|
Post by heather on Nov 4, 2009 8:47:46 GMT 1
Great idea, June, many thanks!!
Heather
|
|
|
Post by rj on Nov 4, 2009 11:45:35 GMT 1
2nd, 3rd, or 4th the idea June! Has Woody already got a blog or a Facebook page of his own? Is he yet signing photo's for his hordes of new fans?! Seriously, WHATEVER happens to & for Woody from now on, I for one am confident that it will be done solely with his welfare & comfort in mind, and that's good enough for me! And, if in the end there should be a serious problem which requires euthanasia, I hope it would be done at home, and he would not be transported to an abbattoir. That to me was actually the most distressing aspect of his story.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 4, 2009 13:42:37 GMT 1
I'm more than happy to put this into the Hall of Fame but will it get as much limelight there as it does here at the moment? I can move it once the thread drops off the first page?
Unless you'd like to start a new thread on Woody?
|
|
|
Post by horseharmony on Nov 4, 2009 16:29:34 GMT 1
heather i just wanted to say i think you have done the right think, i have just done something very similar myself for a little pony that was off to the hunt kennels if no one could help. I am sooo glad to hear Woody is going to be given a chance at life can't wait to hear how he gets on xxx
|
|
|
Post by aero on Nov 4, 2009 18:07:03 GMT 1
I think you have done a wonderful thing in helping to give Woody a chance Heather. Think about it this way, You have to live with Yourself and how hard would that have been for you if you hadn't tried to help him .... at least you can now sleep at nights with a clear concience knowing that you did your best and in so doing saved his life and gave him the best chance he could have of a future in knowledgeable caring hands. I am looking forward to reading about his progress, he is one lucky horse and if there is a chance that he can come good then I think he will find it with such fabulous people working on his behalf.
|
|
|
Post by heather on Nov 4, 2009 19:58:04 GMT 1
Aw thanks folks - I have a strong feeling as Katharine does, that Woody is going to turn out to be a pretty special horse and I wish them all the very best with him. Heather
|
|
tess1
No Longer Posts on the DG
Posts: 228
|
Post by tess1 on Nov 4, 2009 20:56:00 GMT 1
I’d like to thank Heather for answering my question of a few days back. It was asked as I was extremely sad to think that a horse who may have been suffering from an undiagnosed pain-related issue had been put through a process which involved causing pain to prevent him from bucking – which may have been his only way of communicating that he was in pain. I can appreciate the situation that Heather and the horse’s connections found themselves in, and would like to make it very clear that in no way did I wish my question to be taken as a criticism of the way in which they acted to give the horse a second chance. The family who owned the horse have obviously gone through a lot of soul searching and emotional turmoil, and to be offered such a life line must have been a wonderful relief for them.
Neither am I criticising the inclusion of Woody in a demo, if it was the only way in which his plight could be publicised and an experienced person (or persons) have the opportunity to buy him and try to resolve his mental and physical problems. I would like to make clear that my question, was about the use of a buckstopper, a device that inflicts pain, on a horse which, in this instance, may well be bucking as a result of pain. There is, in my opinion, no justification for using pain to prevent an animal reacting to pain. The buckstopper does not allow the real horse to be seen, or to communicate its feelings – in fact, in my opinion, it does the exact opposite. That was the sole area of my concern and discomfort, and, to me, it seemed a shame that Woody could not have been part of this demo, his plight publicised and new owners found, without the horse having to go through the entire procedure that he did that night.
However, go through it he did, and the outcome will, hopefully, be very good for Woody. The reports by HandsonHorses has been very heartening to read, and I hope that the fear and/or pain that Woody almost inevitably experienced at the demo will now be outweighed by the good home that he has found, and the promise of a future life.
My post, and perhaps some on Heather’s forum, which I have not read, also seems to have prompted a huge discussion about negativity. Firstly, as already stated, I have no negative feelings about this horse being given a chance at life. However, it seems to me, that anyone who dares question the ‘party line’ and speak out can be subject to a huge amount of negativity. I am, apparently, an arm-chair critic, living in cloud-cuckoo land, who feels the need to have a pop, or make an anti-IH point. Additionally I, and others who question the status quo are ‘poisonous’ and ‘spiteful’. Why should I, and others, be all those things, instead of folk who just sees some things in a different way, and are prepared to say so? What happened to intelligent discussion, free-speech and healthy debate without things getting personal?
Someone on here wisely stated that when people are not allowed to ask questions they get fed up – that is very true; and they also get extremely fed up when any question they pose is met with a defensive barrage of abuse. After all, Heather saw fit to answer my question in a civilised manner, so why should others feel the need to post in an insulting way? I feel that this stifling of discussion on IH promotes a very bad image – anyone who disagrees with the consensus opinion faces either shutting up or posting in the knowledge that they will be personally attacked, and quite possibly banned when they try to defend themselves. Whilst the response I have received to my question has done nothing to change my feelings about the use of traumatized horses in public demonstrations, where pain is inflicted in order to bring about a change in behaviour, my question had been answered, and there is no more that I would have said on the matter, were it not for the ridiculous outcry on ‘negativity’ that followed it.
To top it all off, it was also stated, and no one objected, that the process used to diagnose ulcers was somewhat unpleasant, and therefore, perhaps, it should not be subjected to a horse who may be too mentally scarred to recover sufficiently to be a suitable riding horse, or even a companion. The reports that we have read so far suggest this horse is a gorgeous, chilled gentleman, with a massive heart – so it is unlikely that he is unsuitable to be kept alive were it shown that he is not capable of being ridden. To flip the coin, for a moment, it could also be said the flooding procedure that Woody was put through on the night of the demo, including the use of the buckstopper, was also rather unpleasant, but no one suggested that he should not go through that, for fear that it may be that he was too physically damaged to be a suitable riding horse; even if he could be forced, through the use of pain inflicting gadgets, to stop bucking on that particular night.
I wish, from the bottom of my heart, Woody’s new connections with him every success – and I hope that if, for whatever reason it becomes apparent that he is not suitable for a riding career, and that it is not possible for him to live out his days happily as an un-ridden friend to other equines and/or humans, that he can be destroyed at his home, surrounded by people that he knows and trusts. And I will end with Heather’s words, which I agree with completely – the welfare of (horses) is paramount to me, and stuff anyone who thinks less of me because of it.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Nov 4, 2009 21:52:14 GMT 1
To flip the coin, for a moment, it could also be said the flooding procedure that Woody was put through on the night of the demo, including the use of the buckstopper, was also rather unpleasant, but no one suggested that he should not go through that, for fear that it may be that he was too physically damaged to be a suitable riding horse; even if he could be forced, through the use of pain inflicting gadgets, to stop bucking on that particular night. Fair point Tess1. We've had many angry discussions about the buckstopper in the past and I've come to the conclusion that Monty himself is the one to ask... the rest of us can only guess at the reasons for the choice of the buckstopper and have faith in Monty's skill, knowledge and experience in these cases that it is the right option for that particular horse under the circumstances. Kelly and RA's present of course may well have better insights and experience than me for example. I do know that there are times when dealing proactively with an ingrained fear or anxiety response can in some circumstances be very helpful and move recovery on much quicker than a long drawn out approach. These are of course gross generalizations on both sides... The idea that this behaviour is spectacular to watch and will look good on TV is also double edged... Monty could I suppose not have used Woody in the Demo because of people feeling it was 'good publicity' (which is my interpretation of this being mentioned, if I'm wrong I apologise), we can only speculate, I do however believe Monty himself acted in the way that he thought was most helpful for Woody in those circumstances and didn't give a 'stuff' what others thought. As I've already said as far as I can see the only person who can say why the buckstopper was used on Woody is Monty.
|
|
|
Post by eileen on Nov 5, 2009 0:24:09 GMT 1
Huge well done to Heather, monty, kelly Linda and dan and to catherine for all they have done for woody, having heard the full story from someone who was at the demo i think everything fell into place perfectly for the gorgeous boy. Through my life i have found that any animal that needs help finds the person to do it and not the other way round. It's just that the people need to be receptive to that animals needs and hear what it is saying. I would say in this case every single person, from ex owner through to dan listened to woodys shouts and acted on them. Like ripples in a stream the lucky boy has well and truly landed on his gorgeous little hoofs!!! Those who defended the actions taken with woody have far more knowledge than i and i truly bow down to them and thank them from the bottom of my heart for giving him another chance. Well done Heather for starting the ball rolling. Cant wait to read the updates. Allys on here did the same sort of thing with our lovely spanish boy manny, another person who was found by Manny and well and truly has the best home he could ever have wished for. There are some truly beautiful people in this world from the inside out and i am very priveledged to know some of them!!! eileen xxxx
|
|
varkie
Grand Prix Poster
Grand Prix Poster
Posts: 4,913
|
Post by varkie on Nov 5, 2009 0:48:56 GMT 1
Great post tess1.
Undoubtedly, the people in this story have had Woody's best interests at heart.
But, this is 'intelligent' horsemanship, which implies a level of thought in what we do with our horses, one aspect of which will be asking questions and discussing. No one should be pilloried or attacked for such a thing, it should in fact be encouraged. Questioning is a big tool in learning and understanding.
|
|
Caroline
Grand Prix Poster
Intermediate Poster
Posts: 2,277
|
Post by Caroline on Nov 5, 2009 1:05:05 GMT 1
I'm delighted that Woody is getting a chance and isn't going to be PTS. That's wonderful news!
I have said it so many times - a horse doesn't need to be ridden and anyone who thinks that's the best you can achieve in a relationship with a horse is unenlightened in my opinion.
I also believe that if a person cannot afford to keep an unrideable horse, they cannot in all decency afford to replace that horse with a rideable one. We have argued that one to death elsewhere though, so lets not do it again. I know that not all agree.
Having heard of horror stories where the buckstopper has ripped top lips off, my blood runs cold at the mention of them. Monty says it has never happened in his experience. I don't know if that's luck or if it gives a realistic assessment of the hazard. I don't like the fact it was used on Woody or any other horse, demo or not. It seems inconsistent with the rest of the IH philosophy.
I also don't like the 20-30 minute format of demos. I worry that the best interest of the horse is occasionally not consistent with the best interest of the show.
In the case of this horse, I think it would have been fairer to have maybe done the Join Up, told his story to generate interest and a new home - and then done the real work once he is in a new home, starting with checking out the ulcer theory.
I don't want to be negative because I really do think it is wonderful that Woody is going to live now and am delighted he is in experienced hands. That's what matters most.
Hat's off to Heather for making this happen - it was well intended, she couldn't help the details that occurred in practise, and the result was nevertheless wonderful.
Slate me or moderate me - but people can get things wrong and if we all just blindly hail everything as wonderful, the emperor could find himself wondering why his cowboy boots feel so light. But the emperor is human too. We all get it wrong sometimes. The outcome was good in this case. I would rather Monty took the case, even if I don't like his method, if it meant the horse got to live. I just feel Monty could find a better way. He would probably be outraged that a daft young girl dare say that to him. But there it is. I want the best for horses and I think Monty has had a wonderful effect on horse training the world over. I want a complete picture though and I feel the buck stopper is a hole in that picture right now. The clock is ticking and non of us are immortal. If this debate leads to an evolution and development that takes IH beyond the buck stopper for cases like Woody, then I am glad I just took the risk of saying the above.
If Woody doesn't turn out to be ridable, please consider a sanctuary place (I will help you find one if necessary) rather than PTS. He would not be ridden under those circumstances, so there is no need to worry about harm he could cause to a rider.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2009 9:37:33 GMT 1
To top it all off, it was also stated, and no one objected, that the process used to diagnose ulcers was somewhat unpleasant, and therefore, perhaps, it should not be subjected to a horse who may be too mentally scarred to recover sufficiently to be a suitable riding horse, or even a companion. The reports that we have read so far suggest this horse is a gorgeous, chilled gentleman, with a massive heart – so it is unlikely that he is unsuitable to be kept alive were it shown that he is not capable of being ridden. To flip the coin, for a moment, it could also be said the flooding procedure that Woody was put through on the night of the demo, including the use of the buckstopper, was also rather unpleasant, but no one suggested that he should not go through that, for fear that it may be that he was too physically damaged to be a suitable riding horse; even if he could be forced, through the use of pain inflicting gadgets, to stop bucking on that particular night. As that was me, Tess1, maybe I should explain better what I meant. Reading some of the posts, I was getting the feeling (maybe wrongly), that the demo and the buckstopper were seen as necessarily bad, whereas medical investigation was necessarily good. I was just trying to say it's not so black and white. Some of the medical procedures we subject our horses to aren't nice, require them to be twitched, etc. I'm not saying we shouldn't do that, but we accept that that is ok because it's for their physical wellbeing. So, putting a horse through something not nice as a physical diagnosis is probably ok in most people's books. Although I'd always try and minimise the distress to the horse, it would be ok in my book too. Maybe, though, we could look on the mental diagnosis in the same way? I know I've stressed horses when I've first met them because without doing so you do see what is going on and how a horse responds. I know with the buckstopper there is an element of "pain", which must not be brushed aside. (The reason I've put pain in " " is because, if my memory serves me right, it has been tested on humans and found not to be as painful as you'd think. I can't swear by that and if anyone else remembers reference to it, it would be good to hear.) What none of us knows, though, is whether this is worse for the horse than being sedated for a scope. We are assuming it is, but is it? Given I've met horses whose behaviour for things like clipping became worse even with sedation, I personally think that it shouldn't be assumed that it makes procedures ok or better than a quick jab from a gum line. In an ideal world, it would be great if there were lots of people who would take on horses with no ridden prospects who are known or are likely to require expensive medical treatment. My own personal experience is that these people are few and far between. At the moment in particular, people are struggling to find homes for companions and youngsters who don't need medical treatment. So I think it is relevant whether a horse has a realistic prospect of being ridden. It may well be that Woody's new owners would have taken him on knowing he'd just be a companion. It may be, though, that they wouldn't. Only they can answer that. I hope that doesn't make me sound callous. I promise you I'm not! It's my experience of the real world out there, though. I'm not saying that it's what I'd do, I'm just trying to add another thought or two to the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by heather on Nov 5, 2009 10:27:47 GMT 1
Hi Caroline,
With the best will in the world, there wouldnt have been a new home, period. Had Monty not proven that Woody would settle once ridden through the bucking, there is absolutely no doubt that Woody would have been shot yesterday.
There simply was no time, no possibility of a stay of execution- it was do it, or die, simple as that.
Heather
|
|
|
Post by eileen on Nov 5, 2009 12:51:18 GMT 1
caroline whilst in an ideal world it would be lovely to have days and days of show casing IH work, sadly that isnt possible so is it better to have these evening demo's or none at all? I do not follow blindly but i do bow to Monty's very long dealings with horses and his exceptional knowledge of whats right for a particular horse at any given time. I will never believe that Woody was seen as good demo or TV, if you knew Monty then you would know he doesnt work like that. If he thought the buck stopper was appropriate in these circumstances then i know it was, no doubt at all! This horse had half an hour of work done, he has faced a huge fear and from what has been said by Catherine he has come out the other side none the worse for it. We dont know what has happened in his past but i bet it was a hell of a lot worse than a demo and a buck stopper!!! I too wish there was some other way but until then for such a desperate situation as this one i think the right decision was made. Just my opinion. eileen x
|
|
Caroline
Grand Prix Poster
Intermediate Poster
Posts: 2,277
|
Post by Caroline on Nov 5, 2009 12:52:08 GMT 1
I don't understand what the buck stopper achieved as a diagnostic tool.
It's a shame that such a risk had to be taken - to both the horse and the rider - in order to save Woody's life. That's what's wrong with this story to my mind. It shouldn't be necessary - but there are so many things that should not be necessary and we all have to work in a world that is a heck of a long way from perfect. Nevertheless, we should aim for "Peaceful ends by peaceful means".
I am wondering if there was a better way to get this horse saved that didn't involve use of a painful and hazardous tool. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that question.
However imperfect the method, the important thing is that Woody is safe. His new owners have done a wonderful thing. Their committment to him is what is saving him here. The rider that got on him did a wonderful thing too. He risked his life because that was what it was going to take to save Woody at that point. It shouldn't have come to that, but it did and Adrian did what was needed in that moment.
|
|