Ambers Echo
Still wittering on
I did not want to divert another thread so I am starting a new one. Are these becoming increasingly common?
I was first asked to do one on a pony I was selling about 2 1/2 years ago. I had never come across it before. Then 2 years ago my yard went down with strangles. Blamed on Amber as she was the first one with symptoms, but in the end it emerged it came from a silent carrier she had been turned out with who had been on the yard for years.
I left that yard once it was clear of strangles as some longstanding liveries were refusing to be tested. There were over 60 horses up there! Unsurprisingly a new outbreak up happened and YO laid down the law: ALL existing horses had to blood tested and if necessary scoped. And now no new horse can come on without a clear test. So I moved back (after re-testing all of mine) as I had loved that yard and the new rules were now far stronger than where I had gone to which just did the 14 day isolation thing but did not routinely test all horses.
For me the pre-movement strangles test - which Jenny & Dolly obviously had to have too - has just become part of my pre-purchase checks like a vetting. I pay for the blood test but if it came back positive I would expect the owner to scope. Or at least to split the cost with me and to arrange it while horse remains on their yard and for the sale to not complete till after a clear scope. If they weren't willing to scope I would walk away from the sale. But I know others buy the horse first and then test. In which case they are responsible for the stress and cost of scoping and, worst case scenario, isolating and treating. All without insurance which would not cover it.
But I'd be interested to know how others feel about it. How common are these tests nowadays? And who do you think should be responsible for further investigating a positive test? And should this pre-movement check be a standard part of a 5 stage vetting?
I was first asked to do one on a pony I was selling about 2 1/2 years ago. I had never come across it before. Then 2 years ago my yard went down with strangles. Blamed on Amber as she was the first one with symptoms, but in the end it emerged it came from a silent carrier she had been turned out with who had been on the yard for years.
I left that yard once it was clear of strangles as some longstanding liveries were refusing to be tested. There were over 60 horses up there! Unsurprisingly a new outbreak up happened and YO laid down the law: ALL existing horses had to blood tested and if necessary scoped. And now no new horse can come on without a clear test. So I moved back (after re-testing all of mine) as I had loved that yard and the new rules were now far stronger than where I had gone to which just did the 14 day isolation thing but did not routinely test all horses.
For me the pre-movement strangles test - which Jenny & Dolly obviously had to have too - has just become part of my pre-purchase checks like a vetting. I pay for the blood test but if it came back positive I would expect the owner to scope. Or at least to split the cost with me and to arrange it while horse remains on their yard and for the sale to not complete till after a clear scope. If they weren't willing to scope I would walk away from the sale. But I know others buy the horse first and then test. In which case they are responsible for the stress and cost of scoping and, worst case scenario, isolating and treating. All without insurance which would not cover it.
But I'd be interested to know how others feel about it. How common are these tests nowadays? And who do you think should be responsible for further investigating a positive test? And should this pre-movement check be a standard part of a 5 stage vetting?
Last edited: