to sleep' at every post reporting an injury, from a fly bite upwards.   
I spent a lot of money on one of mine last year (approx £10k) and am always amused by the people that say 'you could have bought a new one for that'.  I know this, but I want MY horse, not a new one.
S 

Click to expand...

I agree completely. What an excellent summary of us horse owners!


----------



## Shilasdair (25 May 2011)

Flame_ said:



			The reasons don't matter to the animals, they aren't even aware of them let alone able to understand them. Either killing horses is cruel or it isn't, all our little moral disagreements about who does and doesn't love horses and who's doing the right thing and who's being selfish are neither here nor there to the animals. 

I think its sad, but i'm not against pts horses so i'm not going to start judging who's circumstances are worthy reasons for doing it and whose aren't. 

Click to expand...

I don't think this is a discussion about whether putting animals to sleep is cruel or not - clearly we are all agreed that in certain circumstances it is absolutely the right course of action.
I think we are just discussing whether we should PTS because it is in the horse's best interests, or whether we should only consider our own interests from a selfish viewpoint.
I imagine that rather than being black and white, it's a continuum and we'll all rest at different points along it from 'bunny hugger' to 'business person with a focus on costs'.  
S


----------



## jsr (25 May 2011)

Ottinmeg said:



			I understood  perfectly well where DS is coming from in her post,You on the other hand don't appear to.She is doing all she can given her current circumstances and as she pointed out is selling other horses, however this loveable little rogue of her's doesn't seem to  want to be anywhere else. The love she has for this horse comes through in her post and she is thinking of HIS welfare all the way. You make it sound like a case of ,don't want it so lets shoot it!
		
Click to expand...

Yes that's exactly what it reads to me. The horse isn't ill, it isn't lame it just wants to be where it wants to be so for that it dies???  Afraid I don't see the love there, come hell or high water my horse lives a long, safe, secure life with me until the day comes his physical well being is compromised. My last foster dog was rehomed to a fabulous family, 11 month old lurcher totally nuts but a loveable dog. 2 days after they adopted him they rang me in tears because he wasn't eating, wouldn't come out from under the sofa and was terrified...at my house he was doing wall of death, eating me out of house nad home and a mad little fool!! So did I take him to the vets and kill him because I already had 5 dogs and really couldn't afford one more??? Did I hell.   I took responsibility for the life I had taken custody of.


----------



## ladyt25 (25 May 2011)

I haven't read all the posts on this (should be working) but I am of the opinion that if you make the decision to buy a horse you should consider that that horse could be with you for many many years (same as if you took on a dog - "a dog is for life" and all that). Now the difference with horse is you can sell them on if appropriate but I do hate those people who decide that, because they are struggling financially/they have a chage of circumstance etc etc that, rather than sell their perfectly healthy horse on to someone else they will elect to have it PTS because noone culd possibly look after the horse as well as they could. That is mention A LOT on here as a reason for having horse PTS and it does anger meas I see it as a very arrogant view.

Also, on that basis statistically it would mean a heck of a lot of people on this site are not capable of looking after horses! I mean there are loads of subsicribers on here - as far as I am concerned I look after my horses very well and we also have taken on retired animals who were facing being PTS and they have lived many happy years (well I assume they were happy - obviously they could tell me) of retirement with us before one way or another their life (generally age-related health issues and one just died) has come to end.

To be honest as much as I enjoy watching racing to it does disgust me they amount or 2and 3 yo horses that are disposed of because they are not deemed good enough to make their owners money. I think someone should be done about this. In fact, I personally think the age for starting racehorses should be higher (ie 4) so then these babies would not be thrashed before they have properly matured and then shot because in all of a few months it is concluded they are no good. I think it's appalling.


----------



## widget (25 May 2011)

I see both sides of the coin if an animal is healthy mentally and physically but put down due to 'no one else being able to look after as well' that's rubbish but if an animal is unsound mentally or physically then ideally you should keep it and look after it but this isn't always possible and if funds are an issue if you can't treat/medicate properly then it's better to pts than have a half hearted attempt at looking after a horse. Also if you can't gurantee that animals future either by loaning rather than selling or keeping the horse with you then pts should be considered. Horses are much better pts than passed from pillar to post or neglected


----------



## DragonSlayer (25 May 2011)

jsr said:



			Yes that's exactly what it reads to me. The horse isn't ill, it isn't lame it just wants to be where it wants to be so for that it dies???  Afraid I don't see the love there, come hell or high water my horse lives a long, safe, secure life with me until the day comes his physical well being is compromised. My last foster dog was rehomed to a fabulous family, 11 month old lurcher totally nuts but a loveable dog. 2 days after they adopted him they rang me in tears because he wasn't eating, wouldn't come out from under the sofa and was terrified...at my house he was doing wall of death, eating me out of house nad home and a mad little fool!! So did I take him to the vets and kill him because I already had 5 dogs and really couldn't afford one more??? Did I hell.   I took responsibility for the life I had taken custody of.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think you have read the posters post you have quoted at all, have you?

G


----------



## jsr (25 May 2011)

DragonSlayer said:



			I don't think you have read the posters post you have quoted at all, have you?

G
		
Click to expand...

I did read it thanks but explain to me the situation then if I've misunderstood? My reading of your post was the horse isn't happy in it's new loan home, the loanee is about to return it and because you can't afford to keep it you are thinking of PTS? Have I read that wrong?


----------



## cptrayes (25 May 2011)

I am not ashamed to say that I keep my horses to ride. When they cannot be ridden to the standard at which I want to ride, I owe them either to find them a good home, or if that is not possible, to have them humanely killed. I don't feel that I owe them a home for life if they can't do what they were bred to do.  They don't know, or care, that they could have lived more years. It is only the owner that knows or cares about that.

For every horse whose owner thinks that they owe them the rest of their natural lives as a paddock ornament, there is another sound horse somewhere being killed for no reason at all.

Is it really anything to congratulate yourself for, and feel superior to those of us who do not think the way you do? You are simply saving one horse that you know and condemning another that you don't to death. Meanwhile you are depriving yourself of the absolute joy of riding a horse that you are at one with. Where is the special merit in any of that?


----------



## jsr (25 May 2011)

DragonSlayer said:



			What mobile phone, oh...the one that never has credit? Sky? WTF is that? We havent had a holiday in 3 years, the house is up for sale. 

You talk out your arse my dear. Who can predict redundancy? Can you? Jolly good, you will save people alot of heart-ache.

Are you daft? He is NOT the only one I have for sale. Read that as you wish.

Last time we we had a meal out?

Can't remember.

So get off your high-horse Sunshine, telling me to 'suck it up' when you know jack s**t about what people have gone through to get to this point., I fully know my responsibilities, and to have him PTS is a far better action than allowing the poor devil to suffer at the hands elsewhere.

When it comes to feeding my son or my horse, my son will win.
		
Click to expand...


Oh sorry missed this little tarade. So sorry I don't know your full life story..must try harder to keep up with a busy forum. But you quiet obviously like to play the woe is me card.  You got all these horses you are trying now to sell/kill when you had money I take it..therefore did you make provision for the future???? Guessing that's a no. Which was the OP's point originally incase you missed it?  

Sympathy for you not having a holiday in 3 years...pah try 10 years sweetie. Sympathy for trying to feed you son... never met a really poor person in this country with kids, child benefits so don't pull that one. It's your fault the horses that you carelessly bought when you thought you knew it all and had money pouring in are suffering and to expect other people to be sympathetic and understanding is just damn right funny.(if it wasn't so sad that a perfectly healthy horse is being threaten to die)  

If you couldn't afford them come what may then you shouldn't have got them in the first place...simple really when you think about it. I can't afford a 5 horse lorry with living and luxury holidays, so guess what? I don't get them. 

You made your bed and now your unforunate horses are suffering for it. Greedy selfish people.

Oh and before you pen your witting clever rely don't bother cos opinions of people like you really don't matter so I'll be putting you on ignore..got to love that ignore button.


----------



## Maesfen (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			I am not ashamed to say that I keep my horses to ride. When they cannot be ridden to the standard at which I want to ride, I owe them either to find them a good home, or if that is not possible, to have them humanely killed. I don't feel that I owe them a home for life if they can't do what they were bred to do.  They don't know, or care, that they could have lived more years. It is only the owner that knows or cares about that.

For every horse whose owner thinks that they owe them the rest of their natural lives as a paddock ornament, there is another sound horse somewhere being killed for no reason at all.

Is it really anything to congratulate yourself for, and feel superior to those of us who do not think the way you do? You are simply saving one horse that you know and condemning another that you don't to death. Meanwhile you are depriving yourself of the absolute joy of riding a horse that you are at one with. Where is the merit in any of that?
		
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you, nobody should be forced into doing something they don't want to do by comments from others.
I wish the holier than thou attitude would stop; it's totally stupid to expect everyone to have the same views but there is no need to preach to those that don't share your own views at all.

And to jsr, I'm sorry but all your little sarcasm to DreagonSlayer does nothing to improve your reputation, it just makes you look like a catty wotsit.


----------



## widget (25 May 2011)

It sounds like the op is doing the responsible thing and has tried other options before pts. Some people have family they can fall back on when times are hard and if something like redundancy hits. Some people don't have this luxury and hard decisions need to be made. People shouldn't be judged for that


----------



## AshTay (25 May 2011)

Haven't read ALL of the posts but my direct response to the OP would be that IMO there are two issues when it comes to being able to "afford" a horse....

1) Being able to afford, at a moments notice, a couple of hundred quid to have the necessary vet attention and afford a box of painkillers and some drugs necessary to treat the symptoms in the short term.

2) Being able to afford to try every possible treatment available if the problem turns out to be serious, beyond the insurance limit, to find a solution to the problem.

To me, if you can't afford 1) then you shouldn't have a horse. 

2) on the other hand isn't what i would call a prerequisite for horse ownership and most people honestly can't afford this and I'd rather see a horse pts than left in limbo because the owner can't afford to do any more to help them.

But I would also say that if you can't afford vet insurance for a horse then you probably should think twice about having a horse as for most people that's the best option for bridging the gap from 1) to 2).  (But I also acknowledge that it's not that simple for some people as insurance can get costly when a horse reaches a certain age or if you have multiple horses).

Also strongle agree with Shilasdair about the two types of people - that's soemthing that really stands out to me about this forum.


----------



## Lady La La (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			You are simply saving one horse that you know and condemning another that you don't to death.
		
Click to expand...

I see where you're going with this, but, I hardly think that by retiring my elderly horse to the field after 20+ years of ridden life, I am 'comdemning' another horse to death...


I think I'm nicely in the middle of the fluff'O'meter... I know the kindness a well placed bullet can bring and see no issue in having a horse PTS should it face an unsecure future.
 I don't throw my horses away if/when they can no longer be ridden... however, as long as those that do, do it humanely... there is very little to grumble about.


----------



## Flame_ (25 May 2011)

AshTay said:



			Also strongle agree with Shilasdair about the two types of people - that's soemthing that really stands out to me about this forum.
		
Click to expand...

I do too, sort of. I tend to divide them into people who have horses as pets and people who have horses as working animals.

I just don't like it when ethical issues are mistaken for welfare issues.


----------



## jsr (25 May 2011)

Maesfen said:



			And to jsr, I'm sorry but all your little sarcasm to DreagonSlayer does nothing to improve your reputation, it just makes you look like a catty wotsit.
		
Click to expand...

'Reputation'????? Lol sorry but I didn't realise this was a popularity contest. Jeez now that is funny.   I actually thought this was a public forum for people to air their opinions, and if DS want's to air their dirty laundry too then why not expect those with a voice to use it???? 

I really really really couldn't care less what anyone else thinks of my views, all in all my opinion is if you cannot afford an animal then don't get it. Same as those who continue to breed children then complain they can't afford them? I have what I can afford and pay for my own life with MY money earned from working in a shitty horrible job and if that job goes (which it very much might) then I'll deal with it cos it's happened before and it might happen again but the one thing that won't happen is my animals will die because of it.  End of.


----------



## AshTay (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			For every horse whose owner thinks that they owe them the rest of their natural lives as a paddock ornament, there is another sound horse somewhere being killed for no reason at all.
		
Click to expand...

When I retired my old boy I took on a second horse (which I wouldn't have done while my old boy was still being ridden). So no other horse died for me to keep my paddock ornament....  

Good point though (at first I didn't think you had a good point at all but having thought about it I'm inclined to agree).


----------



## Muchadoaboutnothing (25 May 2011)

Lady La La said:



			I see where you're going with this, but, I hardly think that by retiring my elderly horse to the field after 20+ years of ridden life, I am 'comdemning' another horse to death...


I think I'm nicely in the middle of the fluff'O'meter... I know the kindness a well placed bullet can bring and see no issue in having a horse PTS should it face an unsecure future.
 I don't throw my horses away if/when they can no longer be ridden... however, as long as those that do, do it humanely... there is very little to grumble about.
		
Click to expand...

Very well said.


----------



## cptrayes (25 May 2011)

Lady La La said:



			I see where you're going with this, but, I hardly think that by retiring my elderly horse to the field after 20+ years of ridden life, I am 'comdemning' another horse to death...
		
Click to expand...

Will you buy another when he's gone? If not, OK. But if you will get another, and you do not have your elderly fellow put  down tomorrow, then somewhere in a market a perfectly sound horse will go for meat, who would not have gone for meat if you bought a horse to replace yours.

If goes like this:

My horse can't do anything but light hacking any more so I have him put down and buy a Grand Prix baby prospect from someone who can't manage his sharp temperament.

The person who sold me the one with the sharp temperament that they could not manage buys an ISH that someone else finds too strong.

The person who had the too strong ISH buys a gentler ISH from someone who thinks the horse is capable of much more than they are.

The person with the talented ISH goes to the market and pays £500 for a lovely traditional cob in poor condition who was heading for the meat market, loves it and turns it into a super horse who wins local showing competitions.

This last horse is only alive because I had mine put down.

You see??


----------



## Lady La La (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			Will you buy another when he's gone? If not, OK. But if you will get another, and you do not have your elderly fellow put  down tomorrow, then somewhere in a market a perfectly sound horse will go for meat, who would not have gone for meat if you bought a horse to replace yours.

If goes like this:

My horse can't do anything but light hacking any more so I have him put down and buy a Grand Prix baby prospect from someone who can't manage his sharp temperament.

The person who sold me the one with the sharp temperament that they could not manage buys an ISH that someone else finds too strong.

The person who had the too strong ISH buys a gentler ISH from someone who thinks the horse is capable of much more than they are.

The person with the talented ISH goes to the market and pays £500 for a lovely traditional cob in poor condition who was heading for the meat market, loves it and turns it into a super horse who wins local showing competitions.

This last horse is only alive because I had mine put down.

You see??
		
Click to expand...

Of course I see...

My point was the wording in your post. Whether I retire my horses or not, it wont be me 'condemning' anything to death.


----------



## Flame_ (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			For every horse whose owner thinks that they owe them the rest of their natural lives as a paddock ornament, there is another sound horse somewhere being killed for no reason at all.

Is it really anything to congratulate yourself for, and feel superior to those of us who do not think the way you do? You are simply saving one horse that you know and condemning another that you don't to death. Meanwhile you are depriving yourself of the absolute joy of riding a horse that you are at one with. Where is the special merit in any of that?
		
Click to expand...

While I agree with some of this post, the argument about which horse gets killed doesn't quite work. If everyone kept their horses into retirement and it was unacceptable to pts horses past use, less riding horses would be being bred to meet the reduction in demand. It only works in so far as, replacing your old horse with a young horse destined for slaughter in the current market. Most people are more likely to buy a horse from the "bred to be someone's new young riding horse" market, IYSWIM.


----------



## Muchadoaboutnothing (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			Will you buy another when he's gone? If not, OK. But if you will get another, and you do not have your elderly fellow put  down tomorrow, then somewhere in a market a perfectly sound horse will go for meat, who would not have gone for meat if you bought a horse to replace yours.

If goes like this:

My horse can't do anything but light hacking any more so I have him put down and buy a Grand Prix baby prospect from someone who can't manage his sharp temperament.

The person who sold me the one with the sharp temperament that they could not manage buys an ISH that someone else finds too strong.

The person who had the too strong ISH buys a gentler ISH from someone who thinks the horse is capable of much more than they are.

The person with the talented ISH goes to the market and pays £500 for a lovely traditional cob in poor condition who was heading for the meat market, loves it and turns it into a super horse who wins local showing competitions.

This last horse is only alive because I had mine put down.

You see??
		
Click to expand...

Ermm . . .  are you saying people shouldn't retire their horses then?  You asked not to be judged for putting a horse to sleep so don't judge someone for wanting to give their horse some retirement.


----------



## Lady La La (25 May 2011)

Flame_ said:



			While I agree with some of this post, the argument about which horse gets killed doesn't quite work.
		
Click to expand...

Quite.


----------



## AshTay (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			Will you buy another when he's gone? If not, OK. But if you will get another, and you do not have your elderly fellow put  down tomorrow, then somewhere in a market a perfectly sound horse will go for meat, who would not have gone for meat if you bought a horse to replace yours.

If goes like this:

My horse can't do anything but light hacking any more so I have him put down and buy a Grand Prix baby prospect from someone who can't manage his sharp temperament.

The person who sold me the one with the sharp temperament that they could not manage buys an ISH that someone else finds too strong.

The person who had the too strong ISH buys a gentler ISH from someone who thinks the horse is capable of much more than they are.

The person with the talented ISH goes to the market and pays £500 for a lovely traditional cob in poor condition who was heading for the meat market, loves it and turns it into a super horse who wins local showing competitions.

You see??
		
Click to expand...

But doesn't that shift the blame from the irreponsible person who bred the unwanted cob in the first place (or the person who bought the cob originally but couldn't afford to keep it so sold it on and it ended up at market). If there wasn't this fear of passing a horse on to an uncertain future (i.e. if all futures were favourable) then you could have sold your light hack on rather than pts.


To me, to be PTS is the last option (if there's no suffering, if there's suffering it's the first option). In your scenario above, a non-suffering horse was destined to die either way but you argue that your light hack should go because he was no use to you (but may have been of use to someone else). If you'd kept him, the cob would have gone. Was that fairer?


----------



## cptrayes (25 May 2011)

Flame_ said:



			While I agree with some of this post, the argument about which horse gets killed doesn't quite work. If everyone kept their horses into retirement and it was unacceptable to pts horses past use, less riding horses would be being bred to meet the reduction in demand. It only works in so far as, replacing your old horse with a young horse destined for slaughter in the current market. Most people are more likely to buy a horse from the "bred to be someone's new young riding horse" market, IYSWIM.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I live in the real world and not in cloud cuckoo land.

Life is not fair folks, and I am not trying to tell anyone what to do. I am simply pointing out that those people who choose to keep paddock ornaments are no better or worse than those of us who choose not to. The end result is the same, other than which horse it is which dies, so there is no point in those with a different point of view claiming a moral high ground.

If we could stop indiscrimate breeding, (I just saw a pink pig fly past my window ) the result would then be that for every paddock ornament kept alive, another young horse that could have been born and had a life will not get that life. How is that any fairer?


----------



## AshTay (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			If we could stop indiscrimate breeding, (I just saw a pink pig fly past my window ) the result would then be that for every paddock ornament kept alive, another young horse that could have been born and had a life will not get that life. How is that any fairer?
		
Click to expand...


??! I think I've just changed my mind about you again. lol. What a load of horse poo.


----------



## Shilasdair (25 May 2011)

I love the idea that by retiring my 22yr old Tb mare, I am suddenly responsible for someone else's decision to PTS a riding horse.  No, the owner is responsible for that decision, entirely.  

I also disagree with the point that because I retired my horse, I don't like riding - I do and am probably not the worst rider on this forum . 

However, it's not really a choice about whether you ride, or retire your horse, is it?  If you are a decent enough rider, people will offer you rides, and perhaps even pay you to do so.

To raise another point - perhaps it is breeders like Maesfen who are responsible for healthy horses being PTS - if the studs aren't over-supplying a marketplace with diminishing demand, then who is?!

S  


PS Nothing personal, Maesfen, just you are the only breeder I remembered on this thread.


----------



## Spotsrock (25 May 2011)

Sorry, someone seriously thinks that by letting Lottie have a happy relaxed retirement I am killing a horse somewhere at some point in a series of barely connected incidents???

Lottie has been with me through awkward teenage years, 1st relationship, exam stress, skintness, kidnapping, house moves etc. I OWE this little mare my mental health, job, house, relationship and generally contented life, the least she deserves is her retirement.

She is very happy being a field ornament and will still step up and do the odd beginner 20 min lesson for friends kids or OH on half a bute. Technically if I PTS yes I may need a quiet plod for OH but he rides about 20 mins a fortnight, I would not buy one, simples.

I know PTS is not the end of the world and horses live in the moment but Lottie's 'moment' is very happy. 

Agree maybe dangerous or seriously ill PTS is kinder if insufficient funds or ability to fix it but insurance is a basic requirement of ownership costs. 

Sorry, I don't normally get draw too far into these heated attempts at provoking each other but HOW DARE someone suggest that Lottie should be PTS as she is costing another horse it's life, in what way has the other horse earned it's reprieve more than Lottie????


----------



## cptrayes (25 May 2011)

AshTay said:



			??! I think I've just changed my mind about you again. lol. What a load of horse poo.
		
Click to expand...

Tell me which bit you don't understand and I'll explain it again.

If we bred exactly the number and type of horses for which there is demand, and if people replace a horse once it is put down, then for every horse which is put down another will be bred. So if yours is put to sleep, it will have provided a "space" if you like, for another to be born. If you don't put yours to sleep, that horse won't get born.

It's an academic point only, of course, because with all their careful breeding programs even the Dutch and Germans manage to breed surplus unwanted/bent/unfit horses.


----------



## cptrayes (25 May 2011)

Spotsrock said:



			Sorry, someone seriously thinks that by letting Lottie have a happy relaxed retirement I am killing a horse somewhere at some point in a series of barely connected incidents???

Lottie has been with me through awkward teenage years, 1st relationship, exam stress, skintness, kidnapping, house moves etc. I OWE this little mare my mental health, job, house, relationship and generally contented life, the least she deserves is her retirement.

She is very happy being a field ornament and will still step up and do the odd beginner 20 min lesson for friends kids or OH on half a bute. Technically if I PTS yes I may need a quiet plod for OH but he rides about 20 mins a fortnight, I would not buy one, simples.

I know PTS is not the end of the world and horses live in the moment but Lottie's 'moment' is very happy. 

Agree maybe dangerous or seriously ill PTS is kinder if insufficient funds or ability to fix it but insurance is a basic requirement of ownership costs. 

Sorry, I don't normally get draw too far into these heated attempts at provoking each other but HOW DARE someone suggest that Lottie should be PTS as she is costing another horse it's life, in what way has the other horse earned it's reprieve more than Lottie????
		
Click to expand...

Oh for goodness sake calm down. I simply pointed out that you should not get on some moral high ground if you keep your horse alive, and look down on me if I decide not to. I was not trying to provoke anyone, though clearly it's very easy to do so from the level of offense you managed to find in my post!

I understand why you don't like the idea, but the fact is that if you had Lottie put to sleep tomorrow and bought another horse on Friday, then another horse somewhere will not go for meat in a Friday market, it will be bought as a riding horse. I understand completely why you want to keep Lottie, but just don't look down on me because I would make another choice. If you would not replace Lottie, ever, then this argument does not apply to you.


----------



## AshTay (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			Tell me which bit you don't understand and I'll explain it again.

.
		
Click to expand...

The bit about it being unfair for a horse to never be born in the first place being just as unfair as a horse being PTS for whatever reason (because it's owner didn't want it or because someone else's paddock ornament was allowed to linger on)?? 

They're not lining up somewhere patiently waiting for their time to be born!! (and if they were then they'd just have to wait a bit longer wouldn't they.....?)


----------



## Lady La La (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			. So if yours is put to sleep, it will have provided a "space" if you like, for another to be born. If you don't put yours to sleep, that horse won't get born.
		
Click to expand...

That has absolutely nothing to do with a horses ability to be ridden. 

...My horse will be PTS eventually, and no doubt replaced.


----------



## DragonSlayer (25 May 2011)

jsr said:



			Oh sorry missed this little tarade. So sorry I don't know your full life story..must try harder to keep up with a busy forum. But you quiet obviously like to play the woe is me card.  You got all these horses you are trying now to sell/kill when you had money I take it..therefore did you make provision for the future???? Guessing that's a no. Which was the OP's point originally incase you missed it?  

Sympathy for you not having a holiday in 3 years...pah try 10 years sweetie. Sympathy for trying to feed you son... never met a really poor person in this country with kids, child benefits so don't pull that one. It's your fault the horses that you carelessly bought when you thought you knew it all and had money pouring in are suffering and to expect other people to be sympathetic and understanding is just damn right funny.(if it wasn't so sad that a perfectly healthy horse is being threaten to die)  

If you couldn't afford them come what may then you shouldn't have got them in the first place...simple really when you think about it. I can't afford a 5 horse lorry with living and luxury holidays, so guess what? I don't get them. 

You made your bed and now your unforunate horses are suffering for it. Greedy selfish people.

Oh and before you pen your witting clever rely don't bother cos opinions of people like you really don't matter so I'll be putting you on ignore..got to love that ignore button.
		
Click to expand...

You really are a strange one, aren't you?

You put me on ignore because you know i'm right.

The question was asked by the OP about the situation, so I put forward a scenario I am facing, and you come out with complete bullshit.

You keep calling me clever, I am, and obviously you don't like my witty replies to the pathetic answers you come back with, so you chose the ignore button. I've done that with people like you before, who cannot stand the fact that someone elses opinion might just hold more water than their own.

Did I say, anyone? It WAS going to happen? I SAID it was a thought, because the horse is in a dilemma....


----------



## Shilasdair (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			Oh for goodness sake calm down. I simply pointed out that you should not get on some moral high ground if you keep your horse alive, and look down on me if I decide not to. I was not trying to provoke anyone, though clearly it's very easy to do so from the level of offense you managed to find in my post!

I understand why you don't like the idea, but the fact is that if you had Lottie put to sleep tomorrow and bought another horse on Friday, then another horse somewhere will not go for meat in a Friday market, it will be bought as a riding horse. I understand completely why you want to keep Lottie, but just don't look down on me because I would make another choice. If you would not replace Lottie, ever, then this argument does not apply to you.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, I do think I have the moral high ground compared to those who view horses as disposable utensils.
You have the right to PTS any horse that you own that you don't maybe like much, or you can't sell on in the current market.  Even one that is a bit stiffer when ridden than it used to be, or whose colour you've never particularly liked.
It's not a welfare issue, but to me it's a moral/ethical issue, and I have the right to think less of you for your choices.
S


----------



## Sadiemay (25 May 2011)

As has been said MANY times before there are much worse things that can happen to a horse then being PTS humanely. An uncertain future is one of them in my humble opinion.  And a horse with issues/quirks is extremely vulnerable 

Only us humans know the reasons why it is happening, be it out of necessity or dare I say it, convenience. The horse doesnt know a thing of what is coming or why. All they think "Oooh yummy polo's!, biiiig bucket of  feed YUM YUM!" and then bang!, goodnight....god bless.  Or they just fall asleep/unconcious if given the injection. They have no concept of the fact they are being PTS.  What is so morally wrong with that.

Of course I wish things like this didnt happen and all horses could live their whole lives loved and cared for even after they cannot be ridden and they have no "use" to mankind BUT this is the real world and life just cant always be like that.

 What about the millions and millions of just as equally sensitive and intelligent mammals who are rasied for food and live tortouous unatural lives and are killed in the most abhorrent manner?  Now THAT is something to campaign about and get angry about IMHO.

Anyways I digress...I peronally dont feel particularly strongly about someones reasons for PTS their horse but I do feel strongly that if thats their choice its done in a fashion that has the horse best interests at heart.  

For example if the horse is a stress head/nervous cough up the the extra and have it PTS at home in familiar surroundings rather than transporting to the hunt/abbatoir.  I think that kind of consideration is the least one can have for the horse.

I can understand people saying they would rather PTS than risk selling the horse on, especially if it has health issues or behavioural issues. I would not judge them for their choices. But in the same breath I wish people would not judge me on mine for keeping my horse for life.  Live and let live people.

As long as a horse is PTS humanely and in a calm manner where the horse has no concept of what is about to happen whats the problem here really? 
Sadiemay


----------



## cptrayes (25 May 2011)

AshTay said:



			The bit about it being unfair for a horse to never be born in the first place being just as unfair as a horse being PTS for whatever reason (because it's owner didn't want it or because someone else's paddock ornament was allowed to linger on)?? 

They're not lining up somewhere patiently waiting for their time to be born!! (and if they were then they'd just have to wait a bit longer wouldn't they.....?)
		
Click to expand...

And they aren't standing in the field counting the days til you have them put to sleep either. I see it as very much the same, depriving one actual horse of life it never new it was going to have and will not miss as depriving a theoretical horse of the possibility of life it does not yet know.  When you don't actually know either horse, it's easy to see it as days of life missed and it not mattering which horse missed it. Not if you know the horse, of course, I understand that. 

Of course it's an entirely academic argument, there will always be an oversupply of horses as long as there is a meat  market, and there will always be a meat market.


----------



## Muchadoaboutnothing (25 May 2011)

Shilasdair said:



			Actually, I do think I have the moral high ground compared to those who view horses as disposable utensils.
You have the right to PTS any horse that you own that you don't maybe like much, or you can't sell on in the current market.  Even one that is a bit stiffer when ridden than it used to be, or whose colour you've never particularly liked.
It's not a welfare issue, but to me it's a moral/ethical issue, and I have the right to think less of you for your choices.
S 

Click to expand...

Spot on Shils.


----------



## DragonSlayer (25 May 2011)

jsr said:



			'Reputation'????? Lol sorry but I didn't realise this was a popularity contest. Jeez now that is funny.   I actually thought this was a public forum for people to air their opinions, and if DS want's to air their dirty laundry too then why not expect those with a voice to use it???? 

I really really really couldn't care less what anyone else thinks of my views, all in all my opinion is if you cannot afford an animal then don't get it. Same as those who continue to breed children then complain they can't afford them? I have what I can afford and pay for my own life with MY money earned from working in a shitty horrible job and if that job goes (which it very much might) then I'll deal with it cos it's happened before and it might happen again but the one thing that won't happen is my animals will die because of it.  End of.
		
Click to expand...

~gets the violin out~

'oh, poor ickle jsr......who is so broke, but so moral to give up everything it owns....in a shitty job......and has a chip on it's shoulder the size of Mount Everest.......it's such a shame, everyone else is evilllll....~

~sings in a sing-song voice~


----------



## Spotsrock (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			Oh for goodness sake calm down. I simply pointed out that you should not get on some moral high ground if you keep your horse alive, and look down on me if I decide not to. I was not trying to provoke anyone, though clearly it's very easy to do so from the level of offense you managed to find in my post!

I understand why you don't like the idea, but the fact is that if you had Lottie put to sleep tomorrow and bought another horse on Friday, then another horse somewhere will not go for meat in a Friday market, it will be bought as a riding horse. I understand completely why you want to keep Lottie, but just don't look down on me because I would make another choice. If you would not replace Lottie, ever, then this argument does not apply to you.
		
Click to expand...

I do realise that I am fortunate to be in a position to allow Lots this retirement, she has already been replaced as a working horse and I understand not everyone can do this while their original horse is still costing. 

It is (IMO) a responsible decision not to pass on or fob an old horse off on someone and a brave decision to make which I would not judge.

My point was that the horse being potentially pts somewhere as a result of an old horse not being is in no way more entitled to it's life than the old horse. Yes it's sad that it is possibly young and not had a big shot at life but similarly older horses often earn the privelege in ways younger ones haven't. 

And how damn sad is it that as a society, our horses right to life has been forced to become a privalege(sp)? Gone are the days where you could easily find a couple of acres to retire your aged hunter to for a couple of years for little or no money and cash crops (and wrong weather) have priced hay out of the equation for many too.


----------



## jsr (25 May 2011)

Shilasdair said:



			Actually, I do think I have the moral high ground compared to those who view horses as disposable utensils.
You have the right to PTS any horse that you own that you don't maybe like much, or you can't sell on in the current market.  Even one that is a bit stiffer when ridden than it used to be, or whose colour you've never particularly liked.
It's not a welfare issue, but to me it's a moral/ethical issue, and I have the right to think less of you for your choices.
S 

Click to expand...


Oh I like you!! You say things so much better than I can. Nice to have a voice of reason and sense.


----------



## jsr (25 May 2011)

DragonSlayer said:



			~gets the violin out~

'oh, poor ickle jsr......who is so broke, but so moral to give up everything it owns....in a shitty job......and has a chip on it's shoulder the size of Mount Everest.......it's such a shame, everyone else is evilllll....~

~sings in a sing-song voice~



Click to expand...


Is there a particular reason you need to get so personal or is it just a character flaw? Sorry to reply and continue your delight but forgot to ignore as was busy working but I'd like to thank you for reminding me what tit's there are in the world and for giving me a laugh in my boring job. I'm assuming your job isn't that busy either?


----------



## cptrayes (25 May 2011)

Shilasdair said:



			Actually, I do think I have the moral high ground compared to those who view horses as disposable utensils.
You have the right to PTS any horse that you own that you don't maybe like much, or you can't sell on in the current market.  Even one that is a bit stiffer when ridden than it used to be, or whose colour you've never particularly liked.
It's not a welfare issue, but to me it's a moral/ethical issue, and I have the right to think less of you for your choices.
S 

Click to expand...

You don't have the right without knowing me to suggest that I might have a horse put to sleep because it was the wrong colour. I know you pride yourself in writing offensive things (but always with a smilie, so you can pretend it's just a joke)  to get a reaction Shils, but I didn't think even you would write something that stupid .


----------



## AshTay (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			And they aren't standing in the field counting the days til you have them put to sleep either. I see it as very much the same, depriving one actual horse of life it never new it was going to have and will not miss as depriving a theoretical horse of the possibility of life it does not yet know.  When you don't actually know either horse, it's easy to see it as days of life missed and it not mattering which horse missed it. Not if you know the horse, of course, I understand that.
		
Click to expand...

I agree that depriving an actual horse of a life it never knew it was going to have isn't an evil thing.

But to me it's definitely worse to deprive an actual horse of a life grazing peacefully in a field than it is to deprive a theoretical horse of the possibility of a life it doesn't know. Is every ovulation cycle of a mare a wasted opportunity of a life if she's not sucessfully covered???

(and why do you assume a retired horse is waiting to die - I could suggest that your ridden horses are less happy than my unridden field ornament....).


----------



## Shilasdair (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			You don't have the right without knowing me to suggest that I might have a horse put to sleep because it was the wrong colour. I know you pride yourself in writing offensive things (but always with a smilie, so you can pretend it's just a joke)  to get a reaction Shils, but I didn't think even you would write something that stupid .
		
Click to expand...

I think when you start insulting other posters, for example calling them 'stupid' and saying they write 'offensive things', then you must know that your position is not tenable.
S


----------



## cptrayes (25 May 2011)

Shils if you will write stupid things like suggesting that I (you did use the word "you", a personal pronoun) would have a horse put down because it was the wrong colour, then I think being called offensive and stupid is the least you could expect, no?


----------



## DragonSlayer (25 May 2011)

jsr said:



			Is there a particular reason you need to get so personal or is it just a character flaw? Sorry to reply and continue your delight but forgot to ignore as was busy working but I'd like to thank you for reminding me what tit's there are in the world and for giving me a laugh in my boring job. I'm assuming your job isn't that busy either?
		
Click to expand...

You made it personal by airing your own laundry and telling us how 'woe is me' you are by all the good things you have done for your animals., and you said you put me on ignore, is that because you cannot stand my witty replies?

Now, we can throw insults all day, but I give you this question.

Rent/mortgage or livery?

Which would you pay? And please don't give us your life story once more about having to sell that dear little cottage, I couldn't stand it....

A simple one word answer will do.


----------



## Wagtail (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			I am not ashamed to say that I keep my horses to ride. When they cannot be ridden to the standard at which I want to ride, I owe them either to find them a good home, or if that is not possible, to have them humanely killed. I don't feel that I owe them a home for life if they can't do what they were bred to do.  They don't know, or care, that they could have lived more years. It is only the owner that knows or cares about that.

For every horse whose owner thinks that they owe them the rest of their natural lives as a paddock ornament, there is another sound horse somewhere being killed for no reason at all.

Is it really anything to congratulate yourself for, and feel superior to those of us who do not think the way you do? You are simply saving one horse that you know and condemning another that you don't to death. Meanwhile you are depriving yourself of the absolute joy of riding a horse that you are at one with. Where is the special merit in any of that?
		
Click to expand...

Are you talking about horses or cars?


----------



## Shilasdair (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			Shils if you will write stupid things like suggesting that I (you did use the word "you", a personal pronoun) would have a horse put down because it was the wrong colour, then I think being called offensive and stupid is the least you could expect, no?
		
Click to expand...

Well, I could have used 'one' instead of 'you', I suppose, although that sounds quite dated.
It was a general point, regarding y/our legal rights differing from y/our moral/ethical rights and responsibilities.
I am sure you heard a little 'swoosh'.  
S


----------



## cptrayes (25 May 2011)

AshTay said:



			I agree that depriving an actual horse of a life it never knew it was going to have isn't an evil thing.

But to me it's definitely worse to deprive an actual horse of a life grazing peacefully in a field than it is to deprive a theoretical horse of the possibility of a life it doesn't know. Is every ovulation cycle of a mare a wasted opportunity of a life if she's not sucessfully covered???

(and why do you assume a retired horse is waiting to die - I could suggest that your ridden horses are less happy than my unridden field ornament....).
		
Click to expand...

Gosh, we must be getting close to existentialism now   I think we basically agree that there are worse things for a horse than to be dead, and it's everyone's responsibility to do what they consider is the best for their horse.

I don't assume a retired horse is waiting to die. I am saying that NO horse is waiting to die. They have no concept of their future mortality like humans do, I am convinced of that.


----------



## Spotsrock (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			Shils if you will write stupid things like suggesting that I (you did use the word "you", a personal pronoun) would have a horse put down because it was the wrong colour, then I think being called offensive and stupid is the least you could expect, no?
		
Click to expand...

I believe the pronoun 'you' may have been used in the current common vernacular in which it represents also the phrase 'an individual' or 'someone' or 'people' as in 'you just can't do that' in conversation does not mean that the person being spoken to cannot do something but rather that an individual or people in general should not do what ever is being referred to.

I may be wrong.


----------



## jsr (25 May 2011)

DragonSlayer said:



			You made it personal by airing your own laundry and telling us how 'woe is me' you are by all the good things you have done for your animals., and you said you put me on ignore, is that because you cannot stand my witty replies?

Now, we can throw insults all day, but I give you this question.

Rent/mortgage or livery?

Which would you pay? And please don't give us your life story once more about having to sell that dear little cottage, I couldn't stand it....

A simple one word answer will do.
		
Click to expand...


Livery. 

Oh sorry to write more than one word but just going to yard now to feed my horse with the money I would have used to buy my shoes or feed my child if I could afford to have one so I'm not ignoring your replies but having no internet at home I won't be online again.


----------



## Shilasdair (25 May 2011)

Spotsrock said:



			I believe the pronoun 'you' may have been used in the current common vernacular in which it represents also the phrase 'an individual' or 'someone' or 'people' as in 'you just can't do that' in conversation does not mean that the person being spoken to cannot do something but rather that an individual or people in general should not do what ever is being referred to.

I may be wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Perfectly correct.  
One will try harder with one's grammar in future to avoid being insulted.  
S


----------



## ThePinkPony (25 May 2011)

I know that a rich person would be far more likely to put a horse down than run it on and waste £££s on vet bills.


----------



## cptrayes (25 May 2011)

Shilasdair said:



			Actually, I do think I have the moral high ground compared to those who view horses as disposable utensils.
You have the right to PTS any horse that you own that you don't maybe like much, or you can't sell on in the current market.  Even one that is a bit stiffer when ridden than it used to be, or whose colour you've never particularly liked.
It's not a welfare issue, but to me it's a moral/ethical issue, and I have the right to think less of you for your choices.
S 

Click to expand...

Read it again Shils, and remember that it was printed directly under a quote from me. There is no way that this could be read except as you accusing me of having a horse put to sleep for being the wrong colour, and of using my horses as disposable utensils. If you were not addressing me personally, then you would have written "people have the right ....." but you didn't, you said "you" and in that context "you" could only have meant me. Of course if you do not understand that this is what you wrote, it would go part way to explaining how you manage to write so many posts that seem to be offensive to other people


----------



## hollyandivy123 (25 May 2011)

AshTay said:



			I agree that depriving an actual horse of a life it never knew it was going to have isn't an evil thing.

But to me it's definitely worse to deprive an actual horse of a life grazing peacefully in a field than it is to deprive a theoretical horse of the possibility of a life it doesn't know. Is every ovulation cycle of a mare a wasted opportunity of a life if she's not sucessfully covered???

(and why do you assume a retired horse is waiting to die - I could suggest that your ridden horses are less happy than my unridden field ornament....).
		
Click to expand...

sorry to go off topic but i now have monty pythons every sperm is sacred in my head


----------



## mle22 (25 May 2011)

Good grief people! Maybe we could discuss the ethcs of paying out thousands of pounds to keep crippled animals as 'field ornaments' while millions of people are starving to death?


----------



## cptrayes (25 May 2011)

hollyandivy123 said:



			sorry to go off topic but i now have monty pythons every sperm is sacred in my head

Click to expand...


----------



## Wagtail (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			Will you buy another when he's gone? If not, OK. But if you will get another, and you do not have your elderly fellow put  down tomorrow, then somewhere in a market a perfectly sound horse will go for meat, who would not have gone for meat if you bought a horse to replace yours.

If goes like this:

My horse can't do anything but light hacking any more so I have him put down and buy a Grand Prix baby prospect from someone who can't manage his sharp temperament.

The person who sold me the one with the sharp temperament that they could not manage buys an ISH that someone else finds too strong.

The person who had the too strong ISH buys a gentler ISH from someone who thinks the horse is capable of much more than they are.

The person with the talented ISH goes to the market and pays £500 for a lovely traditional cob in poor condition who was heading for the meat market, loves it and turns it into a super horse who wins local showing competitions.

This last horse is only alive because I had mine put down.

You see??
		
Click to expand...

It's amazing how people can structure their thinking to justify anything really. I have a field ornament. I only wanted one horse, but to put her to sleep was not an option for me. I bought another horse to ride and have not been on holiday for seven years as well as making other 'sacrifices'. But she's worth it. I love her. So no horses were condemmed to death by her retirement. Do you have your dogs PTS too once they start to look a bit old and doddery? You could save a pup if you do that and encourage more to be bred to boot.


----------



## DragonSlayer (25 May 2011)

jsr said:



			Livery. 

Oh sorry to write more than one word but just going to yard now to feed my horse with the money I would have used to buy my shoes or feed my child if I could afford to have one so I'm not ignoring your replies but having no internet at home I won't be online again.
		
Click to expand...

Then oneday, I will be sure to throw you a quid when I see you sat in a doorway. I, on the otherhand, prefer to have a roof over my head, food on the table, and the family fed.

We shall have to agree to disagree then, you put your animals first, and I'll think of the humans. 

....as for the horse, I still stand by original statement, if he cannot settle AGAIN then rather than see him passed on and on and on....PTS at the home he loves might be his last option.

That is all.


----------



## DragonSlayer (25 May 2011)

mle22 said:



			Good grief people! Maybe we could discuss the ethcs of paying out thousands of pounds to keep crippled animals as 'field ornaments' while millions of people are starving to death?
		
Click to expand...

Best Line In Thread Award.


----------



## widget (25 May 2011)

I think this whole ' il get by and my horse will be fine no matter what happens' is very naive as an attitude. Fair enough your horse comes first by if redundancy or illness etc meant you actually couldn't feed that horse or get a vet to it then there's a lot worse than pts. Were would your dogs live if you pat livery and not mortgage? It's all easy when you have friends and family to fall back on for both money and places to put animals. But not everyone has that and a pts animal is not a neglected one and never will be.


----------



## Wagtail (25 May 2011)

DragonSlayer said:



			You really are a strange one, aren't you?

You put me on ignore because you know i'm right.
		
Click to expand...

I think your logic is wrong there. I put people on ignore who I really don't care what they think but they irritate the hell out of me, to stop me wasting my time responding to them. I only have one person on ignore at the moment though.


----------



## DragonSlayer (25 May 2011)

widget said:



			I think this whole ' il get by and my horse will be fine no matter what happens' is very naive as an attitude. Fair enough your horse comes first by if redundancy or illness etc meant you actually couldn't feed that horse or get a vet to it then there's a lot worse than pts. Were would your dogs live if you pat livery and not mortgage? It's all easy when you have friends and family to fall back on for both money and places to put animals. But not everyone has that and a pts animal is not a neglected one and never will be.
		
Click to expand...

Be careful, you might get called a tit!


----------



## AshTay (25 May 2011)

hollyandivy123 said:



			sorry to go off topic but i now have monty pythons every sperm is sacred in my head

Click to expand...

That made me snort my tea because that's what I was thinking when I wrote that but couldn't bring myself to type it. lol.



hollyandivy123 said:



			Originally Posted by mle22  
Good grief people! Maybe we could discuss the ethcs of paying out thousands of pounds to keep crippled animals as 'field ornaments' while millions of people are starving to death?
		
Click to expand...

Hmm. The thousands of pounds I spend keeping my crippled horse as a field ornament wouldn't even make a scratch on world poverty. But the work that i do earning that money does contribute to the health of humankind so can I please be given the ethical stamp of approval!!

If you're going to start that line of argument there's a way to go before you get down the list to hobby horse owners...


----------



## brighteyes (25 May 2011)

Spudlet said:



			I would sooner see a horse PTS that passed on and on and on in a downward spiral, because I have seen the bottom of that spiral and it ain't pretty. I've no wish to see horses shot. But I would rather that than see some of the other stuff I've seen - and still see, some nights when I'm asleep. 

Horses are kept safe from harm because they have financial value, and sentimental value. Sadly, an unrideable horse with ongoing health or behavioural problems has little financial value, and unless it's your horse, that you love, it has little sentimental value either, at least not to anyone else. So what keeps those horses safe when they're given away? You are really shoving them out there into the cold. When you take on an animal, you take on the responsibility to keep it safe and protect it from harm, to the best of your ability, for the rest of its life. That means you feed it, and water it, and care for it, and make it well when it's sick, and if you can't do that any more you find it a good and trusted home, and if you can't do that, you face the fact that actually, death is not the worst fate that animal can suffer. And you cry your tears and you live with the guilt, because that is the deal. That's the bargain. They give us everything, and they ask for so little in return - but part of our half of the bargain is a peaceful ending, without fear or pain.

And I'm sorry if people don't like it. I'm sorry if people think I'm a horse killing psycho. But I will carry on saying what I do, because I believe it to be right.
		
Click to expand...

That is about the best view I have read on this subject and apart from not having the balls to go with the first statement, I see the principle behind it.  The rest is my view entirely, too.


----------



## DragonSlayer (25 May 2011)

Wagtail said:



			I think your logic is wrong there. I put people on ignore who I really don't care what they think but they irritate the hell out of me, to stop me wasting my time responding to them. I only have one person on ignore at the moment though.
		
Click to expand...

My logic is fine, but you can think it's wrong it you want, it's not against the law.... the poster was not answering my questions, so that makes me think that the poster cannot answer them. But finally I got an answer, so all is well.


----------



## Spudlet (25 May 2011)

Good grief, this has turned into something almost as good as the great turnout debate!

Out of interest, how does the field ornament argument work (I'm using the term loosely of course) for horses that were never intended to be ridden? As I always thought I'd want a horse primarily to be ridden, but since helping with my friend's youngster, I've found that to be just as much fun as riding, despite the fact I won't be getting on board myself, and I can now see the attraction of having the odd pet pony as well as just riding horses?

Hell, I might even teach them tricks while I'm at it

Also wondering if I should kill my dog now to save a puppy... or something Come'ere dog, it's for the Greater Good!


----------



## cptrayes (25 May 2011)

Wagtail said:



			It's amazing how people can structure their thinking to justify anything really. I have a field ornament. I only wanted one horse, but to put her to sleep was not an option for me. I bought another horse to ride and have not been on holiday for seven years as well as making other 'sacrifices'. But she's worth it. I love her. So no horses were condemmed to death by her retirement. Do you have your dogs PTS too once they start to look a bit old and doddery? You could save a pup if you do that and encourage more to be bred to boot.
		
Click to expand...

Wagtail you bought another horse to ride and it is perfectly clear from what I wrote that the example therefore DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR SITUATION.

Well done you for keeping your horse alive. I am sure that she is happier than the ones that I have watched five of my friends keep alive long past when it was obvious to someone who was not emotionally attached to them that they were in constant pain. 

Personally I would rather know the horse was in no possibility of me mistaking whether or not they were in pain, and leaving things a day too late, but that's my choice.


----------



## Shilasdair (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			Read it again Shils, and remember that it was printed directly under a quote from me. There is no way that this could be read except as you accusing me of having a horse put to sleep for being the wrong colour, and of using my horses as disposable utensils. If you were not addressing me personally, then you would have written "people have the right ....." but you didn't, you said "you" and in that context "you" could only have meant me. Of course if you do not understand that this is what you wrote, it would go part way to explaining how you manage to write so many posts that seem to be offensive to other people 

Click to expand...

I am not going to trade personal insults with you, no matter what.
I will just point out that I have yet to receive a permanent or even temporary ban in over 18000 posts since 2006.
S


----------



## Wagtail (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			Shils if you will write stupid things like suggesting that I (you did use the word "you", a personal pronoun) would have a horse put down because it was the wrong colour, then I think being called offensive and stupid is the least you could expect, no?
		
Click to expand...

Having a horse put down because you cannot ride it to the level you would like (as stated in your post) is as bad in my opinion as putting it to sleep for being the wrong colour, so I don't see why you take offence.


----------



## Wagtail (25 May 2011)

ThePinkPony said:



			I know that a rich person would be far more likely to put a horse down than run it on and waste £££s on vet bills.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say 'more' likely, but 'just' as likely, yes. It depends upon how they view horses.


----------



## Shilasdair (25 May 2011)

Wagtail said:



			Having a horse put down because you cannot ride it to the level you would like (as stated in your post) is as bad in my opinion as putting it to sleep for being the wrong colour, so I don't see why you take offence.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think she will get this point.
I am interested that she didn't mind the other hypothetical reasons - not liking the horse, it becoming a bit stiffer.  Perhaps those are acceptable?
S


----------



## cptrayes (25 May 2011)

Wagtail said:



			Having a horse put down because you cannot ride it to the level you would like (as stated in your post) is as bad in my opinion as putting it to sleep for being the wrong colour, so I don't see why you take offence.
		
Click to expand...

I think if you read my posts you would find that I have already said that would only have a horse put down if it was not possible to find it a good home. 

You think that's the same as putting a horse down because it is the wrong colour. How very odd.


----------



## Wagtail (25 May 2011)

mle22 said:



			Good grief people! Maybe we could discuss the ethcs of paying out thousands of pounds to keep crippled animals as 'field ornaments' while millions of people are starving to death?
		
Click to expand...

Completely irrelevant. This is a horse forum, not a foreign aid forum.


----------



## cptrayes (25 May 2011)

Shilasdair said:



			I don't think she will get this point.
I am interested that she didn't mind the other hypothetical reasons - not liking the horse, it becoming a bit stiffer.  Perhaps those are acceptable?
S 

Click to expand...

I picked the most unreasonable bit to keep my post succinct Shils. I note that you have never been banned in 18,000 posts but I have also noted that it is not unkown for threads in which you participate strongly to be withdrawn altogether due to the amount of acrimony the threads start to generate


----------



## Shilasdair (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			I picked the most unreasonable to keep my post succinct Shils. I note that you have never been banned n 18,000 posts but I have also noted that it is not unkown for threads in which you participate strongly to be withdrawn altogether due to the amount of acrimony the threads start to generate 

Click to expand...

Really?
Name one thread that I posted that has been withdrawn?
Or are you saying I am responsible for anyone who posts on my threads, who lacks the control to avoid personal insults?  Surely such people ought rather to take responsibility for what they say/do?
S


----------



## POLLDARK (25 May 2011)

Spudlet said:



			I would sooner see a horse PTS that passed on and on and on in a downward spiral, because I have seen the bottom of that spiral and it ain't pretty. I've no wish to see horses shot. But I would rather that than see some of the other stuff I've seen - and still see, some nights when I'm asleep. 

Horses are kept safe from harm because they have financial value, and sentimental value. Sadly, an unrideable horse with ongoing health or behavioural problems has little financial value, and unless it's your horse, that you love, it has little sentimental value either, at least not to anyone else. So what keeps those horses safe when they're given away? You are really shoving them out there into the cold. When you take on an animal, you take on the responsibility to keep it safe and protect it from harm, to the best of your ability, for the rest of its life. That means you feed it, and water it, and care for it, and make it well when it's sick, and if you can't do that any more you find it a good and trusted home, and if you can't do that, you face the fact that actually, death is not the worst fate that animal can suffer. And you cry your tears and you live with the guilt, because that is the deal. That's the bargain. They give us everything, and they ask for so little in return - but part of our half of the bargain is a peaceful ending, without fear or pain.

And I'm sorry if people don't like it. I'm sorry if people think I'm a horse killing psycho. But I will carry on saying what I do, because I believe it to be right.
		
Click to expand...

For me this hits the nail on the head, couldn't put it better myself. Right on !


----------



## cptrayes (25 May 2011)

Shilasdair said:



			Really?
Name one thread that I posted that has been withdrawn?
Or are you saying I am responsible for anyone who posts on my threads, who lacks the control to avoid personal insults?  Surely such people ought rather to take responsibility for what they say/do?
S 

Click to expand...

Why do you assume that I only mean threads that you started? Have PM'd you to remind you of one of mine that you participated strongly in that got withdrawn totally. Let's take the rest of this argument offline and stop boring people shall we  ?


----------



## Shilasdair (25 May 2011)

Cptrayes - do not send me any more PMs, thank you.

I don't think you can hold me responsible for HHO members' inability to exercise self control in their posts/threads.

I certainly don't hold you responsible for my actions.

S


----------



## Wagtail (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			Wagtail you bought another horse to ride and it is perfectly clear from what I wrote that the example therefore DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR SITUATION.

Well done you for keeping your horse alive. I am sure that she is happier than the ones that I have watched five of my friends keep alive long past when it was obvious to someone who was not emotionally attached to them that they were in constant pain. 

Personally I would rather know the horse was in no possibility of me mistaking whether or not they were in pain, and leaving things a day too late, but that's my choice.
		
Click to expand...

If you are unable to tell whether a horse is in constant pain, then maybe you don't understand horses? Much as it would sadden me, I would have my mare PTS in an instant if I thought she was suffering in any way. In fact the day she did her injury, I stayed up with her all night and had made the decision to PTS if she was still the same in the morning. Thankfully she was much brighter so she got the chance to live. She has the odd set back and I know that her life is a shortened one because there will come a day when she doesn't bounce back. But for now, she's as happy as I've ever seen her and causing all sorts of trouble with her cheeky antics. If I had not been able to afford another horse then yes, I would have still retired her, but your thinking on saving another horse is flawed because I would NEVER put her to sleep just so I had a horse to ride. I don't value a horse that can be ridden over a horse that cannot. Why should my horse die if she's happy, to save a horse I don't even know?


----------



## cptrayes (25 May 2011)

Wagtail said:



			If you are unable to tell whether a horse is in constant pain, then maybe you don't understand horses? Much as it would sadden me, I would have my mare PTS in an instant if I thought she was suffering in any way. In fact the day she did her injury, I stayed up with her all night and had made the decision to PTS if she was still the same in the morning. Thankfully she was much brighter so she got the chance to live. She has te odd set back and I know that her life is a shortened one because there will come a day when she doesn't bounce back. But for now, she's as happy as I've ever seen her and causin all sorts of trouble with her cheeky antics. If I had not been able to afford another horse then yes, I would have still retired her, but your thinking on saving another horse is flawed because I would NEVER put her to sleep just so I had a horse to ride. I don't value a horse that can be ridden over a horse that cannot. Why should my horse die if she's happy, to save a horse I don't even know?
		
Click to expand...

I agree. If one is unable to tell when a horse is in constant pain then one should not keep them. I can, but I see people EVERYWHERE who can't. Personally, I would rather have a horse of mine put to sleep years early than make an honest mistake in the emotion of knowing and loving a horse too well, which must always be a risk with a horse one has owned for a long time. 

I'm not remotely interested in whether you personally choose to keep your horse alive Wagtail, as long as she is not in pain. Do what you want, and let me do the same, will you?


----------



## Wagtail (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			I think if you read my posts you would find that I have already said that would only have a horse put down if it was not possible to find it a good home. 

You think that's the same as putting a horse down because it is the wrong colour. How very odd.
		
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, you are putting it down because you cannot ride it to the level you want. If you can't get rid to someone else, you PTS right? If the horse is healthy and happy and it's only crime is that it can't do what you want to the level you want then that is no different in my eyes to a prson who shows paints killing solid coloured foals.


----------



## mle22 (25 May 2011)

Wagtail said:



			Completely irrelevant. This is a horse forum, not a foreign aid forum.
		
Click to expand...

For people who wear blinkers and can't see how daft the whole thread is.


----------



## cptrayes (25 May 2011)

Wagtail said:



			At the end of the day, you are putting it down because you cannot ride it to the level you want. If you can't get rid to someone else, you PTS right? If the horse is healthy and happy and it's only crime is that it can't do what you want to the level you want then that is no different in my eyes to a prson who shows paints killing solid coloured foals.
		
Click to expand...

"Get rid of it to someone else". What a wonderfully emotive term!

Yes, if a horse is unsound and there is no job for it to do, and I cannot find someone who I trust to take it on as a paddock ornament, then I will put it to sleep.

Perhaps if people had been through the experience that I have been through they would have a different view of how safe it is to rehome unsound horses. 

I had a horse with mild lameness due to spavins, who I was DIRECTED by my vet to get him working down off the hills where I live. I sold him for a low sum to a girl in Cambridge, who I had references for and whose immaculate premises I saw in an extensive photographic record. He went with a very tight contract limiting how she could deal with him. She starved him in just 14 weeks to the point where the RSPCA approved finance for a prosecution. When I was alerted to his problems, I went and negotiated his release back into my care. That cost a LOT of money but it was the right thing to do. 

I loved that horse to pieces, as does everyone who comes in contact with him, except that one woman. I would sooner see another horse of mine dead than ever see a horse I cared for in this state again:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IaGqwoQlnmA/RdWayC2aqOI/AAAAAAAAAD0/RiKQEUg0q70/s1600-h/DSCN0793WR.jpg

he had left me 14 weeks before looking like this:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6682/2311/1600/Tetley 1.2.jpg


----------



## baymareb (25 May 2011)

What an entertaining thread!

My opinion on the original post (does anyone remember the original post?) -

I get that the OP is talking about people who purchase horses when they really can't afford them, then get into a situation where they cannot afford treatment and so put them to sleep. I agree that's a poor way to make decisions and not particularly fair to the horse.

And while I agree that it happens, it's mostly impossible to tell if that's a person's real situation or if they've come upon hard times or what, so it's really not fair to judge unless you know someone personally and are intimately acquainted with their situation. 

For me, it all comes down to what's best for the horse at the moment. If - for whatever reason, whether poor judgment or bad luck - someone can't afford to treat their horse, then I'd say the poor thing was probably better off PTS. What are the other options, after all? It's all very well to say it shouldn't happen - it does happen and rather than a horse suffering for lack of treatment, or being sold unsound and probably ending up in a situation as bad or worse, I'd rather see it PTS.

I will comment that I found it odd that the OP said this -



Devonshire dumpling said:



			I find it very difficult when people say things like you have to live life, get a horse if it gets sick and you can't afford it cross that bridge when you get to it?
		
Click to expand...

but about ex-racers being sold into questionable homes, said this -



Devonshire dumpling said:



			Thats pretty selfish imo, ppl are so up their own arses they assume know one else could look after horses, alot of ppl do look after horses well, including ex racers, why pts incase its not looked after properly, I am sure the horse would use life and see what happens...
		
Click to expand...


----------



## MissMincePie&Brandy (25 May 2011)

In my humble opinion, I believe that the horse is an animal who lives for the moment. He can't reason, and he doesn't have the ability to predict or plan for the future.  It is up to us to care for them correctly, so that they are able to live healthily and are physically and mentally comfortable.   
I think that if a horse has no 'use' and if no one is willing to look after him to the correct standard, then humanely being PTS before the horse suffers any form of neglect is not a bad thing to happen.


----------



## joeanne (25 May 2011)

bakedbean said:



			Far better to belong to the "PTS Society" than the "Miserable Trawled Round the Sales Society" 

Click to expand...

A-Frikkin-Men to that!


----------



## Shilasdair (25 May 2011)

bakedbean said:



			Far better to belong to the "PTS Society" than the "Miserable Trawled Round the Sales Society" 

Click to expand...

Better yet to belong to the 'My Owner Does the Best for Me (Not Her) Society'.
S


----------



## MissMincePie&Brandy (25 May 2011)

Shilasdair said:



			Better yet to belong to the 'My Owner Does the Best for Me (Not Her) Society'.
S 

Click to expand...

Mine belong to this society


----------



## jenki13 (25 May 2011)

jsr said:



			Oh sorry missed this little tarade. So sorry I don't know your full life story..must try harder to keep up with a busy forum. But you quiet obviously like to play the woe is me card.  You got all these horses you are trying now to sell/kill when you had money I take it..therefore did you make provision for the future???? Guessing that's a no. Which was the OP's point originally incase you missed it?  

Sympathy for you not having a holiday in 3 years...pah try 10 years sweetie. Sympathy for trying to feed you son... never met a really poor person in this country with kids, child benefits so don't pull that one. It's your fault the horses that you carelessly bought when you thought you knew it all and had money pouring in are suffering and to expect other people to be sympathetic and understanding is just damn right funny.(if it wasn't so sad that a perfectly healthy horse is being threaten to die)  

If you couldn't afford them come what may then you shouldn't have got them in the first place...simple really when you think about it. I can't afford a 5 horse lorry with living and luxury holidays, so guess what? I don't get them. 

You made your bed and now your unforunate horses are suffering for it. Greedy selfish people.

Oh and before you pen your witting clever rely don't bother cos opinions of people like you really don't matter so I'll be putting you on ignore..got to love that ignore button.
		
Click to expand...

So, your saying that someone who owns a horse has to be able to predict exactly what's going to happen in the future! I find that pretty laughable to be honest. No one can say they can afford something "come what may" you have no idea what could happen tomorrow. 

For example, I had a motorbike accident, I was layed up in hospital for 12 days, I couldn't work properly for months. I got a P/T job for 2hrs twice a week, 4 months after the accident. Those 2 hours exhausted me, because of the injuries I had. I would never have been able to hold down a F/T job & my insurance pay-out?... £900, that's less than 2 months rent in most houses. I was extremely lucky to be back in my old waitressing job after 6 months. Luckily my horse is kept on my families land & is relatively cheap to keep. 

However if that had been my Dad in the accident it would have been a whole different story. Yes my parents have savings, but its amazing how quickly those savings get used when you have a mortgage & bills to pay along with car insurance & horse bills. We don't have sky TV, the mobile phones cost £20/month total & ok we could let go of the internet I think that's about £120/yr.. If we had to sell the house I'd almost certainly have to sell the horse.. It would cost too much in travelling to keep her. Also if she injured herself landing us with a 15K vet bill in that time then no we wouldn't be able to afford it.. 

Could we foresee that accident. No. I'd ridden that road countless times going to work everyday & going to the local town to see friends etc. We couldn't foresee that one day that back wheel would skid & even at just 30mph there's no way the bike could be regained. Sorry but I'll just go try & sell my 13yr old mare, that hasn't got a proven competition record because I can't  foresee Every eventuality


----------



## Spudlet (25 May 2011)

How about the 'We do really quite like horses and therefore will do the best we can by them, not ruling out the possibility that this may include euthanasia due to illness, injury, severe and insurmountable behavioural difficulty, change of personal circumstances or some other unforseeable event, and we will certainly not be passing them on unless we know full well, insomuch as it is ever possible to know, that we are not sending them into the downward welfare spiral' society?

Quite large badges needed for that one


----------



## jenki13 (25 May 2011)

Spudlet said:



			How about the 'We do really quite like horses and therefore will do the best we can by them, not ruling out the possibility that this may include euthanasia due to illness, injury, severe and insurmountable behavioural difficulty, change of personal circumstances or some other unforseeable event, and we will certainly not be passing them on unless we know full well, insomuch as it is ever possible to know, that we are not sending them into the downward welfare spiral' society?

Quite large badges needed for that one

Click to expand...

^^ 
I'll join this one. Maybe we should just get t-shirts? Easier to fit it all on


----------



## DragonSlayer (25 May 2011)

Spudlet said:



			How about the 'We do really quite like horses and therefore will do the best we can by them, not ruling out the possibility that this may include euthanasia due to illness, injury, severe and insurmountable behavioural difficulty, change of personal circumstances or some other unforseeable event, and we will certainly not be passing them on unless we know full well, insomuch as it is ever possible to know, that we are not sending them into the downward welfare spiral' society?

Quite large badges needed for that one

Click to expand...

Can I join this one please?


----------



## Wagtail (25 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			"Get rid of it to someone else". What a wonderfully emotive term!

Yes, if a horse is unsound and there is no job for it to do, and I cannot find someone who I trust to take it on as a paddock ornament, then I will put it to sleep.

Perhaps if people had been through the experience that I have been through they would have a different view of how safe it is to rehome unsound horses. 

I had a horse with mild lameness due to spavins, who I was DIRECTED by my vet to get him working down off the hills where I live. I sold him for a low sum to a girl in Cambridge, who I had references for and whose immaculate premises I saw in an extensive photographic record. He went with a very tight contract limiting how she could deal with him. She starved him in just 14 weeks to the point where the RSPCA approved finance for a prosecution. When I was alerted to his problems, I went and negotiated his release back into my care. That cost a LOT of money but it was the right thing to do. 

I loved that horse to pieces, as does everyone who comes in contact with him, except that one woman. I would sooner see another horse of mine dead than ever see a horse I cared for in this state again:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IaGqwoQlnmA/RdWayC2aqOI/AAAAAAAAAD0/RiKQEUg0q70/s1600-h/DSCN0793WR.jpg

he had left me 14 weeks before looking like this:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6682/2311/1600/Tetley 1.2.jpg

Click to expand...

Wow, that is awful! No, I have never had such an experience but then I have never actually sold a horse in 30 years of owning them. They have been PTS for humane reasons or loaned. I did give one horse away - to my sister.

Maybe it was the wording of your original post that irked me when you said that you would put a horse to sleep (if you couldn't find a good home) because you could not ride it to the level you wanted. But  despite that awful experience you had, you would still try to rehome first? Yes? Which mans you must think that PTS is worse for the horse than the risk of the new home not being all it's cracked up to be.


----------



## MissMincePie&Brandy (25 May 2011)

Spudlet said:



			How about the 'We do really quite like horses and therefore will do the best we can by them, not ruling out the possibility that this may include euthanasia due to illness, injury, severe and insurmountable behavioural difficulty, change of personal circumstances or some other unforseeable event, and we will certainly not be passing them on unless we know full well, insomuch as it is ever possible to know, that we are not sending them into the downward welfare spiral' society?

Quite large badges needed for that one

Click to expand...

oh, mine are definitely in this one


----------



## DragonSlayer (25 May 2011)

jenki13 said:



			So, your saying that someone who owns a horse has to be able to predict exactly what's going to happen in the future! I find that pretty laughable to be honest. No one can say they can afford something "come what may" you have no idea what could happen tomorrow. 

For example, I had a motorbike accident, I was layed up in hospital for 12 days, I couldn't work properly for months. I got a P/T job for 2hrs twice a week, 4 months after the accident. Those 2 hours exhausted me, because of the injuries I had. I would never have been able to hold down a F/T job & my insurance pay-out?... £900, that's less than 2 months rent in most houses. I was extremely lucky to be back in my old waitressing job after 6 months. Luckily my horse is kept on my families land & is relatively cheap to keep. 

However if that had been my Dad in the accident it would have been a whole different story. Yes my parents have savings, but its amazing how quickly those savings get used when you have a mortgage & bills to pay along with car insurance & horse bills. We don't have sky TV, the mobile phones cost £20/month total & ok we could let go of the internet I think that's about £120/yr.. If we had to sell the house I'd almost certainly have to sell the horse.. It would cost too much in travelling to keep her. Also if she injured herself landing us with a 15K vet bill in that time then no we wouldn't be able to afford it.. 

Could we foresee that accident. No. I'd ridden that road countless times going to work everyday & going to the local town to see friends etc. We couldn't foresee that one day that back wheel would skid & even at just 30mph there's no way the bike could be regained. Sorry but I'll just go try & sell my 13yr old mare, that hasn't got a proven competition record because I can't  foresee Every eventuality 

Click to expand...

I'd say, bad on you for daring to have the accident in the first place!

I guess none of us should have any animal at all if we just can't see what is around the corner and see into the future....


----------



## mymare (25 May 2011)

Spudlet said:



			How about the 'We do really quite like horses and therefore will do the best we can by them, not ruling out the possibility that this may include euthanasia due to illness, injury, severe and insurmountable behavioural difficulty, change of personal circumstances or some other unforseeable event, and we will certainly not be passing them on unless we know full well, insomuch as it is ever possible to know, that we are not sending them into the downward welfare spiral' society?

Quite large badges needed for that one

Click to expand...


Where do I sign up?


----------



## Echo Bravo (25 May 2011)

Cptrayes and JSR. I really do think you both have to sit back and look how vitrol your posts have gotten towards other posters. I did read the oringinal post several times, trying to understand what they were trying to say, very obscure indeed or I'm getting dimwitted with old age. Several people have given honest answers to the post and know which they hadn't.


----------



## cptrayes (25 May 2011)

I'm happy with everything I wrote thankyou Echo Bravo. It's a bit much to link me with JSR though! Please feel free to put me on ignore, anyone who does not like what I write.


----------



## mle22 (25 May 2011)

Spudlet said:



			How about the 'We do really quite like horses and therefore will do the best we can by them, not ruling out the possibility that this may include euthanasia due to illness, injury, severe and insurmountable behavioural difficulty, change of personal circumstances or some other unforseeable event, and we will certainly not be passing them on unless we know full well, insomuch as it is ever possible to know, that we are not sending them into the downward welfare spiral' society?

Quite large badges needed for that one

Click to expand...

I'll join this one too


----------



## cbmcts (25 May 2011)

Spudlet said:



			How about the 'We do really quite like horses and therefore will do the best we can by them, not ruling out the possibility that this may include euthanasia due to illness, injury, severe and insurmountable behavioural difficulty, change of personal circumstances or some other unforseeable event, and we will certainly not be passing them on unless we know full well, insomuch as it is ever possible to know, that we are not sending them into the downward welfare spiral' society?

Quite large badges needed for that one

Click to expand...

I like it 

As I understand the OP - it is infuriating when people get horses without having the plans and (realistic) funds. As we all know, it's not just the livery money that needs to be found every week...I think that is irresponsible to say the least.

But that attitude spreads to every part of their life - think of all the people who live on credit, buying everything they WANT rather than what they can afford - the difference is that animals suffer when the house of (credit) cards collapses unlike goods which are inanimate and get sold, repoed or whatever.

However, I disagree with the OP that PTS is the worse option in these circumstances. If you have an animals with issues, expensive or otherwise and you cannot or do not want to deal with it, why on earth do you think that anyone else will want it? It's not as if average horses are a rare or valuable commodity at the moment, nor can they be stored without cost until someones situation improves. If it is a good 'useful' horse it has a value to the next owner and as such has a reasonable chance of a good home. If it's not - well, I always think of Spindles Farm...most of those poor souls were in private homes at some point in their miserable lives.

I have 2 retired horses, one through injury and age (who I bought at 16 yo) and one 15yo who I've owned since weaning. The 15yo is physically healthy but very nervous and can be dangerous when frightened or the handler isn't confident. I don't know how many times I've been told to 'get rid' - and tbh it has been tempting at times - but he is going nowhere. I know full well that there are better and braver riders than me out there who could probably get a good tune out of him but realistically, why would they want him? There are much easier, better horses that cost exactly the same to keep, are more fun to handle and ride. The chances of him finding the 1 in a 1000 home that would love him are too slim for me to risk his future in the other 999. Call me arrogant if you wish but I think too much of him to consign him to such an uncertain future if my circumstances change. 

I have held apparently healthy horses to be shot before now but I firmly believe that securing their future is more important than taking a chance.


----------



## Queenbee (25 May 2011)

Devonshire dumpling said:



			If the horse needs PTS then course it should be done, i am referring to horses put to sleep because owners can't afford a bill!
		
Click to expand...


Ok, so we all know a perfect world would be great, we would live in a  society where all horse owners had oodles (I love that word!) of cash to spare, and would be able and willing to use said cash on any vets bills that their horse incurred (but in a 'perfect' world, there would be no need for vets bills).

Problem is that  we are never ever going to have said perfect world, so on that basis DD if someone had a horse with a condition that was going to prove very costly to treat and they couldn't necessarily afford the fees what would you have them do, give away to someone who says they will treat the horse or PTS?  Are they in fact being responsible by PTS, they know what they are able to do and what they are not, they make a judgement call, perhaps it is not in line with yours, but they are using their judgement.

Also, its a bit like saying that you shouldn't get a mortgage to buy a house, you should only buy a house if you can buy it outright with cash because you may lose your job and then not be able to make your mortgage payments.


----------



## rubysmum (25 May 2011)

Cop-Pop said:



			I think I get what the OP is getting at.  A few years ago a woman bought herself a very nice TB despite knowing she was going to struggle financially when she bought it.  She bought him in the spring so had him on grass livery and was able to save up for a couple of second hand rugs.  His vaccinations were due but she couldnt afford the vet so let them slide and the same with worming although she did do him sporadically so better than nothing.  When he cut his leg open she couldn't afford the vet so treated it herself, sadly it ws a nasty wound needed stitches and it got infected.  The YO (farmer who just rented the field out and didn't have anything to do with it) spotted him a few days later and paid for him to be pts and taken away after she once again refused to have the vet out because she didn't have the money 

Click to expand...

i think there is a massive difference between someone who REALLY cant afford even the basic running costs of their horse and someone like myself who manages [ by careful budgetting] to cover all they day to day costs BUT would struggle to find an additional 2 grand plus if medical care went beyond my 5 grand insurance - i insure my horse to ensure that she can have a large amount of money spent on medical care BUT am not  prepared to destroy my savings [ meant for total family emergencies] & perhaps stop my daughter going to uni - in my world no animal is worth that


----------



## Queenbee (25 May 2011)

Originally Posted by mle22  
Good grief people! Maybe we could discuss the ethcs of paying out thousands of pounds to keep crippled animals as 'field ornaments' while millions of people are starving to death?
Completely irrelevant. This is a horse forum, not a foreign aid forum.



Wagtail said:



			Completely irrelevant. This is a horse forum, not a foreign aid forum.
		
Click to expand...

I vote for world peace


----------



## Queenbee (25 May 2011)

DragonSlayer said:



			I'd say, bad on you for daring to have the accident in the first place!

I guess none of us should have any animal at all if we just can't see what is around the corner and see into the future....
		
Click to expand...

Now that i've seen the light and I can't afford the gazzilion pounds bills that may or may not be around the corner, have dumped the Jackass (see signature) and decided I shouldn't have horses... far better to have shoes and handbags (costs less to fix/replace them). What should I do?  Sell at sales/give away/PTS


----------



## Flame_ (25 May 2011)

Sadiemay said:



			As long as a horse is PTS humanely and in a calm manner where the horse has no concept of what is about to happen whats the problem here really? 
Sadiemay
		
Click to expand...

This is pretty much where I'm coming from and I'd love to see a decent answer. I've still got a happy 31 year old and 28 year old, both retired for over ten years with "pet status". 

I've since had two much younger horses PTS because they couldn't be ridden. Should I be wracked with guilt? If so, why, when we've near enough agreed its not cruel to the horses to pts, certainly no crueler than it is to a lamb who is about to become someone's dinner? Do people just not like that people can be so emotionally detached from their horses that they can be ok with having them killed when they can't work? Is it that the horse will miss out on years of its natural life? Again, this happens to farm animals all the time, so why is it a moral problem with horses but not cows?


----------



## Holly Hocks (25 May 2011)

I haven't read the whole load of replies as it's now up to 24 pages, but to an extent I do agree with the OP.  I think people see horses in different ways.  To me, they are my life.  They are the reason I get up in a morning and they give me purpose in life.  I work to pay for them, so whatever they need, they get, and I will go without things to pay for them.  But I do understand that to professional riders and trainers, they are a commodity, and not pets.  But then the other half of me says that if the horse is a commodity and only there to make money, then maybe the owner/trainer should go into a job which doesn't involve ending a life at the end of it and make money by other means.


----------



## Shilasdair (25 May 2011)

Flame_ said:



			This is pretty much where I'm coming from and I'd love to see a decent answer. I've still got a happy 31 year old and 28 year old, both retired for over ten years with "pet status". 

I've since had two much younger horses PTS because they couldn't be ridden. Should I be wracked with guilt? If so, why, when we've near enough agreed its not cruel to the horses to pts, certainly no crueler than it is to a lamb who is about to become someone's dinner? Do people just not like that people can be so emotionally detached from their horses that they can be ok with having them killed when they can't work? Is it that the horse will miss out on years of its natural life? Again, this happens to farm animals all the time, so why is it a moral problem with horses but not cows?
		
Click to expand...

I understand your point of view, but personally believe that my horses have as much right to a happy life as I have, so I try to provide one.
I dislike the idea that any animal is 'disposable', although I know that they are considered so.
S


----------



## Echo Bravo (25 May 2011)

I think that posters are starting to go round and round in circles over this as we each have our own ideas of keeping and looking and loving their horses. I'm lucky as I own my own property and yard and have had several over upteem years that I've had pts at home. Not everyone has that option and if they couldn't find a 2nd home for said horse and they knew it would keep going downwards in the horse market then pts. As I've said I'm one of the lucky ones, so my oldies or cripples etc, I can keep, until the time they go, I've only had one horse die on and he was 11 years old with a heart attack, the others, 1 in her late teens, 3 in their mid twenties and 1 36 years old. Those that don't have their own property have to do livery,which most of us know can be expensive, if they have their horse pts, because they know they cann't afford for it to be paddock chewer for it's natural life well for one I wouldn't blame them, as they are doing their best for THEIR animal


----------



## councillor (25 May 2011)

"I then decided after the sad day came when he kidneys were affected to have him PTS and couldn't afford to do that again with another horse."

What changed after you had to have him PTS to make you decide you could not afford to have another horse. If it were a change in circumstances financially, what would you have done if you still had your horse, but your new circumstances led you to be in a position where you could no longer afford to go over and beyond you insurance limit? 

Perhaps you are right that if you can't afford day to care of a horse, then you shouldn't buy one. But I feel insurance is part of the day to day care, it is in place to cover such problems. But I really do think you are being way to idealistic to think you can  prepare for every eventuality. I feel if you can comfortably afford your premium then you are being more than fair in preparing for your horses emergency care.

" I can't help but think sometimes horses are put down because of financial reasons and if you didn't buy this horse in the first place, someone with lots of money may have bought them and they would not have been PTS...."

To suggest that someone who has more money than me would make a better life for my horses is a dam right insult.  
This is the points that have made me feel a little irked by the OP's attitude. 
As for my Pony who is very lame and not responding to treatment. I don't own him, he is on loan to me....from someone who has way more money than me, and who so far has not given a penny towards his treatment. In the last two years I have spent £6000 on him and I have nothing left....but still the better off owners do nothing....I have no idea what I can do now, but if he goes back he will get PTS and that makes me angry. Having money doesn't make you a better owner, having the heart to do your best, that does.


----------



## Echo Bravo (25 May 2011)

Councillor. I don't think most of us think because you have money, 1) You don't care, 2) You would buy a sick or derange horse to give it a life, I think that was the orginal post. And the post like Topsy has grown. You love your loan pony and have paid alot of money out for him. I once had a lovely old cob on permant loan, his owner would turn up every so often to ride and leave him still tacked up for me to sort out (she had a horse allergy?). We had him for over 3 years, we paid for everything except his insurance as that was in her name. He went down with laminitas badly,vet wanted to put him down, she said No, kept him going for another 2 weeks, and he was in agony,then she said yes, she wanted him to be either buried or cremated, till she was told the price. So we got local hunt out, pts within 2 hours. Guess who had to foot the bill. Loaning maybe a good thing within some people but I would never do it again and at the end of it it is the owner who has the final say. And she had let the insurance lapse


----------



## Natch (26 May 2011)

Flame_ said:



			This is pretty much where I'm coming from and I'd love to see a decent answer. I've still got a happy 31 year old and 28 year old, both retired for over ten years with "pet status". 

I've since had two much younger horses PTS because they couldn't be ridden. Should I be wracked with guilt? If so, why, when we've near enough agreed its not cruel to the horses to pts, certainly no crueler than it is to a lamb who is about to become someone's dinner? Do people just not like that people can be so emotionally detached from their horses that they can be ok with having them killed when they can't work? Is it that the horse will miss out on years of its natural life? Again, this happens to farm animals all the time, so why is it a moral problem with horses but not cows?
		
Click to expand...

Its a moral problem to me personally because my horses are pets - they're not just for ridden life  

I accept, but am not really comfortable with people PTS a pain free but unable to be worked horse, if they've been a person's own horse and not a business. That's probably because I extend my own feelings about what my horses mean to me onto other people, but I do realise that othes feel differently, and indeed that everyone's circumstances are unique.  

I hope never to have to be in the position to make a decision about a healthy animal's life on the basis of money. 

I haven't really read the last 20(!) pages, but if I'm missing a point here do excuse me, I haven't been to bed yet


----------



## skewby (26 May 2011)

Hate coming to a long thread late as it's virtually pointless to reply but had to here as OP I am totally with you on this one.

I have just come to the decision to buy a 2yo as my horse is now 13/14 and I do need to think about his successor.  First thing I did was finances, second thing was time and doing them both justice.

I have thought it through very carefully and also every eventuality - that if I can't afford them both either money- or time-wise, the youngster will be sold as it will have a CV and prospects and the utmost done to find him an excellent home.  I will have had fun and experience to boot.  The older horse will absolutely not be shot if he does not require it as he would have if he'd remained my only mount!

Yes PTS is better than either passing it on because it has issues, mental or physical, or because it is no longer a contented animal.  My lad is a work addict, I have concerns about how to manage a retirement for him but if I can do it, i.e. he is happy, he shall have that for as long as he needs.

I think the key is, PTS is right when it is the best option for the HORSE, and not the best option for YOU.

Also totally with you on the "it's quirky (hate that word.  What exactly is wrong with it?  What haven't you fixed or what have you caused?) so I couldn't possibly pass it on, noone else will understand/manage/treat it like I do".  Incredibly egotistical and not in the horse's best interests.

At risk of sounding like a sycophant also with you on the twisting words/not reading properly thing.  It's made me take a hol from here recently, it's so irritating when you pose a question, readers see what they want to see and post a response to a different issue, other readers read their responses and take their view of what you have said as what you have said...and it descends.  But that is less important than the constant forum cry of "PTS!!" in so many situations where the animal is NOT genuinely at risk of ending up as a Spindle's Farm case.


----------



## LadyRascasse (26 May 2011)

I am sorry but it will always be quality of life over quantity


----------



## MerrySherryRider (26 May 2011)

skewby said:



			Hate coming to a long thread late as it's virtually pointless to reply but had to here as OP I am totally with you on this one.

I have just come to the decision to buy a 2yo as my horse is now 13/14 and I do need to think about his successor.  First thing I did was finances, second thing was time and doing them both justice.

I have thought it through very carefully and also every eventuality - that if I can't afford them both either money- or time-wise, the youngster will be sold as it will have a CV and prospects and the utmost done to find him an excellent home.  I will have had fun and experience to boot.  The older horse will absolutely not be shot if he does not require it as he would have if he'd remained my only mount!

Yes PTS is better than either passing it on because it has issues, mental or physical, or because it is no longer a contented animal.  My lad is a work addict, I have concerns about how to manage a retirement for him but if I can do it, i.e. he is happy, he shall have that for as long as he needs.

I think the key is, PTS is right when it is the best option for the HORSE, and not the best option for YOU.

Also totally with you on the "it's quirky (hate that word.  What exactly is wrong with it?  What haven't you fixed or what have you caused?) so I couldn't possibly pass it on, noone else will understand/manage/treat it like I do".  Incredibly egotistical and not in the horse's best interests.

At risk of sounding like a sycophant also with you on the twisting words/not reading properly thing.  It's made me take a hol from here recently, it's so irritating when you pose a question, readers see what they want to see and post a response to a different issue, other readers read their responses and take their view of what you have said as what you have said...and it descends.  But that is less important than the constant forum cry of "PTS!!" in so many situations where the animal is NOT genuinely at risk of ending up as a Spindle's Farm case.
		
Click to expand...

Good post Skewby.
Shils also - brilliant.

I disagree with the notion that if a horse is no longer able to do the job it was purchased for and cannot be found a good home, the owner is entitled to PTS, not because of poverty, but because it is useless to them and therefore have the right to take its life away and replace it with a working model. Thankfully Carl Hester does not share this view.
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/307414.html

Many decent riders with limited funds value their horses in retirement. For those in difficult unforseen circumstances, no criticism, when life takes a turn for the worse, choice is the first luxury to be lost.


----------



## cindydog (26 May 2011)

Not read any replys, so sad you lost a horse you loved, I understand you not wanting to go through not only the cost ( above your insurance ) the pain of losing your horse again.
Yes, horses do get  PTS, as no pennies for treatment costs. 
You cant sell on as who wants to buy a horse that is going to cost them lots of money in vet bills.
I would love an equine insurance company who would pay for lifelong treatment ( quality of life applies) other readers might know one.
If you are not buying your own,  going to a local yard  at least you would still get to ride.


----------



## Amymay (26 May 2011)

Cptrays, you have spoken so much sense in this post.

Thank you.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (26 May 2011)

amymay said:



			Cptrays, you have spoken so much sense in this post.

Thank you.
		
Click to expand...

What ? Mr. Disposable-my-horse-is-useless-I'll-get-it-shot-and-buy-a-shiny-new-one ?


----------



## cptrayes (26 May 2011)

Ah but Amymay knows that's not what I said, doesn't she? Thanks Amymay, cheque's in the post 

Can someone point me to the threads containing the "constant cry" of people are recommending a poster to put a healthy and behaviourly sane horse to sleep? I have never seen one.


----------



## Lady La La (26 May 2011)

... but you did say this:




cptrayes said:



*I am not ashamed to say that I keep my horses to ride. When they cannot be ridden to the standard at which I want to ride, I owe them either to find them a good home, or if that is not possible, to have them humanely killed. I don't feel that I owe them a home for life if they can't do what they were bred to do.* 

* ...You are simply saving one horse that you know and condemning another that you don't to death*. Meanwhile you are depriving yourself of the absolute joy of riding a horse that you are at one with. Where is the special merit in any of that?
		
Click to expand...

... and have failed to answer, when questioned, why the hell by retiring  a horse that has worked for me for 20 years ... I am directly responsible for condemning another horses death? The notion is ridiculous.

As I've already mentioned, I know the kindness a well placed bullet can bring... however I don't chose to throw my horses away as soon as they reach retirement. The fact that you do, is down to your own (selfish) reasons, but as long as it is done humanely... there isn't much to be said on the matter. 

I just find it quite bizare that by allowing my horses to live out their days in comfortable retirement, you believe I am responsible for the deaths of many others?


----------



## ApacheWarrior (26 May 2011)

Just read the first few posts on this thread - every case is different in my opinion.  I don't believe you can live your life on "what ifs" - or you would never do anything and never have any fun in life.  If a horse is no longer useful to the owner in any way, shape or form, then there must come a point where you have to either give it away to someone who can keep it in a field for the rest of its days at little expense, or have it PTS.  No way should you pay livery for it for the rest of its days if it is causing you financial difficulties  - that could go on for years.  And where are these people who have a few thousand put aside for the "what ifs"?  In this day and age, most people are struggling financially.  Horse insurance surely is there to cover the "what ifs" and anything over and above that would surely be an extreme case.  On the other side of the coin, I know of someone who has had a horse for 3 years, and only ridden it twice when she first got it.  It is an ex racehorse and has since then had about £30k in vets bills spent on it (which the rest of us are supplementing by our insurance fees).  It will never be ridden again, it is bad tempered, angry and in pain yet she wont PTS - now that is wrong!


----------



## Hippona (26 May 2011)

DragonSlayer said:



			What mobile phone, oh...the one that never has credit? Sky? WTF is that? We havent had a holiday in 3 years, the house is up for sale. 

You talk out your arse my dear. Who can predict redundancy? Can you? Jolly good, you will save people alot of heart-ache.

Are you daft? He is NOT the only one I have for sale. Read that as you wish.

Last time we we had a meal out?

Can't remember.

So get off your high-horse Sunshine, telling me to 'suck it up' when you know jack s**t about what people have gone through to get to this point., I fully know my responsibilities, and to have him PTS is a far better action than allowing the poor devil to suffer at the hands elsewhere.

When it comes to feeding my son or my horse, my son will win.
		
Click to expand...

***applauds***

Same here....I love my horses- I can afford to buy and keep them and look after them PROPERLY....if my circumstances changed then I'm afraid my husband and children come first. I wouldn't deprive them of food / roof over their head/ chance of Uni etc etc to put the horses first. And if the horses were aged/tricky/injured etc and if I thought PTS was the better option then I would do it without a shadow of doubt and I wouldn't give a stuff what anyone else thought- because until they'd been me in my circumstances then they wouldn't have the right to judge.


----------



## Maesfen (26 May 2011)

Spudlet said:



			I would sooner see a horse PTS that passed on and on and on in a downward spiral, because I have seen the bottom of that spiral and it ain't pretty. I've no wish to see horses shot. But I would rather that than see some of the other stuff I've seen - and still see, some nights when I'm asleep. 

Horses are kept safe from harm because they have financial value, and sentimental value. Sadly, an unrideable horse with ongoing health or behavioural problems has little financial value, and unless it's your horse, that you love, it has little sentimental value either, at least not to anyone else. So what keeps those horses safe when they're given away? You are really shoving them out there into the cold. When you take on an animal, you take on the responsibility to keep it safe and protect it from harm, to the best of your ability, for the rest of its life. That means you feed it, and water it, and care for it, and make it well when it's sick, and if you can't do that any more you find it a good and trusted home, and if you can't do that, you face the fact that actually, death is not the worst fate that animal can suffer. And you cry your tears and you live with the guilt, because that is the deal. That's the bargain. They give us everything, and they ask for so little in return - but part of our half of the bargain is a peaceful ending, without fear or pain.

And I'm sorry if people don't like it. I'm sorry if people think I'm a horse killing psycho. But I will carry on saying what I do, because I believe it to be right.
		
Click to expand...

This has to be one of the best posts of the whole thread, although I agree with AmyMay too that cptrayes has made some excellent replies as well and given this thread a better balance.

Whatever your thoughts on this, only one thing must be common to all, that you do your best for your horse at all times.  It's all that they need and deserve.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (26 May 2011)

Whatever happened to the notion of caring for a good and faithful servant, as many horses have been ? 

To have a horse shot because no one else offers a good home, when the owner has the means to keep it, is surely abhorrent ?


----------



## cptrayes (26 May 2011)

How many of you have secured your horses futures for after YOU die?

I watched five horses be neglected for many years, not badly enough to call the RSPCA because they had food and water. They were in pain, wormy and uncared for, exposed to the elements 24/7 on a barren Peak Park hillside. The young woman who owned them died. Her non horsey parents could not bear to let them go, they were the last reminder of their daughter. Those horses suffered until finally four of them were put to sleep and the last taken to a rescue centre.

You love your horse so much that you keep it alive. Someone else is not going to have that emotional bond and may take it to an abattoir and sell it for meat,  or send it through the auctions.

Make a will securing your horse's future before you congratulate yourselves on doing the best for your horses. That will probably mean that you need to leave at least £300 to someone to have the horse put to sleep, or thousands to keep it alive to feed it AND the £300 to eventually have it put down. I hope you have that saved in the bank?


----------



## Lady La La (26 May 2011)

I actually agree with a lot of what you say, Cptrayes
... but you still haven't explained to me, why I am directly responsible for another horses death when I chose to retire my own? Sorry to sound like a broken record, but I still haven't had an answer?

Also, I dont think anyone is disputing the fact that having a horse PTS in many of these circumstances, is a bad thing. We all know there are far, far worse fates out there for our horses...


----------



## Flame_ (26 May 2011)

I think a lot of people forget about the fairly common circumstances which arise with young but useless horses. For me, ethically it is a very different thing to pts a twenty odd year old horse which has worked for you for fifteen years and now needs to retire, but what about when a twelve year old you've had for five years can't work, or a six year old you've had six months? I can understand why to some people the second set of circumstances is worse, but to me its just not realistic to spend most of my wages on a horse to be a pet all its life. 

Skewby, you've got it all figured out. What if your new youngster's hocks pack up aged about eight and its only field sound, just when your other horse needs total retirement? Buy a third horse? Stop riding any horses of your own until the oldest is ready to euthanize then get a new riding horse and keep the other retiree all the rest of its natural life as a pet? Lucky horses if you are in a situation and are prepared to do that, you are talking about many, many years though.

For me that would be too much money to spend on my hobby, which is riding  not looking after horses although of course there is some overlap, when I wasn't actually getting to do the hobby!


----------



## cptrayes (26 May 2011)

Lady La La said:



			... but you did say this:




... and have failed to answer, when questioned, why the hell by retiring  a horse that has worked for me for 20 years ... I am directly responsible for condemning another horses death? The notion is ridiculous.

As I've already mentioned, I know the kindness a well placed bullet can bring... however I don't chose to throw my horses away as soon as they reach retirement. The fact that you do, is down to your own (selfish) reasons, but as long as it is done humanely... there isn't much to be said on the matter. 

I just find it quite bizare that by allowing my horses to live out their days in comfortable retirement, you believe I am responsible for the deaths of many others?
		
Click to expand...

I stand by what I wrote and I believe that many people would write the same if they did not get attacked the way I am being attacked by you and other people.

I have never said you are directly responsible for condemning another horse to death, but the fact remains that if you go and buy another horse today, there is a horse somewhere which will not end up in a tin of catfood. This is true for any of us. I could afford more horses, but I do not feel that I am responsible for condemning any horses to death for not buying more, and neither should you.

But what I do not think you should do is condemn me because I choose not to keep an unsound horse alive as a paddock ornament and I would buy a new one. We are both keeping the same number of horses alive, I just don't personally know the horse who is alive because I replaced mine. And the one who is dead does not care.


----------



## Lady La La (26 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			I stand by what I wrote and I believe that many people would write the same if they did not get attacked the way I am being attacked by you and other people.

I have never said you are directly responsible for condemning another horse to death, but the fact remains that if you go and buy another horse today, there is a horse somewhere which will not end up in a tin of catfood. This is true for any of us. I could afford more horses, but I do not feel that I am responsible for condemning any horses to death for not buying more, and neither should you.
		
Click to expand...

I certainly haven't attacked you... merely asked you a question. 

& you DID say I would be responsible for condemning another horse to death if I retired my own. 
Your reasoning here makes no sense, either. My retired horse will, eventually, be PTS - and no doubt replaced with another. By your reasoning, I *have* 'saved' another horse from death - just a few years later.

Dont try and paint you having your horses destroyed when they are no longer rideable as anything other than selfish. You certainly aren't 'saving' any more lives.


----------



## M_G (26 May 2011)

horserider said:



			What ? Mr. Disposable-my-horse-is-useless-I'll-get-it-shot-and-buy-a-shiny-new-one ?
		
Click to expand...

At no point did CPT ACTUALLY say that.
Shils implied that they did.


----------



## cptrayes (26 May 2011)

Lady La La said:



			I certainly haven't attacked you... merely asked you a question. 

& you DID say I would be responsible for condemning another horse to death if I retired my own. 
Your reasoning here makes no sense, either. My retired horse will, eventually, be PTS - and no doubt replaced with another. By your reasoning, I *have* 'saved' another horse from death - just a few years later.

Dont try and paint you having your horses destroyed when they are no longer rideable as anything other than selfish. You certainly aren't 'saving' any more lives.
		
Click to expand...

I have checked and I did not use the word responsible, never mind "directly", that I can find. That came from you. 

I am not "saving" a life. But I am replacing one life with another. You are no better than me in what you do. You can believe it if it makes you feel better about yourself, but for the horse population our actions are the same, except that no horse of mine has even the remotest possibility of being left in low grade, chronic pain life the horses of my friends that I see all around me.


----------



## soulfull (26 May 2011)

DD I'm sorry but I do think you are self righteous

I have horses as I love them AND they are what gives me a reason to get up in the morning.

I lost my teenage daughter some 10 years ago, she was everything to me. Her horse was what gave me reason to go on with my life, not just go to pieces and curl in a corner

I have had horses ever since

Then 6 years ago my husband of 23 years up and left.

I have RA and  ankle replacement has reduced my income drastically 

However I still bought a new horse!!   TO RIDE not to pet.  I would not keep a horse I could not ride.  I love riding and it is why my RA is better than ever.  I honestly believe without the riding I would not physically be able to look after a horse for long.  It is the riding that keeps me moving.
If I had to I think I would PTS a horse that I could not ride or rehome properly.  whether I could actually do it on the day is another matter BUT it would be what I intended to do, right or wrong it is MY life and I feel I owe it to my daughter to have as good a life as I can because hers was cut short so tragically

So despite the fact that horses are my life  you are telling me that because I couldn't afford £xxx for vet fees I shouldn't have them.  just how much should someone be able to afford before 'you' think they should have a horse?

Sorry but stuff you!!!!

My horse is insured and I could scrape £500-£2000 if I sold my lorry over night for silly money.  but not without selling it.  I only have £300 in the bank

He has shoes EVERY 6 Weeks
chiro 3 times already this year
Dentist twice a year
jabs are up to date

Vet was called for a minor swelling (no lameness) just because it was near a tendon


----------



## Wagtail (26 May 2011)

Lady La La said:



			I certainly haven't attacked you... merely asked you a question. 

& you DID say I would be responsible for condemning another horse to death if I retired my own. 
Your reasoning here makes no sense, either. My retired horse will, eventually, be PTS - and no doubt replaced with another. By your reasoning, I *have* 'saved' another horse from death - just a few years later.

Dont try and paint you having your horses destroyed when they are no longer rideable as anything other than selfish. You certainly aren't 'saving' any more lives.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly. Also, the more people who PTS horses so that they can get a shiney new one, the higher the demand and threfore the more horses are bred. The whole cycle goes round again.

I also asked why I should put my mare who I adore PTS in order to save a new horse that I don't even know? She is my horse of a lifetime. 

If more people kept their horses until they needed to be PTS for humane reasons then far fewer animals would be bred and therefore suffer at the hands of unscrupulous owners or go for meat.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (26 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			I am not ashamed to say that I keep my horses to ride. When they cannot be ridden to the standard at which I want to ride, I owe them either to find them a good home, or if that is not possible, to have them humanely killed. I don't feel that I owe them a home for life if they can't do what they were bred to do.
		
Click to expand...




M_G said:



			At no point did CPT ACTUALLY say that.
Shils implied that they did.
		
Click to expand...

I think he did.


----------



## Lady La La (26 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			Yes I said you would be responsible, in that another horse would be saved if you did buy a replacement for yours. But this is a LONG way from being "directly" responsible, which is what you said I had accused you of, and I did not.

I am not "saving" a life. But I am replacing one life with another. You are no better than me in what you do. You can believe it if it makes you feel better about yourself, but for the horse population our actions are the same, except that no horse of mine has even the remotest possibility of being left in low grade, chronic pain life the horses of my friends that I see all around me.
		
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that mine are?
 'Responsible' means just that, whether directly so or otherwise... I am not responsible for the death of another horse by allowing mine to retire.
Also, you say I'm 'no better' than you - at what point was I trying to be?

Yet another post from you that leaves my questions unanswered. 
My horse will be PTS eventually, just not the very minute that she ceases to be of any ridden use to me. When this happens, another will be bought - somewhat dissproving your theory that, by putting your animals down as soon as they need to be retired, you are helping the equine world...


----------



## cptrayes (26 May 2011)

Wagtail said:



			Exactly. Also, the more people who PTS horses so that they can get a shiney new one, the higher the demand and threfore the more horses are bred. The whole cycle goes round again.

I also asked why I should put my mare who I adore PTS in order to save a new horse that I don't even know? She is my horse of a lifetime. 

If more people kept their horses until they needed to be PTS for humane reasons then far fewer animals would be bred and therefore suffer at the hands of unscrupulous owners or go for meat.
		
Click to expand...

Oh Wagtail please don't be silly. No-one has ever suggested that you should have your own horse put to sleep!  It doesn't make you a better person than me if you don't though.

HE is a SHE. There are women who can think as logically as men do


----------



## cptrayes (26 May 2011)

Lady La La said:



			Are you suggesting that mine are?
 'Responsible' means just that, whether directly so or otherwise... I am not responsible for the death of another horse by allowing mine to retire.
Also, you say I'm 'no better' than you - at what point was I trying to be?

Yet another post from you that leaves my questions unanswered. 
My horse will be PTS eventually, just not the very minute that she ceases to be of any ridden use to me. When this happens, another will be bought - somewhat dissproving your theory that, by putting your animals down as soon as they need to be retired, you are helping the equine world... 

Click to expand...

This is just stupid now. I did not use the word responsible. You did.

I am not helping the equine world and I never claimed to be.

But get off your high horse please, by keeping your horse alive and me having mine put down, the effect on the equine world as a whole is identical.


----------



## Lady La La (26 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			This is just stupid now. I did not use the word responsible. You did.

I am not helping the equine world and I never claimed to be.

But get off your high horse please, by keeping your horse alive and me having mine put down, the effect on the equine world as a whole is identical.
		
Click to expand...

Quite - so dont try to paint a positive spin on your selfish actions.

(& no you used the word 'condemn' - perhaps worse?  )


----------



## cptrayes (26 May 2011)

Well I think that's the end of any sensible discussion, eh folks 

Just off outside to feed the horses I selfishly want to ride  Ooh, better feed the paddock ornament too or he might bite my knees.


----------



## Lady La La (26 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			Ooh, better feed the paddock ornament too or he might bite my knees.
		
Click to expand...

... so you DO keep unrideable horses 
 What was the last 25 pages then, Bravado & bull*****?


----------



## skewby (26 May 2011)

Wagtail said:



			Exactly. Also, the more people who PTS horses so that they can get a shiney new one, the higher the demand and threfore the more horses are bred. The whole cycle goes round again.

I also asked why I should put my mare who I adore PTS in order to save a new horse that I don't even know? She is my horse of a lifetime. 

If more people kept their horses until they needed to be PTS for humane reasons then far fewer animals would be bred and therefore suffer at the hands of unscrupulous owners or go for meat.
		
Click to expand...

That's a very good point too and one I hadn't considered.

Shooting a healthy older horse who's served you well just because you want a different one, selling it on when you know its useful life is truly in doubt and its prospects are poor, and keeping a horse alive beyond when it is comfortable because you don't have the balls to PTS or face your grief afterwards, are all despicable and I don't believe that anyone is truly advocating any of those things on this thread.

Lovely lovely story about Carl Hester too, just terrific news.


----------



## EAST KENT (26 May 2011)

If one has a horse and it is older than say fourteen ,then I believe that it should stay in a secure home for however long that owwner chooses.I absolutely hate seeing old horses on "the merrygoround" .However if someone chooses to keep horses for the love of them,has their own land and keeps them well..then why not?
  It is a totally different thing if an owner has to pay livery fees,and I do sympathise .I have two horses,my own land .On average they cost me no more than (tops) £1000 a year,to include foot care ,hayledge ,everything. Not moaning at that,and both girls will live out their lives here.Both are rideable ,and occasionally are,but the pleasure of having two charming mares far outweighs that for me.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (26 May 2011)

Yes, lovely to hear about Carl Hester having Escapado back for retirement.

Incidentally, recall seeing a rather cute little grey pony amongst some very smart horses at JP Sheffields ultra smart yard. It was his childhood pony enjoying a rather lovely retirement.


----------



## skewby (26 May 2011)

horserider said:



			Yes, lovely to hear about Carl Hester having Escapado back for retirement.

Incidentally, recall seeing a rather cute little grey pony amongst some very smart horses at JP Sheffields ultra smart yard. It was his childhood pony enjoying a rather lovely retirement.
		
Click to expand...

Heartwarming and something that ponies get more rarely than horses too I feel xxxx


----------



## cptrayes (26 May 2011)

He does the job he was bought to do. He makes me smile. Hell, he makes EVERYONE smile 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-i1hZIT26RY8/Tc15ow3ZerI/AAAAAAAAAsI/ds0Sf62Y8lU/s1600/PICT0040.JPG


----------



## Lady La La (26 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			He does the job he was bought to do. He makes me smile. Hell, he makes EVERYONE smile 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-i1hZIT26RY8/Tc15ow3ZerI/AAAAAAAAAsI/ds0Sf62Y8lU/s1600/PICT0040.JPG

Click to expand...

... we all have one


----------



## cptrayes (26 May 2011)

skewby said:



			Quote:
Originally Posted by Wagtail View Post
Exactly. Also, the more people who PTS horses so that they can get a shiney new one, the higher the demand and threfore the more horses are bred. The whole cycle goes round again.

If more people kept their horses until they needed to be PTS for humane reasons then far fewer animals would be bred and therefore suffer at the hands of unscrupulous owners or go for meat.

End quote.


That's a very good point too and one I hadn't considered.That's a very good point too and one I hadn't considered.
		
Click to expand...

It's a nonsense point. If the market was ever going to self balance it would do it now. Some more people keeping paddock ornaments will not change overbreeding as long as there is  a meat market for the ones at the bottom of the pile.  There are people who deliberately breed knowing that if they cannot sell them as riding stock they can get a few quid profit for meat. While that continues, so will overbreeding.  Whether you personally keep your horse alive or not, it will have no impact on stopping people overbreeding, the numbers of paddock ornaments are too small compared to the hundreds of horses going for meat every week.


----------



## Wagtail (26 May 2011)

Lady La La said:



			... we all have one





Click to expand...

I don't.


----------



## Flame_ (26 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			It's a nonsense point. If the market was ever going to self balance it would do it now. Some more people keeping paddock ornaments will not change overbreeding as long as there is  a meat market for the ones at the bottom of the pile.  There are people who deliberately breed knowing that if they cannot sell them as riding stock they can get a few quid profit for meat. .
		
Click to expand...

Most of us wouldn't buy horses from that sort of production though. Many people only buy quality horses who do tend to be bred by responsible breeders who do assess the market before breeding and who do adjust their breeding numbers according to changes in demand. Yes there will always be divs prepared to breed just for meat money and potentially a bit more if the odd horse sells as a riding horse, but those horses are not, generally speaking, the ones people on here buy when their horse is destroyed.

Breeders do have some responsibility here in that they should only be breeding horses likely to produces foals who will be conformationally sound and healthy, so less likely to need early retirement.


----------



## cptrayes (26 May 2011)

Yes Flame, you buy the best you can afford. That leaves the next person down buying the next best, and so on down the chain until the last person at the bottom is buying a horse which would otherwise go for meat.

It does  not matter where you personally buy from. Somewhere at the bottom of the chain, a dealer who operates at the bottom end of the market, or a person who likes to take on rescue cases, will buy a horse at auction which otherwise would go for meat.

It's like house-buying. There's a chain with the lowest value house at the end of the chain. 

Breeders do NOT have a responsibility to produce good riding horses. There is a perfectly legitimate business to be made out of breeding horses for the meat market. It may be distasteful to many people on this forum but it is a) legal and b) no different from breeding cows pigs and sheep for the same purpose.

If you have a cat or a dog, you depend on that trade for its food.


----------



## Lady La La (26 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			Somewhere at the bottom of the chain, a dealer who operates at the bottom end of the market... will buy a horse at auction which otherwise would go for meat.
		
Click to expand...

...treat it appaullingly, drag it around another few markets, starve it half to death and then charge some poor unsespecting fool money to 'rescue' it...

...All the more reason to keep horses into their retirement, if you ask me...


----------



## M_G (26 May 2011)

cptrayes said:



			If you have a cat or a dog, you depend on that trade for its food.
		
Click to expand...

In some countries they are the food.


----------

