I'm confused as a new horse owner. First, I don't disagree with taking the horse but I am amazed it was done to begin with.
I come from the background that once you SELL something you are no llonger entitled To it. You cannot make decisions or interfere. It's one thing to ask for first right of refusal if the new owners decide to sell the animal or object.
I would be offended if the previous owner of an animal I purchased wanted to visit or called me about the animal. I would probably ask why they sold the animal if they couldn't let go.
I am not being rude. And I am glad the horse is being cared for. But as a newcomer to this forum and horses it's a funny concept.
We have posts about people wondering if they should sell their horse because it is no longer challenging or won't compete at the upper levels. Here these people are getting rid of horses that no longer meet their expectations. Then there is this post theme where people sell horses and stay involved in the horses new life.
I have owned and competed with dogs. From the day I brought them home I considered it permanent. If the dog didn't compete well it became a pet. If my financial circumstances chaned I went without first. If the dog ate my house I worked harder at preventing and training.
Again. I am not criticizing. I am just confused at the two competing concepts of trade up and stay involved.
Posted via Mobile Device