Friday, April 2, 2010
by BrownEyed Cowgirls
Here is my issue with rescues...
Especially when they take on horses like Herc...
This is a horse that probably is (according to the comments made about him and repeated here) a dangerous horse. Yes, he can be nice. But then he flips. Those are the kind of horses that will hurt someone, long before something that acts poorly all of the time.
If rescues truely want to show people the kind of responsibility they are 'supposed' to have, then they need to start making a lot tougher decisions about the horses they rescue.
The fugly commentor mantra is breeding regulations. Okay, so if breeders need to be regulated, then rescues need to be regulated too.
No more emotional drama surrounding 'saving' this horse or that horse.
Rescues are welcome to take in or 'save' any horse they chose, but...
If they rescue a horse that ends up being permanently crippled and unrideable...it must be euthanized irregardless of how young or old it is. Twelve months is plenty of time to determine whether a horse is ever going to be sound or not. Hey, if we want to be kind, we can give them an additional 12 months to try to adopt the horse out. Failing that...buu-bye.
Horses over a certain age, say 20 or 22, and have been starved and/or require more than basic medical attention and/or are probably permanently crippled...must be euthanized immediately.
Any horse rescued over the age of 3 must go into training-within 6 months if they are sound or at the end of 12 months if they are not sound at the time of rescue.
Any horse deemed dangerous or unrideable must be euthanized. I would say that giving the horse 6 months to perhaps adjust to better treatment, but then they must go into training from 6-12 months. At the end of 12 months and they are not better..buuu-bye.
And for god's sakes...Stop with the heroic efforts...begging for money for broken legs, massive injury or stupidly expensive surgeries? Enough already! That money is better spent on actually saving something that has a more probable future.
Here is the way I look at it, Herc's owner never should have been 'outed'. She did not do anything illegal. The horse was not starved and it was obvious an attempt had been made to correct his lameness issue. The owner tried to sell him, tried to give him to a rescue and obviously did not feel the need to lay the horse to rest on her property. She is NOT the one who labeled the horse 'kill only'. His buyer did. Of course, fugs came up with the ridiculous assertation that the whole reason Herc was mean was because he had had a shock collar used on him. Pulled that one right out of her ass, I'd bet money on it.
Irregardless, the horse was purchased by a rescue and they didn't even have $500 to have a few x-rays run on him and they have been begging for money for the damn horse every since? How are they any more responsible than the previous owner? Now they want to farm him out?
How about they start showing some responsibility here and just put the horse down?
He's mean, he's lame and now they want to pawn him off on some poor sob to take care of for the next decade or so?
Nope-they 'rescued' him. They need to be responsible for their decision. He is not a suitable horse for the average owner and trying to place him is irresponsible and potentially dangerous.
APRIL 2, 2010 9:41 AM