Buying without vetting

legend22 said:
I don't bother. Have had horses that failed a vetting and been sound as a pound 15yrs later. Better off putting the money in the bank especially if owners are selling for a genuine reason.
Click to expand...

Very good point! These days vets comment on every single thing however minor, then they exclude it and you can't get insurance.
I've only ever had one vetted when purchased.
 
Tai.Ni.Po.Ni said:
Its a gamble but sometimes pays off. It would be just my luck I wouldnt get a vetting and he would go lame the day after haha. My thinking is he is only 3 and hasn't done anything do would it be worth it ? Hmmm decisions.
Click to expand...

I sell 3 and 4 year olds who are 100% - AS FAR AS I KNOW! But I encourage buyers to get a 5 stage vetting. Two reasons: a 3 year old MIGHT have OCD chips but have shown no signs - they WILL show up in flexion tests! And a youngster might also have a 'sinister' heat murmur - particularly one that shows up after exercise - that the seller is not aware of.

I've only had one who showed a possibly sinister heart murmur - and that was a 2 yo filly at her grading vetting. As it turned out, it WASN'T sinister (and she wasn't for sale anyway). But I'd never have forgiven myself if she'd been sold - and it HAD turned out to be a serious heart defect!
 
In all honesty, I'm not as convinced by vettings as I used to be. My own mare passed 11 years ago and has been sound as a pound until this year (arthritis). But my sister has had two horses pass vettings who later developed significant lameness. The second one has navicular. To be honest, unless you're willing to pay for x rays to be done of all four legs, I'm not sure I see the point...
 
Our boy passed the vetting as a 4 year old although he did swing one of his hind legs out, vet said that she couldn't fail him on this ( hindsight we shouldn't have bought him but heart ruled head :rolleyes:) anyway he developed athritis of the hock as a 6 year old which our vet felt related to a possible fall as a foal which could have accounted for the wide hind leg movement. We had him PTS in March age 10 as the arthritis and back probs had clearly got worse :(

Our new edition passed all parts of the vetting except lunging on a hard service were she appeared 1/10 lame on one hind leg, we bought her as she was very cheap and its the chance we took.
 
If you do choose to not get a vetting, I would recommend you get someone to go with you who is knowledgeable just to get a second opinion. Good luck! :)
 
I'd say it depends how much you're paying, what you eventually want to do with the horse and how gutted you would be if a physical issue meant that you couldn't do that. If it's only a cheap horse and you're not too fussed about doing too much strenuous work then probably not but if you're paying a fair amount (different people have different ideas of what this is!) or your goal is to compete said horse to a decent level then I'd say get the vetting done. Obviously it's only good for the day it's done on (horse could injure themselves the next day) and unlikely to be able to predict problems that may occur years down the line (well unless conformation is really screwed up) but have known a few people who were all set to buy a horse which then majorly failed the vetting and had they bought it would have landed them with sizable vet bills in the future. If you're worried about him being snapped up you could always enquire if you can leave a deposit to secure him subject to vetting
 
Depends on the value of the horse. I had neither of mine vetted but didn't pay over 4k for either of them so didn't see the point in a vetting nor did I need one for insurance. My gelding has very mild bone spavin but vet said that would not have shown up in a vetting 5 years ago anyway so wouldn't have made a difference - otherwise he is perfectly healthy and lovely :)
 
Forgot to add also that it can depend on your own experience and ability to judge a horse. Someone who is a first time horse owner is no way going to be able to pick up on things like conformation faults or subtle uneveness in gait that someone who's been in the business for years would and so in situations like that I think a vetting is quite beneficial for the owner as they are having a knowledgeable person cast their eye over the horse for them. My current horse I didn't have vetted and he developed hock arthritis around a year and a half after I bought him. I guess that had he been vetted that there is a chance this may have showed up on flexion tests (it might not have though). Had I still bought him despite this then I would have been rather more limited in my initial treatment options as I'm guessing he'd've had an insurance exclusion and had I not bought him then I would have missed out on a wonderful horse who has taught me a heck of a lot and given me a lot of fun (lot of frustration an vet bills too!) so perhaps in the instance not having him vetted gave the best outcome. Some of what I've gone through with him and his problems is not an experience I would willingly repeat though so I think that in future I would probably go through with a vetting in an attempt to at least start with a not broken horse!
 
Well since I have had my lad 2 wks now and I am buying him in a couple of months anyway, I am still debating to get him vetted, he's coming out of himself really nicely getting ratehr cheeky too :D
If I do get him vetted I think it will be a 2* as im not into serious competing, just the local level stuff really.
 
Might get shot down here. Brought a 4 year old and didn't vet. Owner did give me her vet's contact details and I called and received full history from when he was 5 months old. All he had done was his vaccs so took the gamble. Could you do something simliar?
 
Dukey said:
Might get shot down here. Brought a 4 year old and didn't vet. Owner did give me her vet's contact details and I called and received full history from when he was 5 months old. All he had done was his vaccs so took the gamble. Could you do something simliar?
Click to expand...

No reason you should get shot down :)

I may or may not have had it vetted, depending on factors at the time.

What I would say, is that you received a full vet history yes, BUT (I can always see a 'but', OH calls me the Voice of Doom sometimes :rolleyes:) that doesnt mean that the owner had every issue that should have been looked at by a vet actually treated.
Or that they couldnt have used an other vet practise for any reason (ie something happened and another vet was at the yard for someone elses horse and agreed to treat).
 
Yep its still a gamble not to vet a horse. With my boy the owner was selling due to a spinal injury and was in floods of tears at him going. She was very honest about everything, even down to minor things. We gave the vet a call who has known owner for donkeys years and said that with vaccs and 12monthly health check he has never noticed any issues at all. This I know doesn't cover everything and if an underlying issue arose we would be in trouble! But its a risk we took and 18months on with his workload doubled still (touch wood) no issues.
So really its up to you if you feel its not required then you do it at your own risk. I would add if I was parting with £3k + then I would vet due to the sum of £ involved...
 
The big gamble is not knowing if the horse is doped or not without the back up of blood being taken. The last two horses I bought were not Vetted but I had them on trial first. A horse I had for sale failed a Vetting, was said to have a cataract, I took him to my own Vet who used a dark room & couldn't find a thing. He was at a loss as to the other Vets diagnosis. (the buyer bought aniother horse which shortly afterwards threw her breaking her leg). Sad to say this made me feel a little better ( know that is VERY wrong of me.) I kept my boy until he died & he NEVER lost his sight.
 
Tai.Ni.Po.Ni said:
How many of you have bought a horse without a vetting? I'm looking at buying a 3yo and not sure wether to have a vetting done ? Owner has bred him and said he has never been lame but I don't want to be caught out. Advice please ? :)
Click to expand...

My thoughts are that for the sake of an extra £200 why risk it?

Personally I'd always vet. I simply don't feel that I have the expertise, x-ray vision, or money to throw away to risk not.
 
I bought both of mine without vetting. However one I had on loan for 6 months first and the other was known to me. I did not want an insurance company excluding future problems due to an overzealous vetting on horses that I knew had never been sick, sorry or unsound. However if buying an unknown horse (something I avoid like the plague) I would have a full 5*, sadly I don't trust sellers or in the reverse position buyers so tend to be very cautious in any transactions.
 
The not cheap horse I had vetted and passed, died from foot issues..

My expensive BD horse died..

The babies and freebies who all came not vetted are seemingly indestructible :D

Sods law?

The way I see it, a vetting is like an MOT and only really good for the day issued.. Horse could fracture a bone in the field, drop down dead from heart failure or colic any time for example..

On that basis, I'd agree with doing a basic check if nothing else, and only go for a comprehensive check if forking out a lot of money or for a competition horse..

That's not to say cheaper horses are expendable in any way, but like I said about the MOT comparison..
 
None of mine have been vetted just when we got them home had vet out to do a eyes/lungs/heart check and *hugs wood* none of my 5 have ever had any problems.
 
I normally buy youngsters, so, don@t bother having them vetted....... I've only ever had 2 horses vetted....... a 4yo whom I bought purely to sell on and an expensive yearling (who had to be PTS as a 4yo due to DJD - hence losing faith in vettings).

Vettings are like MOT's - they are only really valid on the day of vetting - doesn't stop things going wrong at a later date - HOWEVER, I do appreciate the reason for vetting if you are paying alot for a horse.
 
Sugar_and_Spice said:
Me. Don't do vettings or expensive horses. Buy cheap, take a chance and PTS if its no good. But then I'm never after a horse for a specific job, just something to ride. I'll do whatever it turns out to be capable of, so a work limiting issue isn't the end of the world for me. I don't believe in retirement either. So I don't worry about being stuck with a lame 6yr old for the next 20yrs.
Click to expand...
My God, how many have you shot? does it not bother you that they are sweet and kind?
I am responsible for a life, so I don't buy cripples, the owner is responsible for them.
Something for you to ride are available at the RS.
 
Last edited:
I bought without a vetting, but previous owner had only had him for 6 months max, and had a 5* vetting. I just got my vet to give him an MOT once I took him home.

He was diagnosed with bone spavin 3 years later, but I doubt that it would have shown up when I bought him - he was only 5 at the time.
 
elsazzo said:
Ps. In my opinion it's also not just about the money. It doesn't matter how much the horse costs to buy your going to love it & be emotionally attached to it regardless of price & I would go through the avoidable heartbreak again.
Click to expand...

This. I dont mind so much when buyin for myself, but bought a cheap, just backed NF for my 11 yr old last Christmas. To cut a long story short it turns out he had fractured a hock at some point in the past and when lame as soon ashe as in srious work. he has cost a fortune in vets bills, box rest & grass livery and should probably be PTS but i keep giving him a while longer just in case he comes right as my daughter loves him so........ having said that i have also bouht 3 x connie 4 yr olds in the last year and none of them have been vetted.
 
I have never had one vetted or touch wood had any problems. I also buy cheap tho and have never spent more than 850 and that is more than double my previous big spend ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top