I retired my navicular gelding well before he was so crippled that he wasn’t at all rideable. For about three years, I would get on once a year and pop around for an easy walk-trot hack and he was sound with shoes and always a perfect gentleman. My nieces and nephews could get on and pony around when they visited without issue. He passed suddenly from a severe colic, strangulating lipoma. If he’d ever gotten to the point of being so lame that I couldn’t even bop around for a 20-minute walk/trot hack, yes, I’d have euthanized him.
It’s not about the actual riding or being “useful” (as I think you’re trying to poke at). It’s about what it tells you about their level of pain. Horses can be quite stoic.
My mare is still sound for active competition. If she ever gets to be so lame, while in or before entering official retirement, that she can’t bop around for a little hack now and again, yes, she’ll be euthanized.
I think we all understand that horses can be stoic. And they can be stoic under saddle too - so just because they can be ridden for 30 minutes, doesn’t mean you should ride them for 30 minutes.
Using a 30 minute ride as the “acid test” for life or death is a pretty high bar. People make their living keeping retirees comfortable and living a good life. And then making the call when they think they are no longer living a good life. There are lots of other ways to determine if a horse is in pain rather than being ridden. As described above – seeing that the horse can get up and down easily and without signs of discomfort - seeing the horse is often lying down, rolling, and getting back up and/or signs that they have been lying down (by shavings in their tails, etc.). General demeanor, willingness to travel throughout turnout, interacting/playing with pasture mates, etc. etc.
Hello again, been really busy and have had little time to read these things. I truly appreciate your reply, actually answering what it is that you (and your group) do. No one else, so far in my inquiries, has been willing or able to do so. I understand what you are trying to do, but I do not agree with much of it. Concern about more women then men, used to be more men then women. Pendulum swings. It was towards more men, because at that time they were mostly the breadwinners. No longer the case, women have gone back to work. Many laws have gone into effect to level the playing field and many groups have done the same. And, I believe the majority of the American people want level playing fields. Unfortunately, I do not approve of your group, you have, in my opinion, become the THOUGHT police, as has the USEF. You go too far. Again, as I have previously stated., the barrier to our sport is MONEY! Not just the cost of showing but just the cost of owning a horse. So the DEI committees can keep spinning their wheels, in my opinion they will accomplish nothing. And after having listened to many of their committee zoom call meetings and pod casts, they have no clue and can do nothing. I say again, if someone wants a horse, or a great car, or a house,they will and should, work to get it. Our wonderful country offers opportunities to everyone and we put racism & discrimination in the rear view mirror a long time ago. This DEI thing is trying to resurrect it and sadly in too many ways they are succeeding. I hope your group treads softly, and I wish USEF/USHJA would drop, what they only adopted to be politically correct, DEI. Didn’t need it, don’t need it, won’t need it!
I know you will disagree with me, and that is fine. Another thing we are able to do in this country without being jailed. We see our world very differently and I am just glad I see it the way I do. Again, thank you so much for the in depth reply, much appreciated.
If you believe this, I don’t understand your objection to DEI work. That’s the whole point.
It’s not just about money. There are people of all races/ethnicities with money. Are they equally represented in equestrian sports? If not, why not?
As I have said, I don’t exactly know what the DEI goals are for USEF. But wanting a level playing field is sort of the whole point of DEI work in general. Are USEF’s DEI goals geared to ensure that judges are fair to all riders? (e.g. white, black, male, female, thin, fat?) Is it to ensure that membership benefits are accessible to all members? Or is it to encourage membership growth in certain demographics? It could be all of these things.
Sorry to tell you this, but if your old horse suddenly died from a strangulating lipoma he was likely experiencing pain and discomfort long before he died. Those don’t grow in 5 minutes. And pain isn’t just limping.
This ongoing conversation is ridiculous. You care for the horse in front of you and try to watch closely for when the time comes to help them on their way. We try our best to get that time right. I’m not sure why certain people feel like they have to police others’ caretaking by making up stupid ultimatums like ‘must ride horse for 30 minutes to see if they need to be euthed.’
And yes, I could hop on my mare and ride her (although not right now thanks to heavy wet snow), but the last sports medicine vet I worked with said more riding could lead to a catastrophic breakdown – her words, not mine. Nope, not going there, even though she is objectively more sound and healthy now that she’s been living out 24/7 for about 8 months. I would feel terrible if she crumpled underneath me just because I felt like trying a “test ride.”
I’m not sure this necessarily makes sense.
I retired my horse originally because he felt a bit stiff under saddle and I bought a new horse and leased him out. He was in his early twenties. When the lease ended, I didn’t have time to ride 2 so I retired him. Would a 30 minute ride have left him miserable? No. However, moving him to 24/7 turnout seemed to help his overall outlook. Now, 10 years has passed. Would I ride him now, at over 30? No. He hasn’t been ridden for years. He’s ancient. Not everyone even rides their horses. I don’t see how I would have possibly identified the day when he shouldn’t be ridden or should be euthanized.
All we can do as owners is look at the horse and what we can see from their behavior and rely on our vets to help that determination. I do ask my vet that question. I have seen horses that I felt were very loved, but maybe should’ve, by my standards, been euthanized sooner when they were. Maybe people say that about mine now. It’s a difficult determination and one that I think everyone struggles with, but I think the “when to say when” is very complex and varied from person to person. I also think, though, that we really don’t know what our horses and thinking and feeling. I had one that passed away suddenly but had a condition that had likely been developing, internally and unseen, for a long time. No one knew - not me, not anyone at the barn, not the vet. He had some muscle loss and bloodwork was being done right before he died, but I didn’t know. I’ve had similar things with dogs - they’ve been diagnosed with something that had probably been brewing and causing pain, but it wasn’t obvious.
What’s the basis for this? In my experience with 4 horses that died of strangulating lipomas the horses were totally fine in the years leading up to their last day. Then very suddenly they were not. Do a quick Google search, it will confirm what I’ve said.
Here’s a good thread, with many people’s experiences, consistent with my experience:
Ooof a lot of very black and white boundaries being laid down on this thread. I agree you manage the horse in front of you. I disagree riding that horse is the qualifier for if/when they should be euthanized. Took this guy to 35 and never sat on him. Not in the 7 years he took refuge here. Put him down when he had trouble getting up and down. He was 35. And this boy I knew from birth. Stopped riding him when he was 15. He had congenital malformations of both navicular bones. One was bitartrate the other tripartite. Completely pasture sound and not able to carry a rider at the trot. Euthanized for breathing issues at 29. Nothing to do with riding.
As for the original topic. If you can’t afford to retire or take care of end of life decisions… get a chia pet.
I will chime in and add that diagnosing pain in horses is not some mysterious difficult thing. I would question the horsemanship of anyone who has to ride a horse in order to tell if it is in pain or not.
Finally, I’d add that the veterinary guidelines for when to consider euthanasia do not align with “the horse must be rideable”.
Not that I WOULD ride my retired 28 YO, but that if I think the effort of 30 minutes or so of puttering around would break it, or if I have to bute/banamine the crap out of it for the farrier, I might need to consider the daily pain level of my horse. Horses have evolved to hide pain, and keep up with the herd as we have all said over and over. I also know that vets have to tiptoe around owners to get a feel for if their advice will be met with understanding or vehement denial and outrage (meaning waiting until the vet brings it up may mean horse has been suffering extensively for a while). YMMV.
We all want the best for our animals. I think those of us with a more concrete metric (that may not be translating well over the screen) have done the day/month/year too late thing. Maybe more than once. I won’t do that again.
Thirty years ago I had a vet tell me as long as the horse could “drag himself out to the pasture” to eat that it was fine not to euthanize. Thankfully I no longer subscribe to that idea nor is that veterinarian part of the practice I now use for my animals.
The growth of the lipoma does not create the pain. It’s the strangulating part, which can come on very suddenly, such as when the horse rolls and the lipoma suddenly becomes wrapped around. We have had multiple horses with stangulating lipomas (because we keep all of our horses for their full lives), and in every instance, it was very sudden onset, with no prior symptoms. It was in older horses each time but my vet has always said that they happen at any age.
Hi Schoolmaster, you said you had a “group” of 29 people you worked with. I do not agree that is the “whole point” of DEI work. You said an example of what you want is, you find a place where there are more men then women, or women then men, working and you look at why. Ok, if you find that everybody is qualified for their jobs, is that the end of it?? Or do you try to change that so the numbers are equal, whether or not you put less or none qualified people in the jobs just to balance it??
In that video somebody posted, the people who had none of the problems the leader asked were discriminated against. The test the USEF is making their employees and officials take is doing nothing more then telling them they are subconscious racists! You ask about the people of all races/ethnicities with enough money not joining our sport? Maybe they just don’t want to? Wanting a "level playing field’ is a long way from having it and then advancing people, qualified or not, just because of their ethnicity/race and that is what is happening Making sure Judges are “fair to all riders”. Are you suggesting Judges should be TOLD the history and color and race and sex and religious traits of all the people they Judge to make sure they give the proper consideration to their exhibitors?? Should they give the win to the black or fat or female or LGBTQ person with 2 chips over a good round on someone who is none of those things you list? Membership is already open to anyone who wants it. Shouldn’t membership growth be encouraged to “EVERYBODY”, if you want an organization with EVERYBODY in it? Or do you only want certain groups and ignore the rest?
My user name is S1969; not sure where “Schoolmaster” comes from - it’s one of the automatic COTH descriptions (aka yours is Training Level).
And, for what it’s worth, I’m a woman, not a man. So I wonder if that changes your perception of my posts about equity. My “group” of 29 is our organization. It’s all of our employees. So I guess that’s where I was confused.
This is a good question. And it’s possible for two different organizations to have two different goals. One goal could be to ensure there is simply no hiring bias, and another organization’s goal
could be an active desire to change the demographics of its workforce - e.g. to match the demographics of the location of the office, or possibly to match the demographics of another group – a good example of this would be an urban school serving 95% non-white students but having a faculty and staff of 80% white employees. There may be legitimate reasons to desire that the faculty/staff represent the racial/ethnic demographic of the student population.
I don’t know what USEF is making their employees and officials do, so I can’t comment on this. But tests of unconscious bias are not calling people racists. It’s possible (and not uncommon) for people to be biased against short people, overweight people, and people who are deemed less attractive than others. So, none of these make someone a racist, but these biases can and do exist.
No, of course not. But if you found that judges consistently did not score overweight or black riders as well as white or thin riders on similar rounds, wouldn’t that bother you?
I really don’t understand your anger with this topic. The goal is to ensure equity. That’s all. Not to give advantages to people who don’t deserve it. That seems to be how you’re perceiving DEI work in general.
Expanding USEF’s paid internship program, with a goal to make these opportunities more visible to diverse applicant groups, such as students at HBCUs
Requiring DEI training for USEF representatives
Creation of a Community Riding Center Grants Program and Opportunity Fund
Your comments also seem to have quite a narrow view on who a DEI plan can help. You mention the cost of entry to the sport as a large barrier, yet one of the identified issues in the action plan is the lack of socioeconomic diversity and high economic barrier to entry.
