Useless Horses

So, to get started, what to you constitutes a useless horse? This subjected tugged at me a bit because I myself may be faced with owning a "useless" horse in the near future. My family is preparing to take back a horse they bred years ago, who might also prove to be of little or no use as a riding horse. At some point or another, we are all faced with the difficult decision of what to do with a horse who no longer meets our needs for whatever reason.

While I have some strong opinions on this matter myself, I recognise this is not a black-and-white issue and in fact has a lot of grey areas.

What defines a horse as useless? It might be a horse no longer able to compete at the level it was formerly at or it could be a horse who is no longer rideable at all, for a variety of reasons. Is it okay to dispose of these horses, whether via (either directly or indirectly) slaughter or to another owner? Under what circumstances is disposing of these horses ethical? Where do we draw the line between accomplishing our own goals and unselfishly ensuring the best for our horse?

Most of us can only afford one, maybe two horses. We have our own individual goals we would like to accomplish, which varies from being able to trail ride to jumping a 1.50m or larger course, or maybe working cattle. When a horse becomes unsuitable to our personal needs and goals, we have to decide whether to lower our goals, push aside our goals or give up on them completely, or to find a new horse more suitable. When a horse is unsuitable for training reasons, it is generally regarded as a-okay to sell said horse for one more suited to our riding style or needs, one who is more appropriate. However selling a horse because it no longer meets our goals is sometimes frowned upon. That said, in large part the reason is because if the horse no longer meets our own needs, it likely may not meet the needs of other individuals out there, especially if it is a horse who is say pasture-sound-only or such. As such, the horse is more likely to then be shunted off to eventually meet its fate on someone's dinner plate as opposed to someone's pasture or barn. What about the ones we sell because they do not meet our training or riding level (ie. too much horse), though? Can't they be inclined to meet the same fate, especially if they are extreme in their behaviours? So then how are the horses who no longer meet our needs disqualified? Do we owe it to a horse to keep them for life if they have been our partner for 1 month? 6 months? 1 year? 5 years? Where's the line?

I'm of the personal opinion that while we may not directly owe anything to a horse, it is certainly in the horse's best interests to ensure they have a solid future, to the best of our abilities and knowledge. It's an animal whose life and well-being depends on us. As such, while we may not specifically owe anything to that animal, I think that both ethically and morally, it is our obligation to do our best by that animal.

This is where I draw my line(s):
The horse we've used for competition for a number of years, the horse who has given us so much and who has been our partner throughout, is especially deserving of our efforts toward his best interests. This includes NOT bandaiding him together as we further compete on him to serve our own selfish interests, meanwhile causing deterioration to old injuries or arthritic joints (etc). If he needs meds or painkillers to compete, it is your duty to take a step back and re-evaluate. Is he capable of continuing to compete at the level he is at? If competing him at the same level, on meds/painkillers, is causing further deterioration, is that ethical? The answer is most definitely no for me, however we see horses competing, bandaided together only by drugs, every day. If the horse is thus unsuitable but your competition goals remain higher than the horse's current ability, I honestly see no wrong in selling or giving away such a horse - with full disclosure and ensuring he goes to the best and most suitable home possible, even if that means losing the money you were counting on obtaining for his replacement. This includes not further damaging the horse then selling it when it is possibly no longer capable of even being ridden under-saddle. Same follows for the horse who proves to be too much or too little horse - if your safety or confidence is jeopardized or you will be unable to accomplish your own goals, I see no wrong in re-homing the horse. Provided the horse's best interests are served at all times, which unfortunately might include losing money. After all, riding has to be fun for us too.

What about the horse who has become a pasture puff? While I do not like the idea of giving up a horse simply because it is of no use to us any longer, I also keep in mind that we are often restricted by finances. Is it fair to never accomplish our own goals because we can only afford the one horse? I don't think so... but again, I feel it is our moral obligation to find said horse a good home as a companion horse or pasture puff... or to euthanise said horse. I could never send any of my own horses to slaughter, however I do not have an issue with slaughter per se, provided it is humane (and that is another topic entirely, one previously covered). Supporting a pasture puff has its benefits of course (ie., having said horse around), but it can also place great restrictions on the owner, so all factors have to be considered.

Here's my current situation:
I currently own a 15yo Quarab gelding, a 10yo DWBx gelding, a 3yo CWB mare, a 6yo TB gelding, and an 8yo TB gelding (in addition to a sale horse at this time). The reason I can afford the latter three horses - and thus pursue my own competitive goals - however, is because I have the first two leased out. They are homebreds whom I do not wish to sell, however I have financial restrictions just as any other. If they were not homebreds, I have to admit I would probably have sold them. Both are fantastic horses who will likely find great homes - they are in high demand due to their experience and individual traits: the DWBx is a packer with great jumping ability and the Quarab is highly athletic and a good all-rounder who has done everything from work cattle to participate in large parades and even work as a pony horse on the track. However neither are going to meet my upper-level show jumping goals. Personally I see no wrong in ensuring they have great homes, and moving on; that said, these special horses may go out on lease indefinitely but will never be sold. I want to ensure nothing ever happens. So that leaves me with three horses to support, one of which might end up as a pasture puff (we'll know more come spring with further tests etc). What do I do with a pasture puff? Horses are not inexpensive to keep and maintain. Of course this entire point may be moot (hopefully we can get him sound!), but it is something I have already had to consider in preparation. In my case, I can afford to keep him on pasture and as long as he is comfortable, I will probably keep him. If I have to give him up eventually, it will not be because the costs to maintain him hinder my show career - that would be too difficult for me to swallow (though I do not judge in that regard). He would either be given to a good home or be euthanised. On the other hand, for me personally, if my 6yo Thoroughbred gelding does not meet my competitive goals, he will stay with me - I have invested a lot into that horse and have formed a strong partnership with him, so selling is not an option (same follows for any of my partners I have invested so much into). That said, he would likely be leased or such so I could concentrate on my jumper-bred mare; in my case I am blessed and lucky to have been able to afford the mare so I can pursue my own goals, while still being able to support my other horses. However it can be a bit of a juggle and owning 5 horses can place financial restrictions on say emergency care (say for example surgery for something) for one of the 5, as opposed to if I only had one or two (that said, my horses want for nothing and I will have insurance on at least a couple of them this coming year). So, there are many factors one must consider and weigh out carefully when deciding whether or not to keep a horse!

I highly respect the individuals who have either completely dropped or altered their riding goals to suit their current horse. I have done so myself many a time, however never to the extent of completely sidelining my goals forever (such as if I had a horse become a pasture puff and could never afford another horse to compete on whilst supporting the pasture puff), though many of my goals have been greatly delayed by various limitations, including those of my horses. I do not regret it for one moment though, however I am still young and able to pursue my goals. I think too it may be easier for some to sideline or alter their riding goals than others, so I always keep that in mind as well.

All considered though, what to do with a horse who no longer meets your expectations, ie. a useless horse, is a very grey area subject to a great deal of factors and privy to a lot of room for opinion. Speaking to my vet really broadened my perspective as well. I think the difference is whether or not you did your best to ensure the horse's best interests were served. We are only human, after all and we can only do so much. In the end, if the horse is happy and well taken care of, I am a happy camper and have no complaint! I just do not think the decision of what to do with a horse should ever be taken lightly.

Fall sale ads

I usually try to leave the Fugly blog alone (and have, for awhile now, to my credit), but I felt Cathy's latest was just over the top, especially posting the individual in question's phone number and information.

I don't understand who you think you are, Cathy, that you can criticize people for selling their horses because they lack the financial ability to care for said horses? What do you want??! They keep their horses and said horses starve due to lack of financial means, you cry foul. They sell their horses because they lack the financial means to care for them, prior to said horses receiving inadequate care as a result of lack of funds - you cry foul. Hell, you even post their numbers on your blog, in case the ad is removed from CL, so as to ensure your sheep have the right phone number to chew someone a new one.

The ad, from the Fugly blog:

“MUST SELL NO FOOD FOR THE WINTER!!! Quarter Horse Buckskin Mare. 6 yrs old, has been used as a trail horse. This mare has been ridden at the big Carolyn ride a few years ago. Was registered but I never got the papers She is truly worth taking a look at her! $100.00

Also, a 2 yr old Warm Blood. Not gelded. Has had a saddle as a yearling and we have lead children around on him. Asking $400.00 will consider all offers.

I am posting this for the neighbor next door so please refer to his phone # for any questions or make an appointment to come and see them. Emails will not be answered. Wausau Area. Phone Josh at ###-###-####″

She even has the audacity to post the following:

A rescuer friend of mine got a call yesterday from some folks who wanted her to take a mare off their hands because she was skinny because of the four month old foal at her side. And they couldn’t afford the vet because they had just taken in two other mares, one of them pregnant!

Yes, cuz heaven forbid someone take a skinny mare and foal to a rescue!! What's the history of said mare, did they rescue her originally? Did something change financially for the individuals so that they could no longer care for said mare? Are these types of situations not what rescues are for?? Now, I do not quite understand that last line - does Cathy mean the individuals could not afford the vet because they had just taken two other mares (one of them pregnant) into the vet for care or (more likely) because they had just taken in two other mares into their care, one of which being pregnant? So, did they take in or purchase these other mares (cheap) ie. rescue them, or did they buy them for some ridiculous price? Because if that (preceding reason) be the case, how could we blame someone for taking on three mares and sending one of them to a rescue because they could not afford vet care for three mares, one nursing and one pregnant? I mean, they could have turned all three mares into the rescue, yet are instead choosing to care for two of them out of their own pocket??!! Am I missing something?

I did look up hay in Wisconsin. Not sure yet why I don't live there, as hay is fairly cheap, lol. Some of the bales are $1.50 each first cut. Average price though is $2.50 (take note where I am hay is at minimum double that) it seems. I looked up small squares only because not everyone has the equipment necessary to feed round bales. So let's assume you have to start feeding now (Oct) through until the end of April. At minimum. That's 7 months of feed, which is 210 days of feeding. Minimum. Say you pay the average of $2.50 per bale and let's just say each bale weighs in at 50lbs. Horses should eat approx. 1-2 percent of their body weight which equates to roughly 10-20lbs per day per horse. So let's say one bale per day to feed both horses in the ad above (I always over-budget because chances are you will have to throw out hay, hay will be more expensive than you anticipate, horses will waste hay, etc). That means about $525 to purchase what is hopefully good horse hay (timothy or grass mix with alfalfa), assuming the bales are 50lbs apiece and assuming you only started feeding yesterday and will only feed until the end of next April. Though $525 is not much itself it still is a substantial amount to someone selling their horses for only $100 and $400. Then you are also looking at farrier ($25-$40 per trim per horse in my area), deworming ($15-$30 per horse at least twice between now and the start of spring), and any vet care between now and next spring (like gelding that colt, any injuries, etc). That is also assuming you are able to keep the horses on your property (ie. no board) and thus feed them every day too (ie. no labour costs), and that you are equipped for winter (ie. shelters and waters that do not freeze, or at least some way to get water to your horses).

That is a lot of assumptions.

Cathy assumes they cannot come up with $100 a month however that is assuming there are no other expenses on top of feeding (which simply is not true) and that is assuming also that they must only come up with $100 per month....and as anyone who has ever had to purchase hay knows, that is often not how it works - you often need to pay for the hay upfront. You often purchase all your winter hay at the commencement of fall, before all the hay is sold elsewhere. Unless it somehow works differently in Wisconsin?

Then Cathy questions why the man would even have horses in the first place, if he cannot afford $100/month to feed them. Well, news flash, that's why he is selling them! D'oh! His selling them now however has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not he could afford them originally! Has it ever occurred to her that perhaps this man's situation has changed since he originally purchased these horses?

And maybe it cost less to geld a horse in Wisconsin, but out here it is $150 at my clinic if you do it during a specific week in March and in September, when the clinic fee is waived, if you bring your youngster in. Nevermind if you have to call the vet in to your farm, if there are any complications, or you do not take advantage of that one week in either spring or fall. Plus, to be honest, if I could no longer afford my horses, I certainly would not be gelding my colt - sorry, but the new owners can invest in that, since they are the ones keeping said horse long-term.

As far as being unable to feed a horse over the winter, a) circumstances change and b) how long have these horses been up for sale prior? Who knows, maybe these horses have been for sale for the past several months yet have not sold, hence the price drop (etc)? Maybe it has something to do with the reason the neighbour is posting this ad as opposed to the actual owner? But just because he cannot afford these horses come fall is not sufficient reason, in my eyes, he should not have gotten them in the first place - as I said, we know nothing of this individual's situation. Heck, my situation has changed since spring and I now have 6 horses (which cost me an easy $950/month in board alone, and that is with one of them on lease, so no expenses for him) - 1 of which is for sale and the other (my dream horse) I am contemplating having to sell for financial reasons. It will be tight financially keeping them all winter however I do not regret any of the decisions I made at the time I purchased any of the last four horses (the first two are homebred 16 and 11 years ago); I made intelligent and sound decisions based on my situation at the time. I can swing it provided I sell the one come spring however I am just lucky my situation has not changed so much that I can no longer afford to keep any of them. Lucky. Lucky that I can hold onto my sale mare till spring when it is a better time to sell - both for me and for her. Others are not so much, especially given this economy. Besides, who is Cathy to judge whether this man can sell his mare and colt in the fall or not, as opposed to waiting until spring?

Should this man be leaving a 2yo colt with a 6yo open mare? Well, probably not. However I still fail to see the reason for such criticism, particularly given we have no idea of the owner's situation (or even the colt's - hello possible undescended testicle?).

Just saying. It's easy to judge from the comfort of our chairs, however how can we possibly accurately judge someone's personal situation - and should we, even? For all we know, this individual is doing the best possible in the situation given. Let's not sic our dogs on him.

I promise a more educational blog in your near future, as opposed to a vent ;)

Dressage research

Ok ok I'll even it up a bit from all the dressage as of late - promise! In the mean time, I found the following study interesting:

Horses suffer from work stress, researchers find
by Neil Clarkson

What discipline is most likely to drive your horse to distraction?

French research indicates that dressage and high-school work create higher levels of stress in horses than the likes of jumping, eventing and vaulting.

The scientists from the University of Rennes 1 said it was well known that stress at work could cause negative efforts in people, such as anxiety and depression. Could the daily work to which many horses were exposed result in similar effects?

The findings, published in the open-access journal PLoS ONE, indicated that horses, like people, faced stresses in their daily life involving troublesome human bosses, difficult interpersonal relationships, undue negative reinforcement and poor rewards.

Such negative experiences linked to training could lead horses to switch off, becoming unresponsive and apathetic - the equine equivalent of work-related burnout in people.

The researchers - Martine Hausberger, Emmanuel Gautier, Véronique Biquand, Christophe Lunel, and Patrick Jego - set about studying 76 French Saddlebred horses stabled at the Ecole Nationale d'Equitation in Sanur.

The horses, aged six to 15, were all geldings and housed in the same conditions, spending 23 hours a day in their stables. They received the same diet. The only difference was in the kind of discipline they performed each day for an hour.

The scientists monitored the horses in their stables for behaviours called stereotypies - abnormal repetitive behaviours which serve no useful function. These include repetitive mouth movement, head tossing or nodding, windsucking, cribbing and weaving.

They found that the type of work performed by the horses each day had a significant influence on the prevalence and types of undesirable traits shown.

"To our knowledge, this is the first evidence of potential effects of work stressors on the emergence of abnormal behaviours in an animal species.

"It raises an important line of thought on the chronic impact of the work situation on the daily life of individual [horses]."

The researchers found that 65 of the 76 subjects performed some type of stereotype.

The horses were categorized as doing one of three kinds of work:

• Jumping/eventing/advanced-riding-school.
• Dressage/high-school.
• Vaulting.

"Vaulting horses appeared to be the least prone to stereotypies and performed relatively 'mild types' such as tongue play, whereas dressage/high-school horses presented the highest incidence of stereotypies ... several of these horses performed two or more types of stereotypies.

"They also performed the 'more serious' stereotypies - cribbing, windsucking, head shaking."

Why should horses get stressed? Horses, like people, are often asked to work on a daily basis, involving "interpersonal" interactions not only with other working horses but also, and mostly, with a "boss" who is the human who manages or rides it, the authors noted. "Work sessions are based on training, using more often negative reinforcement or punishment than positive reinforcement. "Physical and emotional constraints depend also on the type of work performed. Negative consequences of some practices, leading to physical and behavioural resistances, open conflicts and tensions during the work sessions have been described for some time. "Conflicting signals given by the rider (urge forward with the legs and keep restraining through the mouth/bit) may lead the horse to frustration and neurosis. "Finally, horses are asked to suppress emotional reactions from their early stages of work on, as such reactions may be contrary to the performance expected (dressage competition) or considered dangerous for the rider (such as bucking). "Few studies, however, question the possible durable effects of such work stressors - interpersonal conflicts, suppressed emotions, physical constraints - on the daily life of horses outside the work sessions." Negative experiences linked to training could lead to chronic states where horses "switch off", becoming unresponsive and apathetic - states described in humans in cases of work-related burnout. Abnormal repetitive behaviours in horses are thought to be a way for animals to cope with an unfavourable stress-inducing environment.

The authors pondered why dressage appeared to cause the most stress.

"Dressage and high school both expect horses to restrain from expressing emotions and put a strong physical constraint on the movements," they noted.

"Moreover, cases where orders can be conflictual are more frequent here as the restricted gaits are often obtained by refraining movement through the reins and bit while pushing forward the horse through the legs.

"Therefore both physical and interactional stress can explain the high prevalence and types of stereotypes observed in these horses.

"Jumping, eventing or instruction horses were trained more to take long strides while moving forward in a less ritualised posture. These horses performed more repetitive licking or biting of environmental structures."

These, they said, are often considered to be early stages of stereotypy.

"Whether these horses would develop more serious stereotypies with time appears unlikely as they remained under these conditions for at least one year and often more. Maybe they were reacting mainly to the general unsuitable conditions (social separation ...) they were housed in.

"Finally, vaulting horses appeared the least prone to perform stereotypies and these were restricted mainly to tongue play. Vaulting horses had been chosen for their quiet temperament and spent their work time turning in circles, with voice orders.

"Interpersonal conflicts with the human are rather limited as they are just required to keep regular and slow paces, while accepting humans to make movements on their backs. Their originally quieter temperament may also make them more resistant to possible work stressors as observed in humans."

The authors pointed to earlier research suggesting that head shaking may be a last effect of strong bit action, resulting from damage to the trigeminal nerve, as riders work to keep their horse's head down.

This would explain why headshaking and nodding were performed more often by dressage horses as for most of their working time they have to keep their necks flexed in restrained gaits, they said.

"Although some work stressors involved here may be specific to equine work, others are clearly shared with other species, including humans: emotions suppression, interpersonal conflict, physical demands, lack of reward and negative future expectancy that are associated with depression in humans.

"The present study opens clearly new and further lines of thought about, on one hand, the causation of abnormal repetitive behaviours, on another hand the effects of work stressors not only on well known expressions of psychological disorders such as depression or burn out but also on the possible emergence of abnormal behaviour.

"The very controlled restricted locomotion allowed in dressage and especially high-school horses associated with rapid transitions may explain an increase of reactivity, especially when bit pressure and spurs induce additional aversive stimulations.

"The higher emotional responses of dressage horses in emotional tests provide further support for this hypothesis. Collected gaits may also be physically very demanding and these difficulties may frustrate the horse, but also its rider who can transmit additional nervousness."

The authors noted that other factors can be involved in development of stereotypies, including roughage availability, diet, social deprivation, lack of exercise and genetic susceptibilities. The length of time spent in stalls may also have an influence.

However, the results clearly showed that the discipline being performed by the horse influenced the degree to which they showed undesirable traits.

"We showed that, for a variety of reasons (physical, emotional ...) the limited time spent with humans might affect the remaining daily life of the horses.

"This may well be true for other situations such as handling, feeding, transporting animals. These results also raise the question of how different types of repetitive movements may develop.

"While some may be explained by lasting effects of physical constraints, others may emerge through chronic stress."

Of the 76 horses, 10 undertook eventing, 19 were show jumpers, seven worked in an advanced riding school, 17 performed dressage, 16 were high school and seven were used in vaulting.

So my initial thought was this: the study is incomplete because one major factor in this study, and that is how the riders who rode and trained these test horses. By the sounds of it, the dressage horses were not ridden in a truly classical form and thus I wonder if they had been ridden in a classical sense, would the results of the research done differ? What about how they were trained or handled previously?

Okay, so what if you were able to eliminate all of the following stressors:

- the troublesome human boss and difficult interpersonal relationships

- undue negative reinforcement, punishment, and insufficient rewards

- the expectation the horse is not to express emotion or interact with its rider

- a ritualised or forced pose

- strong bit action

So what if a horse and rider worked in such a (natural, classical) way where undue negative reinforcement, punishment, and insufficient rewards were non-existent? Where the horse was encouraged to express emotion and interact with its rider (coincidentally, I find when you allow the horse to interact and express emotion, they are not doing so in a negative way that affects dressage test scores) and the horse/rider relationship were harmonious? What about if the horse's 'frame' were derived naturally and classically and not forced, if the rider's hands were light and guiding as opposed to forceful? If spurs were used for refinement, to extend the rider's heel, rather than to push the horse forward into hard hands? Would the test results be different? In my opinion the answer would be yes.

Difficult decisions

This post comes in light of having to euthanise one of my best partners, a 7yo Paint gelding named Cody. I was given him August 2009 by a potential client who ultimately decided he presented too much of a challenge for her due to his abusive past. I took him on with the intentions of resale, however it only took one ride where I was forced to depend on him as my main ranch horse before it was decided he was never going anywhere. This horse was a keeper. My dad took a particular shine to him and since I technically owed him a horse (haha), I only felt it right to pass Cody along to him. He was an absolutely amazing horse with so much heart and willingness. 'Quit' or 'no' were never a part of his vocabulary, and he was beautiful to boot.

Cody, summer 2010

Friday (Sept 10) morning 8:36am I received a call from D, owner of the facility we keep Cody at. G, the manager, had fed the horses the night prior and noticed nothing unusual. Let me note too that this is a very nice facility with extremely safe pastures. The pasture Cody was in is devoid of anything sharp or otherwise potentially hazardous: board fencing, water trough, wood shelter, rubber feed tires, safe metal and wood gates. Friday morning G enters the paddock to find all the horses hyped up over something and looks to see Cody not using his left hind whatsoever. In fact, he can't even set weight on the leg and the foot appears to be 'flopping'. Immediately, he catches Cody up and takes him in to the barn - I give D permission to call the vet, imagining things are fine other than a minor injury we will have to treat. This is mostly a pleasure/trail horse so even if I am restricted from behing able to do cattle work or cutting on him, as long as he is sound and comfortable (and better yet, sound and comfortable being ridden lightly), we are happy campers. The vet calls me at 10:38 and I am asked to make a difficult decision. Somehow, both arteries and both tendons in Cody's hind leg have been severed from a deep cut sliced inside to outside. Surgery would allow for a risky future and be a good $10,000+. Cody was losing so much blood he was going into shock and he was in obvious pain, so I made the decision to put him down.

Which leads me to the following. I am sure we have all thought about it, speculated, discussed it. But what are your limits? When do you decide to put a horse down?

The above reason is why I have become even more firm in my decision to insure my 3yo CWB mare as well as my 6yo Thoroughbred gelding. Losing Cody has been difficult enough, but I cannot imagine having to euthanise my two youngsters with whom I spend/will be spending the majority of my time, my competition horses and partners. I likely would have had to make the same decision as I did with Cody with any of our horses, insurance or not - the outcome for the surgery was bleak anyways. However I would like to know that money is not a factor in my decision. I would like that assurance.

Recently (this year) our old mare was also euthanised. At the time, she was living with some friends of ours, teaching their kids the ropes, as she had been the past several years. Her death was to be expected however - she was around the 30yo mark. She was happy and well loved and doing what she enjoyed - taking care of kids (she loved kids). I believe she was euthanised but either way, it would not have been as difficult a decision. When the burdens of old age start outweighing the quality of life, the horse has led a long and happy life, and you have had sufficient time to deal with such a future decision, it is not as difficult a decision as having to euthanise a 7yo horse with a bad past who has his whole life ahead of him yet. Cody had had one great year with us but I wanted to give him so much more.

Since I do not have unlimited funds, money does of course play into when I might decide to euthanise a horse. Finances depend upon the individual horse and its use (unfortunately). While I have spent upwards of $6,000 saving one of my (2yo and otherwise healthy, good outcome to the procedure) dogs, my current situation dictates that I am in no position to do so at the time (my new dog is insured through Trupanion, for that reason) - neither with a horse nor a dog. Today's monetary limit would be much lower. The horse's use, the extent of the injury or illness, the relationship I have with said horse, the life history and age of the horse - all factor into my decision. Ultimately, my 'limit' is when the horse is no longer happy or comfortable - when the only reason to keep him alive is for my benefit, which is never okay. If large dollars will be involved to keep the horse alive, happy and comfortable, I am going to really have to think hard and factor in age, future useability, horse's history, and my relationship with said horse. If it is a horse who is say in its 20's, is not going to ever be useable, has led a happy and healthy life otherwise, and with whom I might not have as strong an attachement - I might be more inclined to euthanise. Those are my upper limits. I love my horses however I am also practical and realistic and tend to look at the big picture.

It is an issue we all think about, but when the time comes, you still always end up having to add all the factors together - like some form of mathematics - and weigh out the appropriate decision. Regardless, though it might certainly be easier in certain situations (such as when you know it is coming and the death is peaceful and non-traumatic), it is always a difficult thing to say goodbye. Thinking about it now though and preparing for the worst might mean the difference between having to make that difficult decision or not because you have saved up the funds, insured your horse, set up the situation in such a way that you might have other options, etc.

Just as a short sidenote, it cost approx. $200 for body removal in my part of Alberta and approx. $2,000 for cremation (no profit to anyone at that cost either), something I did not previously know. Of course one also has to factor in the farm call and actual euthanasia cost...just something to keep in mind in the future and especially something to keep in mind when judging someone for instead choosing to send their horse to auction or slaughter should they no long have the ability to care for said horse.