ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 5900
Mar 20 13 5:47 AM
Posts: 3444
Mar 20 13 7:06 AM
Numnah wrote:Tonkasmum wrote:For all of the people who say that this money could have been better spent on another horse, there is a small problem. The money, the thousands that have been raised for his care, wouldn’t have come in but for his problem. It just simply would not have been there to rescue other horses. On top of that, can you imagine the uproar that would have happened with all of these fundraisers if she said “I took all of that money and we saved ten other horses!” while Ollie sat in his stall without care? Heads would be rolling. Yes, there was the option to euth sooner and use what was left to save others; however, there’s very rarely a clear-cut train of thought. There are a lot of things to consider, and none of us are in Lisa’s exact shoes. Yes, there is a measure of tugging the ole heartstrings. However, it happens every day to us as humans. Heck, it happens on TV commercials, even in the supermarket. (Make a pie just like Grandma’s!) It’s all over Facebook. Now, I have no doubt in my mind that Ollie’s caretaker, Lisa, loved him. Adored the heck out of him. Do I believe her reasons for trying so hard to keep him alive were purely out of love of the horse himself? No. Not a bit. She’s human. She knew that having such a high-profile horse at her rescue not only would benefit her financially, but also perhaps buck up awareness of her mission. Is it wrong? Of course not. It’s a non-profit, but it’s still a business. She can’t operate off of rainbows and dreams. So if paying now to keep this one horse alive widened the scope of her donation base, eventually, she and other horses would benefit. Ollie would grant her exposure. They have several other equine ambassadors on their site. Without looking, can anyone name them all and their breeds? Probably not. But we all sure know Fox Valley Oliver. No, I don’t advocate extending a suffering animal’s life just for sentimental value, but in this case, I have no problem with her trying so hard to save him. She made sure that he was being cared for and as comfortable as possible, because it was not only saving the horse but also helping her whole rescue and, perhaps in the future, horses additional to those they would have normally been able to save. Agree 100%. As spooks said, the money was given freely to help that particular horse. While I'm not surprised that Zhuria has found something to criticise (as always) I doubt any of us would think $12,000 to save one of our own horses was a waste if we had the means, or were able to raise it as funds. I'm glad he is no longer suffering, poor boy, I think it is best he has gone, but using him to pull in cash is something I have no issue at all with.
Tonkasmum wrote:For all of the people who say that this money could have been better spent on another horse, there is a small problem. The money, the thousands that have been raised for his care, wouldn’t have come in but for his problem. It just simply would not have been there to rescue other horses. On top of that, can you imagine the uproar that would have happened with all of these fundraisers if she said “I took all of that money and we saved ten other horses!” while Ollie sat in his stall without care? Heads would be rolling. Yes, there was the option to euth sooner and use what was left to save others; however, there’s very rarely a clear-cut train of thought. There are a lot of things to consider, and none of us are in Lisa’s exact shoes. Yes, there is a measure of tugging the ole heartstrings. However, it happens every day to us as humans. Heck, it happens on TV commercials, even in the supermarket. (Make a pie just like Grandma’s!) It’s all over Facebook. Now, I have no doubt in my mind that Ollie’s caretaker, Lisa, loved him. Adored the heck out of him. Do I believe her reasons for trying so hard to keep him alive were purely out of love of the horse himself? No. Not a bit. She’s human. She knew that having such a high-profile horse at her rescue not only would benefit her financially, but also perhaps buck up awareness of her mission. Is it wrong? Of course not. It’s a non-profit, but it’s still a business. She can’t operate off of rainbows and dreams. So if paying now to keep this one horse alive widened the scope of her donation base, eventually, she and other horses would benefit. Ollie would grant her exposure. They have several other equine ambassadors on their site. Without looking, can anyone name them all and their breeds? Probably not. But we all sure know Fox Valley Oliver. No, I don’t advocate extending a suffering animal’s life just for sentimental value, but in this case, I have no problem with her trying so hard to save him. She made sure that he was being cared for and as comfortable as possible, because it was not only saving the horse but also helping her whole rescue and, perhaps in the future, horses additional to those they would have normally been able to save.
Posts: 3153
Mar 20 13 7:32 AM
Tonkasmum wrote:For all of the people who say that this money could have been better spent on another horse, there is a small problem. The money, the thousands that have been raised for his care, wouldn’t have come in but for his problem. It just simply would not have been there to rescue other horses. On top of that, can you imagine the uproar that would have happened with all of these fundraisers if she said “I took all of that money and we saved ten other horses!” while Ollie sat in his stall without care? Heads would be rolling. Yes, there was the option to euth sooner and use what was left to save others; however, there’s very rarely a clear-cut train of thought. There are a lot of things to consider, and none of us are in Lisa’s exact shoes. Yes, there is a measure of tugging the ole heartstrings. However, it happens every day to us as humans. Heck, it happens on TV commercials, even in the supermarket. (Make a pie just like Grandma’s!) It’s all over Facebook. Now, I have no doubt in my mind that Ollie’s caretaker, Lisa, loved him. Adored the heck out of him. Do I believe her reasons for trying so hard to keep him alive were purely out of love of the horse himself? No. Not a bit. She’s human. She knew that having such a high-profile horse at her rescue not only would benefit her financially, but also perhaps buck up awareness of her mission. Is it wrong? Of course not. It’s a non-profit, but it’s still a business. She can’t operate off of rainbows and dreams. So if paying now to keep this one horse alive widened the scope of her donation base, eventually, she and other horses would benefit. Ollie would grant her exposure. They have several other equine ambassadors on their site. Without looking, can anyone name them all and their breeds? Probably not. But we all sure know Fox Valley Oliver. No, I don’t advocate extending a suffering animal’s life just for sentimental value, but in this case, I have no problem with her trying so hard to save him. She made sure that he was being cared for and as comfortable as possible, because it was not only saving the horse but also helping her whole rescue and, perhaps in the future, horses additional to those they would have normally been able to save. And if we're going to gripe about poor animals being paraded about to generate money from bleeding hearts, I think we'd better put Sarah McLachlan and the Humane Society in the crosshairs too... those commercials drive me nuts. "Nooo... not the kitty!!!"
Posts: 3905
Mar 20 13 8:46 AM
GasMenagerie wrote:If you have a horse you cannot lead and/or trailer, try hamsters.
Posts: 1202
Mar 20 13 9:06 AM
Zhuria wrote:Good point re: the donations, I hadn't thought of it like that. I want to clarify that my only issue wasn't with the money, it was with, as Spooks said, the unnecessary extending of his life. Is colitis not a permanent thing in horses as it is in humans? If so, he was never going to be pain free. And it seems like in every picture posted near the end, he was on his side with his feet wrapped. If his feet were that bad how was he to recover? If he couldn't even stand? That's kind of an important thing in horses. I just feel like he was left to suffer for too long, and IMO there is no excuse for that, no matter how much you love him and ESPECIALLY just to get more exposure.I don't know, I'm just expressing my opinions. I'm not as good with words as most of you so cut me some slack (and I was tired when I posted last night and should have kept it non-opinionated and purely informational - sorry)
Posts: 4939
Mar 20 13 11:52 AM
Mar 20 13 4:09 PM
Monoveros6 wrote:I hope you all remind me of this when it's time to put my old mare down, because I will be a wreck and probably do similar things.
Posts: 2635
Mar 20 13 4:17 PM
Mar 21 13 6:05 PM
Posts: 16218
Mar 21 13 7:13 PM
Share This