11/30/2025
The horse industry and its attempt to rebrand irresponsible animal ownership as… something else.
Every year I see elderly and/or lame horses being offered for “free to good home” on the sales websites.
Every year, I see riders rehoming “heart horses” because they “can’t keep a horse that they can’t ride.”
The unrideable horse is often an unwanted horse.
Even the people who’ve had the horse for years and gotten to know their personality often still don’t have it in their hearts to keep them when something results in the horse no longer being suited to riding.
“Horses are expensive!”
“A lot of people can’t afford to pay for a horse that can’t be ridden and still get a riding horse.”
Excuses are made to downplay what it actually means for horses to be discarded at the rate that they are when they can no longer be ridden.
But no excuse changes the reality.
We already have an unwanted horse problem.
Too many horses, not enough homes.
Unrideable horses and horses in their senior years are even less “desirable” when they’re pawned off by the very people who should be caring for them at their most vulnerable.
It isn’t responsible animal ownership to discard animals when they no longer serve you and when they’re even harder to find long term homes for.
There are not enough willing retirement homes out there to accommodate the number of horses being discarded.
Yet, we see this continue to happen at a high rate because it’s easier for people to hang onto the illusion of giving a horse away to a better home than it is for them to make a final responsible decision and euthanize to ensure the horse doesn’t end up somewhere poor.
Because euthanizing the unrideable horse is a far clearer admittance that the person would rather end a life so they can get a rideable horse than pay for the retirement.
It feels a lot more icky.
But, it’s a more responsible decision than giving your vulnerable horse away.
Because if you don’t have it in your heart to retire and care for the horse you already know, the odds of a stranger doing it are slim.
And these types of horses are most “valuable” when sold at auction. Often for meat.
This attitude isn’t justified or accepted with virtually any other animal.
If I tried to give my dog away when hits her senior years and said that it was because I couldn’t have two dogs and that I wanted a young puppy who could do more, people would lose it.
And rightfully so.
Ironically, many of the people who would see an issue with that are the same who may defend the same actions when seen with horses.
There’s a disconnect between how horse people perceive actions relating to horses, simply because “they’re expensive.”
But we need to have this discussion.
Because, ultimately, if many horse people care more about riding than they do the horses that they have, they’re better suited leasing or taking lessons than they are owning.
You shouldn’t take on a horse to own if you aren’t prepared to pay for the horse into retirement or euthanize them if you refuse to care for them when they’re vulnerable.
Few people may find the miracle retirement home when giving these horses away but there are not enough of these homes and any rescues that frequent auctions can attest to that.
So, examine what your actions say about you.
You knew the expense of the horse when you got it.
No longer being rideable often does nothing to change the cost.
The only thing that’s changed is the use of the horse.
If their value depletes to the point where you no longer want to pay for their care, simply because you cannot ride them…
Well, that does expose where priorities lie.
And it shows a greater love for riding than it does for the horse.
If hearing that makes you feel angry and you don’t feel it represents you, reexamine your actions if you’re still defending this type of behaviour.
