Recent Schizophrenic issue of PH..

[Jumphigh83]

Did anyone else think, while reading the last issue of PH, what the...??? One article (great one) about Karen Golding who (among other accomplishments) retired several world class horses was feted for her generosity to these wonderful horses (I agree) and then turn the page (yeah, a metaphor) and there is an article from someone about the "Finite" resources available who recommends euthanizing those "older arthritic horses" to "open up a spot at the trough" for other horses??? That mare owners should "take the pledge to NEVER breed their mares" since we should all be adopting these hapless horses who have no home. I was offended by the presumption in the article (that if I put down my old retirees, I might add another "unwanted" horse to the feed trough) The whole premise of the article was presuming that if you got rid of the old horses or didn't breed your mares, then somehow there would be more food available for starving/homeless/unwanted horses. Socialism brought to the barnyard? Really PH, theoretically, if there were a finite number of resources (hay/grain/water) this might be the case but since that is not the case, the whims of this writer should not be inflicted on those who wish to retire their horses in style or breed a favorite mare. Am I the only one who noticed this dichotomy?

[arktos19]

You can easily get that same schizophrenic reaction here, but there are all sorts of nuances and conditions pertaining to either circumstance….

I would not presume to tell someone that they are obligated to put down an elderly horse in order to free up resources for a homeless, unwanted critter. Frankly, with thousands of unwanted horses in this country, the argument that culling the herd of the elderly and infirm will create homes for more of them is specious at best. Nor do I agree with the philosophy that one is required to support a permanently unsound horse for the rest of its natural life. If you want to, and you can afford to do it, fine. On the other hand, if you can’t afford it, if you are in financial distress, do the responsible thing and put it down.

Breeding is a little tougher question though; hopefully if you have chosen to breed your favorite mare, it is because she has some redeeming qualities beyond that special place in your heart to make her offspring potentially marketable….

[Hinderella]

I don't see how presenting different viewpoints could be characterized as schizophrenic. If the same person had put forth those two opinions, perhaps.

I don't believe that the magazine is taking a stand supporting either of these opnions simply by printing them.

And, as with all opinions, if you do not agree, you can feel free to simply ignore that opinion.

[findeight]

Like most niche sport/hobby magazines, PH is generally for entertainment and some educational purposes. It's not a newspaper or newletter and the opinions expressed in the articles do not reflect that of the editors and/or publishers. That same publisher does a great many of this type magazine and is not devoted to horses.

The fact they published it does not mean they want you to agree or disagree. I wouldn't get so worked up over it, you disagree, that's fine. Not worth getting upset over.

There's been a whole lot of things I disagreed with in that magazine. For every good article there were 3 of absolutely no interest to me and a few others I flat disagreed with, like this particular piece. So I dropped it some years back.

Oh...and I never bred either of my good mares and did not adopt anything to replace a foal I never wanted either.

[foursocks]

The whole premise of the article was presuming that if you got rid of the old horses or didn't breed your mares, then somehow there would be more food available for starving/homeless/unwanted horses. Socialism brought to the barnyard?

I just want to point out that your understanding of socialism is not accurate if that is how you define it.

[fourmares]

I'm still amused at George Morris telling us that it's o.k. that he's looking down at the fence because he's a professional, and that's what pros do when the horse jumps really well... hm.

[mvp]

I think you noticing what findeight pointed out about PH-- Its a lite hobby magazine. I don't think editors have the time, space, desire or (imagined) audience to publish much more than a superficial treatment of these issues.

I was offended by the presumption in the article (that if I put down my old retirees, I might add another "unwanted" horse to the feed trough) The whole premise of the article was presuming that if you got rid of the old horses or didn't breed your mares, then somehow there would be more food available for starving/homeless/unwanted horses.

I didn't read the article Jumphigh has summarized here. But I can say that it's an inaccurate description of what I'll do. Like so many PH readers, I can afford to own only one horse at a time. At present, that means I'm not putting a whole lot of money into the horse world. I'm paying for Pensioner. If I were to klll this horse to get "back in" to the kind of riding I really like, I wouldn't be buying an "unwanted" horse. So I can't claim to be part of the solution.

[Lori]

I'm still amused at George Morris telling us that it's o.k. that he's looking down at the fence because he's a professional, and that's what pros do when the horse jumps really well... hm.

What? Now I have to go and find this quote. I think I have the issues here, just haven't gotten around to reading the full articles.

[Janet]

if there were a finite number of resources (hay/grain/water)

You have found infinite sources for these resources? I am sure the physicists would be very interestid in your results.

I think that what you MEAN is that hay/water/grain are not the LIMITING FACTORS. But that is very different from being a finite/infinite resource.

[caffeinated]

I just want to point out that your understanding of socialism is not accurate if that is how you define it.

I believe the term "schizophrenic" to describe these articles is hardly accurate either.

[CiegoStar]

Like most niche sport/hobby magazines, PH is generally for entertainment and some educational purposes. It's not a newspaper or newletter and the opinions expressed in the articles do not reflect that of the editors and/or publishers. That same publisher does a great many of this type magazine and is not devoted to horses.

The fact they published it does not mean they want you to agree or disagree. I wouldn't get so worked up over it, you disagree, that's fine. Not worth getting upset over.

There's been a whole lot of things I disagreed with in that magazine. For every good article there were 3 of absolutely no interest to me and a few others I flat disagreed with, like this particular piece. So I dropped it some years back.

Oh...and I never bred either of my good mares and did not adopt anything to replace a foal I never wanted either.

Have to disagree. What is published in PH absolutely reflects the opinions of the editor and publisher, unless it is a letter. The articles are commissioned and/or assigned. The editor takes responsibility for what is in the magazine.

Most editors will publish something a little kooky to get a rise out of readers. That's part of the give and take of publishing. Have to keep it interesting.

[BelladonnaLily]

jumphigh, I thought the exact same thing when I read that article last night. I put down my "old, arthritic mare" this summer when she had a neurologic episode. She has been old and arthritic for a few years, but I never considered putting her down to go get another one. I did consider putting her down if I couldn't manage her, but I have not replaced her. I am not "obligated" to replace. My obligation was to her.

And I have bred a total of 4 foals since 2000. Two I still own, and probably always will. One I wish I could get back, and will forever offer a retirement home to him if needed. One died.

I doubt I'll ever breed again, mostly due to the heartache with losing the last one and the fact that my children are getting older and I don't NEED another horse. I am (or was, rather) a "backyard breeder" by some definitions. I put alot of time and thought into deciding who to breed to, and I don't breed junk, but I am not a professional.

Ron Rude sounds like a real pompous jerk with an appropriate name, IMHO.

[Roisin]

I thought that Ron Rude article was completely throw-away...a waste of paper and I am disappointed in PH for bothering to print it.

Just skimmed last night and will read issue in depth later in the week, but I did giggle when I saw the pics of GM looking down at the ground!

[FineAlready]

I have not read through the whole magazine, but I will say that I was offended at the use of the term "Mexicans" to describe "grooms" in the one article about how the choices we make influence the level of riding that we are able to ultimately achieve.

First of all, duh. Of course our life decisions impact whether or not we reach the top levels of riding.

Second, to allow something to be printed that refers to grooms as "Mexicans" is really out of line and, frankly, quite racist. I don't have it in front of me right now, but I think the quote was something along the lines of "By the age of 12, Susie's horses were all taken care of by Mexicans."

Ugh. Really embarassing for PH, in my opinion. Especially when the very simple, infinitely less offensive, and technically correct edit would have been to simply say "By the age of 12, Susie's horses were all taken care of by grooms."

[Trixie]

Have to disagree. What is published in PH absolutely reflects the opinions of the editor and publisher, unless it is a letter. The articles are commissioned and/or assigned. The editor takes responsibility for what is in the magazine.

Not necessarily. A blanket statement like that that removes the very premise of an "op ed." For instance, if you have George Morris writing a column, it is very obvious that column is from the opinion and viewpoint of George Morris. If the Editor of PH was writing it, it wouldn't have the same weight. The editor is only responsible for making sure that article fits their guidelines and is legally accurate, even if she does not personally agree that Rider X is "sloppy."

Many publications don't consider individual articles to reflect the personal opinions of the editor and publisher and may or may not have a disclaimer stating such. The editor or publisher might be responsible for the integrity of the content, but not necessarily the opinion set forth.

[CiegoStar]

Not necessarily. A blanket statement like that that removes the very premise of an "op ed." For instance, if you have George Morris writing a column, it is very obvious that column is from the opinion and viewpoint of George Morris. If the Editor of PH was writing it, it wouldn't have the same weight. The editor is only responsible for making sure that article fits their guidelines and is legally accurate, even if she does not personally agree that Rider X is "sloppy."

Many publications don't consider individual articles to reflect the personal opinions of the editor and publisher and may or may not have a disclaimer stating such. The editor or publisher might be responsible for the integrity of the content, but not necessarily the opinion set forth.

"Op ed" is a very specific thing. It doesn't mean just any random column in a publication.

Comes down to a scandal, the editor has to stand behind HER writers and what SHE chooses to publish. She employs GM as a columnist, it's her choice. If he writes something scandalous about a rider's weight as is his wont to do, it's the editor's job to defend continuing to employ him as a columnist.

The responsibility of the content of the magazine is the editor's.

[Trixie]

My response was not about the accuracy of the content OR about responsibility. I was responding to a poster who specifically said that “What is published in PH absolutely reflects the opinions of the editor and publisher, unless it is a letter.” And my point was, again, that I don’t find that to be accurate in the slightest.

The editor’s “opinion” is a personal thing and may or may not have anything to do with the content published. In fact, there could be plenty of reasons to publish someone whose opinion you may disagree with.

One example is when I was working for a newspaper in Washington, DC. Our editor did not necessarily personally agree with some of the political slants that she published, but she did, however, make certain they were factually accurate and had a reason for publishing them (for instance - Christopher Hitchens is a really great writer/draws in readers/but she doesn’t personally agree with his views on the president). The draw of the article was that it was the opinion of CH, not the opinion of the editor.

One would refer to a column by Christopher Hitchens in this case, say, as an op/ed because it's specifically the opinion of that signed author, not the editorial staff. The editor can still easily stand by her reasons for publishing his views.

The editor, and for that matter the publisher, are responsible for making sure that what they publish is accurate and legal, which is the majority of it. For certain things they will offer a disclaimer, for others not. But just because XYZ published someone’s article does NOT make it the personal “opinion” of the publication’s editor and publisher.

[RugBug]

I haven't read the mag yet this month...but I have no problem or judgements with any of the concepts the OP listed and don't see them in conflict with each other. If you can retire a horse and desire to do so, great. If you can't and it can't go elsewhere (with confidence that elsewhere is a good and permanent home...which really is the sticking point, no?) , euathanizing is a legitimate option.

I also think that way too many people are breeding horses that really shouldn't be. Does that apply to someone reading PH? probably not as they are a little higher on the education chain as far as horse owners go. But I dare say a huge portion of people that breed in this country are breeding crap and shouldn't be doing it at all (this includes all breeds...TBs/QHs/sporthorses/backyard etc)

Someone should get me some counseling really quick. I must be schizophrenic.

[fivesocks]

That horse overpopulation article irritated me too. I didn't read the whole thing...did it say anything about breeders cutting back? I saw the pledge not to breed my mare thing. So... ordinary horse people who have a mare shouldn't get the joy of bringing up a foal???

[RugBug]

That horse overpopulation article irritated me too. I didn't read the whole thing...did it say anything about breeders cutting back? I saw the pledge not to breed my mare thing. So... ordinary horse people who have a mare shouldn't get the joy of bringing up a foal???

I don't think they necessarily should. IMO, it depends on the quality of the mare, the quality of the stallion, and the purpose of the breeding.

If someone commits to the foal for life, then sure, I think should be able to breed willy-nilly. If they have any intention of selling, well, I have a different answer.