At what price do you not have a horse vetted?

[Emilieu]

I didnt vet mine because I knew I'd buy him anyway and thought I'd rather discover any problems once he was mine. He's cost me way more in vet bills than the vetting would have cost but I don't care because he's mine

 

[Magnetic Sparrow]

I've read this thread with interest as I'm getting a 3yo vetted on Thursday. I've owned horses for years, but one way or another they have always found me. This is the first time I've gone out and bought one that I didn't already know. It's quite uncomfortable!

 

[micramadam]

Wouldn't buy one without a vetting no matter how cheap. The result would affect my decision and depending on what is found gives a base for haggling on the price.

 

[dressedkez]

I'd vet regardless of purchase price as I can't afford unexpected vets' bills and am not expert enough to spot problems myself. I err on the side of caution!

And that is a very good point. I have never had a horse vetted - but I once sent a horse (I had not had vetted, when I had purchased it some 2 months previously), to a premium sale where it was vetted, and it failed on a serious heart murmer. An expensive day for me - as I had to pay half commission, plus the entry fee. I went on to sell the horse (for what I had originally bought it for) to friends - where it was a happy hacker for many years until it broke a leg in the field - and whilst they were devastated to lose the horse, they had it insured for far more then they bought it off me for, so were able to replace......
So if you can insure, without a Vets Cert - then that is the possibly way forward. But if you buy a horse for £500 and it goes incurably lame the day after - and you could hardly afford the £500 in the first place - then £200 for peace of mind, is possibly a good option?

 

[MerrySherryRider]

If its good enough to pay livery for, its good enough to vet. Broken horses don't cost less to keep.

 

[pennyturner]

I sent one lovely old boy off to a prospective home on trial. She didn't mention vetting, or I'd have told her that he wouldn't pass, and not to waste her money. Glad I got him back as it happens, and kept him another 5 happy years to the end.

She said her vet had failed him on COPD (which he didn't have) and sarcoids (which were there for all to see).

Her vet didn't spot the navicular, which was fairly pronounced, and the reason he was in heart-bar shoes in front, which should have given him a clue !o!

 

[Spottyappy]

Never have had one vetted, but have also never paid more than £2000 for one. I think if I were spending £5000 plus, you have no choice but to vet if you want insurance. So , then I would as I would also want insurance on a horse costing minimum of that.

 

[maisie06]

I've never had a horse vetted, but like some others I have never paid more than 1k - so really not worth it at that sort of price.

 

[Antw23uk]

If its good enough to pay livery for, its good enough to vet. Broken horses don't cost less to keep.

Agreed, vets charge the same if it coming out of your pocket!

I've never had a horse vetted, but like some others I have never paid more than 1k - so really not worth it at that sort of price.

Would love to know why?

 

[Pearlsasinger]

We've never had a horse vetted and we don't insure either. Although we have lost horses far too young to illness, it wouldn't have made any difference if we'd had them vetted, as we'd had them for years by then.

 

[Cortez]

Just about the only horse I've ever had vetted (that I can remember, anyway) passed with flying colours and then went devastatingly lame about 3 months later. I tend to go with my own judgment, and don't pay much for them now. I did once buy a $40,000 horse with no vetting (breeding stallion), and he was 100% all his life.

Don't insure either.

 

[Mahoganybay]

In my lifetime I have bought 5 horses, as follows:

First horse for me - gifted for a £1 not vetted, pts at 30+ not a days illness/lame
First pony for daughter - paid £1200 not vetted, sold when outgrown, not a days illness/lame
First horse for daughter - paid £1000 not vetted, pts with wobblers
Second horse for me - paid £1500 not vetted, constantly injured/lame, pts as was lame on 3 legs, spent £6k in vet fees
Second horse for daughter - paid £6000 vetted, not a days illness/lame, still with us and hopefully will be for years to come!

So, given my buying history I have had 50/50 luck with buying! The issues with first horse for daughter & second horse for me would not have come up on a vetting!

Had one vetted before buying second horse for daughter that failed a vetting on two quite serious issues so pulled out of sale!

If I was to buy again, I would have vetted.

 

[AmyMay]

Tbh £100 or £10, 000 I'd have it vetted.

 

[Honey08]

Contrary to what I said before, I have urged someone to have a horse vetted that was £1500 because I thought it was being sold too cheap and it made me worry.

I had our gelding vetted and it brought up a couple of things that were then excluded from our insurance, five years on they have never reared their heads, so the vetting was less helpful than helpful really!

When I was younger it was really unusual to have a horse vetted - I never did twenty years ago.

 

[Nicnac]

I don't believe it's got anything to do with price but more whether you know the horse, its history and how much you want to insure it for.

Anywhere from £5k upwards, insurance companies will request a 5 stage vetting and some also want x-rays. They are understandably trying to assess the risk however a vetting only gives a snapshot of the horse at that moment in time.

I have bought 7 horses from £1k to £4.5k and only had one of them vetted. I have however been incredibly lucky in that the 6 who weren't vetted were 100%.

 

[PeterNatt]

I would always have a horse vetted.
If you can't afford the vetting then you can't afford to risk buying a horse.

 

[morrismob]

I would always have a horse vetted.
If you can't afford the vetting then you can't afford to risk buying a horse.

Sorry but I disagree with this. I can afford to buy, vet and insure my horses but do not vet those under the insurance company's limit. I do have my vet look at them having bought them but honestly have never gained anything from a vetting that the insurance company don't then rule out.

Most vettings these days will throw up something and horses are not "passed" just declared fit for the job you intend them to do. I now insure for 3.5k value and top level vets fees. But Peter that is my view but I can afford to vet but do not always choose to.

 

[mandwhy]

I used to say I would always vet but have changed my mind of late. I didn't when I bought my horse mainly because of time constraints and logistics but I would if spending a lot, although my insurance wants a certificate for over 2.5k I think.

I rent land too though.

 

[Billabongchick]

Ours was under £1500 and we didn't have her vetted as got her through a friend. The only issue we have had wouldn't have shown up in the vetting anyway as the condition started as the tiniest scab on her leg (my friend noticed it the day before she delivered her but it wasn't there when we tried her) and the condition didn't fully emerge until several months after our trial/purchase. I would always get 2 stage done if the horse is not known to me unless it was very young and unlikely to have picked up issues through the years. Anything over £2k I'd have vetted regardless.

 

[Arabelle]

I would always have a horse vetted.
If you can't afford the vetting then you can't afford to risk buying a horse.

Nonsense - it is not a matter of afford it is what you choose to spend your money on. I don't insure either I have savings

 

[redriverrock]

Ive not had any of ours vetted and dont regret it. It had nothing to do with money...I am lucky that I have my own place and can afford to have horses with 'issues' though none have! I also think you have to use your own judgement and though I can see the benefit of having a vetting I do wonder if they are as reliable as people think they are, a horse can pass a vetting with flying colours and still be lame the next day as lots of posts on here have proved When it comes to heart conditions etc I can see the benefit but again lots of horses have heart murmurs etc which do not cause a problem.

 

[Polos Mum]

It costs as much to keep a good one as a bad one, in the long run £250 on a vetting is (ish) a months livery - not really a big price to pay.

If they had a bad heart condition and collapsed and died on the way home you'd be more out of pocket or worse injured you in the process.
If you have them at home so lameness issues don't cost you anything, you have a very/ genuinely knowledgable friend who can give an impartial view on confirmation/ soundness and you can have a vet do a quick once over of essentials maybe

 

[Nannon]

I had one better at 3.5k after the previous one failed the vet with sarcoids - nobody had spotted them and the vet said don't buy it!
My new boy wasn't vetted though, ascot sales buy for 420 quid and knew nothing about him! I think I was quite lucky to get away with that though!

 

[nic85]

I bought my horse as an 8 month old weanling.
I had her 2 stage vetted which picked up a bony growth on her hock which was xrayed.
Thankfully xrays showed it was smooth, fused and nowhere near to anything to cause any problems I bought her with a passed vetting otherwise I would have walked away no matter how much I wanted her.

Vettings are great for things like heart,eyes,bloods etc these are things that nobody could know if there were any problems without a vetting.

My horse is now rising 4 and doing well, but she could stop growing now

Oh I oaid under £1000 for my horse including the vetting and xrays

 

[Nightmare before Christmas]

Always vet my horses regardless of 5k or 15k. The only one not vetted was my 11h welsh A I used my own gut with him as he only does showing/lawn mowing was worth the risk. Hes been 100%. My horse I just lost had a full 5 stage but suffered unsoundness twice. Once nothing was found in newmarket. Second time found he had suspensory weakness, arthritis and a suspensory tear. The first two were on going issues but wouldnt have been found in a vetting. His xrays were clear too so even xray vetting would have been fine. Mri found his issues. I will always have horses vetted though for insurance and peace of mind

 

[*Maddy&Occhi*]

1st horse- Bought for £3000, didn't have a vetting and horse never had a days lameness/illness.

2nd horse- Bought for £3000, did have a vetting (but only a 2 stage), was PTS 1 year later with navicular and collateral ligament damage (unsure if a 5 stage would have picked up, although xrays would have showed abnormalities- said horse also had a nuerological problem (discovered the day she was PTS) which was the last straw and which then was why she was PTS)

Another horse I went to buy failed the vetting (2 stage) and I didn't buy...heard on the grapevine that said horse was PTS months later because of it's problems.

Based on the above, vettings have previously saved me on one heart-break, but didn't on the second.

I agree to an extent with those who have said a vetting is a snapshot of the horse in that moment of time.... but it can also be a snapshot of the past and could uncover things which may cause pottential (and expensive) problems in the future.

 

[PoirotHawk]

Without reading the whole thread, i think it really depends on how you feel when you buy a horse. Having a vetting certificate produced will certainly give you the piece of mind you want when buying a horse, particularly if buying from a dealer or buying a horse when it's history is a little unknow. However, if you fall in love at first site it won't bother you anyway!

In terms of cost, again i guess it totally depends on who you are. If you do buy a £500 pony then yes a 5 stage vetting will be expensive compared the value of the horse, but the extra-careful individual will probably pay it. Myself? When buying a horse i don't think i would get a vetting unless i couldn't find out the medical history or the horse costs several thousands of pounds. The age of the horse probably plays a big part too...

 

[HeresHoping]

First horse was 'given' to me. She was bought for £6k, and only had a two stage. She was lame every other week.

Second horse was £500. He had sat in a field for 6 months. He had had a 2 stage on purchase with his previous owner, and had complete set of x-rays plus a scan two months before I bought him - apparently he had come in hopping lame behind and they thought he had fractured his pelvis but had just pulled a muscle badly in his back end. On purchase, I asked my vet to give him a once over - he was fine; she even gave him a flexion test. Two months after I bought him he started the bucking bronco act. Then he had an 'accident' - adverse reaction to sedalin left him unable to walk. 5 months later he went to the great pasture in the sky having failed to show any progress through rehab and having deteriorated in behaviour. Transpires he had no ligaments left supporting his SI joint. He also had KS. I wish to hell I'd had one because whilst x-rays and scans are needed to identify both of these, there are markers that would have highlighted the SI issues (subluxation on hind raises for example). I'd rather have lost another £280 than suffer the £2k vet bill I had. I didn't even get two months of riding out of him.

I am sitting on tenterhooks right now because the £2800 horse I am hoping to buy is 27 mins into a 5 stage. Never again will I buy without one. That opportunity to talk to the vet and highlight concerns is crucial.

 

[*Maddy&Occhi*]

I am sitting on tenterhooks right now because the £2800 horse I am hoping to buy is 27 mins into a 5 stage. Never again will I buy without one.

Good luck , I hope it all works out for you x

 

[HeresHoping]

Good luck , I hope it all works out for you x

Unfortunately, it didn't. Am a bit gutted. How hard is it to tell owners? Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question. I feel like I kicked her in the teeth.

Never mind. The search resumes.