Another failed vetting :(

[TotalMadgeness]

My horse passed a 5 stage vetting at 5 and he is pigeon toed on the left fore which was not picked up/noted. He does have to be shod by a specialist farrier to help support that leg though (referred by a vet later on in his life). He can trip a bit on it but I suspect that is more to do with the bone spavin in the hocks which puts him on his forehand. Other than that he is a fab horse. I don't jump him but that's mainly due to the bone spavin and not the left fore... Personally I think you'd be hard pushed to find a 'perfect' horse for sale.

 

[Cowpony]

I put an offer on a very pigeon-toed PRE some years ago. She was 9 iirc and I naively thought that any problems would have shown up by that time. The vet warned me off buying her and said that 9 onwards was when the problems were likely to arise due to wear and tear. He did say that she could be sound for years, or go wrong next week, but he was very clear that it WOULD go wrong. He also said that he would have to put it on the vetting report and the insurers would exclude anything arising from it. She was a lovely horse and I did agonise for a while, but eventually decided that if I wasn't going to listen to the vet there wasn't much point getting a vetting, so walked away.

 

[spotty_pony]

My ISH is 17. we bought as a 5 year old and he is pigeon toed. He has been sound for 12 years but went lame in March and has DDFT tears in both front feet. He passed a 5* vetting when we bought him but it was noted that he had pigeon toes. My advice is if Vet is saying no, look for something else.

 

[Red-1]

...

What I would say is have the horse trimmed/balanced then get some good photos and video from in front of the horse moving. Show your vet & farrier. If they aren’t unduly concerned you could get another vetting done. I’d want a clean vetting for insurance purposes. It could be that a different vet has a different opinion

Whilst I don't disagree with a 2nd opinion, once you have an issue on a vetting, you still have to declare it to the insurance even if you subsequently have a different vetting. They will likely still exclude the front legs.

 

[stormox]

A lot of horses with a bit of Irish Draught in them are slightly pigeon toed, It depends how bad it is, but I know of one particular mare who regularly jumps 1.30/ 1.40 and is now 18 and has been sound all her life despite having serious pigeon toes. I dont think it would bother me. Do you have to bother with insurance? I would't, I just put the money aside each month.

 

[stormox]

Vet “failed” a horse despite it being sound. Person still bought it. Horse was pts 18months later from issues vet pointed out.

I bet it wasnt to do with pigeon toes though.

 

[Cortez]

My ISH is 17. we bought as a 5 year old and he is pigeon toed. He has been sound for 12 years but went lame in March and has DDFT tears in both front feet. He passed a 5* vetting when we bought him but it was noted that he had pigeon toes. My advice is if Vet is saying no, look for something else.

So the horse has had twelve sound years, and now you're complaining?

 

[doodle]

I bet it wasnt to do with pigeon toes though.

I wasn’t saying it was due to pigeon toes. What I was trying to say is the vet, generally, knows what they are looking at and the possible outcomes of that. If a vet says not suitable it is for a reason and by ignoring this advice you are potentially setting yourself up for issues. Like the case I mentioned.

 

[Cortez]

I wasn’t saying it was due to pigeon toes. What I was trying to say is the vet, generally, knows what they are looking at and the possible outcomes of that. If a vet says not suitable it is for a reason and by ignoring this advice you are potentially setting yourself up for issues. Like the case I mentioned.

You have a lot more faith in vets than I do....

 

[doodle]

So what is the point of getting a vetting at all? You are paying all that money to say “nope I don’t agree with you” when you would be better off simply not vetting.

 

[Cortez]

So what is the point of getting a vetting at all? You are paying all that money to say “nope I don’t agree with you” when you would be better off simply not vetting.

I don't have horses vetted, clients can do so if they wish. But I've been in the game a very long time, it's something I recommend for people who have bought horses from me. If people are not experienced it's a good idea, but it is only a recommendation and never a guarantee that a horse will or will not stay sound.

 

[shortstuff99]

I like to think of vetting as a bit like car MOTs. They will show you on the current day the situation and anything obvious, but there is no guarantee that the very next day something might not drop off.

 

[doodle]

I don't have horses vetted, clients can do so if they wish. But I've been in the game a very long time, it's something I recommend for people who have bought horses from me. If people are not experienced it's a good idea, but it is only a recommendation and never a guarantee that a horse will or will not stay sound.

I am not sure what point you are making. I have just said there is no point in having a vetting if you then ignore it. I am not saying everyone MUST get a vetting and indeed seems very little point for someone with your experience to have one. What I am trying to say is if you go to the expense of paying for a vetting then you should listen to what (rightly or wrongly) the vet says.

 

[Goldenstar]

I buy vet failures sometimes .
I bought the pigeon toed one that was a mistake but it was one I could afford to take
However I bought a hunter for MrGS who failed on foreleg flexion I had to be very careful with him but he did five seasons and was an excellent horse he was 13 at purchase but that leg did do for him in the end .
Fatty failed the vet so spectacularly that he was recommend for PTS and his owner got LOU he was given to us he’s still here and going at 19 although he has not hunted for two years .
No one except a vet can tell if a horse can see or if it’s heart is ok Fatty is an example of how an outwardly healthy looking horse can be a death trap .
A vetting for me serves a start point I know what I am managing it’s not foolproof nothing with horses is and I have had three memorable horses who romped their vetting and where spectacular disasters .

 

[Cortez]

I am not sure what point you are making. I have just said there is no point in having a vetting if you then ignore it. I am not saying everyone MUST get a vetting and indeed seems very little point for someone with your experience to have one. What I am trying to say is if you go to the expense of paying for a vetting then you should listen to what (rightly or wrongly) the vet says.

There is every point in having a vetting if you are not very experienced: you are asking an expert in clinical health for his opinion - it's up to you whether to agree with him/her or not. Vets have become extremely and overly cautious as a result of being sued over outcomes, and I feel that they perhaps are not always the most practical people to ask (I know a lot of vets ). There are never any guarantees.

 

[CanteringCarrot]

Hm.

I'd argue that I am experienced, but I still vet. I don't own an x-ray machine nor do I have x-ray vision, therefore I have a vetting done. I don't want to deal with kissing spine, arthritis, and a myriad of other skeletal issues in the young horses that I am interested in buying. If something develops later on, then so be it.

Horses don't read their x-rays, and some carry on sound for years upon years with questionable x-rays (my OH's horse, for example). OH and I both have a keen eye for lameness, but I'm not above another set of qualified eyes joining in. It's not that I don't trust my experience or knowledge, I just like to minimize risk and give myself the best chance at having a sound and suitable partner. Horses can be a real crapshoot and I know they can fall lame or become ill the moment that bill of sale is signed. But still. I don't want to kick myself later for not spending a couple hundred in rads initially.

If I absolutely loved the horse and the price was right, I might consider a pigeon toed horse, but I also might pass because of it. It's not something I want in a dressage horse. I did buy a pigeon toed Appy years ago, for leisure riding and small jumps, but I only had him a few years. He was sound all those years, but he was young, so I cannot say if being pigeon toed caused him issues later on.

It 100% depends on your personal comfort zone.

 

[oldie48]

The old TB was pigeon toed on the off fore. I bought him at 11 and my farrier slowly improved it over a number of years and he was still sound when I lost him at 28. I am very picky about who does my vettings, I prefer to have one I know who is sensible and pragmatic rather than completely risk adverse. If this vet said "no" I'd definitely not touch with a barge pole but we would have had a good discussion about the matter.

 

[MuffettMischief]

To be honest I think vettings are becoming ridiculous. So many failed vettings nowadays. Vets too scared to ‘pass’ something for fear of future repercussions. I suspect almost every horse would have some sort of conformation fault that ‘could’ lead to future issues. Whilst I agree that listening to a vet if you have instructed a vetting is a good idea, you do need to be sensible about it. You are asking for an opinion of the horse on that day you don’t have to take it as gospel, it is information to use as you see fit. If it’s as mild the vet suggests then I think they are just being over cautious. Could it lead to future issues? Maybe. Maybe not until the horse is 20, maybe never! I’ve known a few with pigeon toe/s and my uncle had a few In the riding school years ago who worked long hours and lasted well into their 20’s with pigeon toes. I would ask your vet for a second opinion based on photos/videos of trot up. I think it’s crazy that a horse can fail on this if totally sound on the day. Make a note yes but a straight fail....madness

 

[honetpot]

I do not really understand the whole vetting 'business', as if something passes its only relevant for that day. I would far rather it was an assessment that was discussed fully and you made up your own mind, more like a house survey. The idea that something fails on a 'fault' that could be subjective opinion and wipes thousands off the value, when if you are lucky the assessment only lasts an hour. One vetting that I saw the vet did not complete the vetting because it failed a flexion test so did about 15 minutes work but charged the full amount although a full assessment wasn't given. My friend said, don't complain he might have found something else wrong

 

[angiejo]

Thanks everyone, i have decided not to buy, i don't really want to start off with that thought in my mind and also the insurance exclusions.

The horse buying experience at the minute is awful something i think should be exciting but i am not enjoying! i am also left in a position now where i don't know if i want to vet or not, i am not inexperienced by the way, i have bought a few horses and never had a vetting before but this time i thought i would do given spending a little more money than i usually would. Lots of comments on here mention using your own vet, most of the horses i have looked at are a fair distance away from me, very few people allow trials, do you therefore only look at horses in your local area?

 

[MuffettMischief]

Thanks everyone, i have decided not to buy, i don't really want to start off with that thought in my mind and also the insurance exclusions.

The horse buying experience at the minute is awful something i think should be exciting but i am not enjoying! i am also left in a position now where i don't know if i want to vet or not, i am not inexperienced by the way, i have bought a few horses and never had a vetting before but this time i thought i would do given spending a little more money than i usually would. Lots of comments on here mention using your own vet, most of the horses i have looked at are a fair distance away from me, very few people allow trials, do you therefore only look at horses in your local area?

I don’t think vetting is a bad idea but On this occasion In particular if the only thing wrong was a slight pigeon toe then you may be missing out on a really nice horse. A decent farrier may ensure you never have an issue. Have you discussed with your own vet?

 

[CanteringCarrot]

Thanks everyone, i have decided not to buy, i don't really want to start off with that thought in my mind and also the insurance exclusions.

The horse buying experience at the minute is awful something i think should be exciting but i am not enjoying! i am also left in a position now where i don't know if i want to vet or not, i am not inexperienced by the way, i have bought a few horses and never had a vetting before but this time i thought i would do given spending a little more money than i usually would. Lots of comments on here mention using your own vet, most of the horses i have looked at are a fair distance away from me, very few people allow trials, do you therefore only look at horses in your local area?

I am not saying that my method is fool proof, but this is what I do. I use a FEI vet that will travel to the horse. In Spain I've always been able to find one fairly close to the horse I am looking at. The vet takes my requested rads, performs an exam (with whatever requests I have made as far as certain tests), sends me the info and we chat on the phone. I can then forward the rads or any info to my chosen vet for a second set of eyes. I have also had a seller video the pre purchase exam since I buy sight unseen and one I have bought from repeatedly always offers this to me. I haven't bought a horse in my local area aside from 2 many, many, years ago.

Again, it is your comfort level. You can absolutely opt out of a vetting. Like I said earlier, I'd just kick myself if something creeped up on me and it would've shown on rads or through other tests if I had taken them at the time of purchase.

 

[fusspot]

Tbh, the whole vetting thing is a catch 22- if you aren’t going to insure then it’s totally your choice as to whether you vet, if you want the insurance, then you have to vet. The insurance companies are also clamping down so much more-if you have an exclusion on one area, if you have something go wrong in a close area,they will do everything to try and relate it.We as owners just have to work out if we can afford to pay £2/3000 if something goes wrong-and let’s face it-it doesn’t have to be anything major to get to that amount.If you are in the very fortunate position to have that money spare to get hold of quickly,great,but putting £50 a month into a seperate account is going to take a long time to be able to afford a large bill.None of us have a crystal ball,and don’t know what will happen in the future with a horse,but we do know if we have the funds to be able to pay out a large bill...unfortunately most of us don’t so have to have the Insurance and so need the vetting.

 

[July dreamer]

I would always have a horse vetted. A few years ago I was saved from an expensive mistake when the 6yo horse I was having vetted was found to have cataracts in both eyes and very little vision. The seller had not had a vetting when she bought him and I'm sure she didn't know. Lucky for me it was the first thing the vet checked and the vetting was halted there and I was only charged a nominal sum.

My vet (since retired but I use the same practice) told me that should I want a vetting out of their area, ring the practice and they would probably be able to recommend a practice, in some cases a particular vet, near to the horse.

 

[oldie48]

My vet (since retired but I use the same practice) told me that should I want a vetting out of their area, ring the practice and they would probably be able to recommend a practice, in some cases a particular vet, near to the horse.

This. I also have a really good look at the horse and make a note of anything that concerns me, however small and I am always at the vetting so we can have a chat.

 

[ycbm]

if you want the insurance, then you have to vet..

This depends on the value of the horse. Up to £5k, last time i checked, could be insured without a vetting.

.

 

[ihatework]

It’s pretty easy to insure a cheap horse without a vetting. God knows why though it still bemuses me!

That aside OP, I would suggest you keep vetting because (meant in the nicest possible way) it doesn’t take a vet to see conformation faults and limb balance, and presumably you were happy with, or didn’t spot, the pigeon toes before paying for a vetting?

I vet some. I don’t vet others. It’s very much based on the horse I’m buying. But I’m fairly pragmatic and happy at taking risks within reason.

 

[Orangehorse]

This is a situation where you decide. The vet has given his opinion, but it depends on the horse's workload as well. My horse has very wonky legs, including pigeon toed. My first farrier shod him and you couldn't tell - he won in the show ring. One day I noticed a lump above his leg, long story short, I decided to have his shoes off. Over the course of 12 months his feet improved immensely, his whole hoof "moved" and now he doesn't have a noticeable pigeon toe, even though he is back in shoes.

I have known very pigeon toed horses live long and sound lives, but the one in particular I recall was an arab and her rider is tiny and very light weight. I remember the first time I saw this horse and was shocked at how bad her foot was - but she did endurance and even Arab racing.

On the other hand, pigeon toes are a factor for unsoundness, and that is why the vet noted it.

 

[fusspot]

This depends on the value of the horse. Up to £5k, last time i checked, could be insured without a vetting.

.

I looked to move my sons pony as price had gone up-he is valued at £2500-even will full history,6 companies wanted a full vetting-had a full 5 stage Vetting 9 years ago with not 1 issue and he hasn’t seen a vet in 9 years apart from teeth/vaccinations!.Stayed where I was as had gone up by £50 and a vetting of any type was going to be worth way more than that!

 

[spotty_pony]

So the horse has had twelve sound years, and now you're complaining?

No I'm not complaining, merely stating my experience.