ester
Not slacking multitasking
Im another fence sitting middle, 6 of one, half a dozen of the other person.
Rearing horse
- Thread starter Freck.19
- Start date
Ownedby4horses
...
Perhaps it’s best to let this thread lie if it’s going to start picking at the seller now.
I think the way the buyer has handled herself, gone for outright naming and shaming and issuing threats, despite clearly knowing what she was buying and the way the seller has responded says it all clearly to me who is telling the truth.
Perhaps for the sake of the seller after all she has been put through that we end this thread now? I don’t see the point in dragging it on now.
Ultimately Freckles is safe and the rest now is up to the seller, legal and the buyer.
I think the way the buyer has handled herself, gone for outright naming and shaming and issuing threats, despite clearly knowing what she was buying and the way the seller has responded says it all clearly to me who is telling the truth.
Perhaps for the sake of the seller after all she has been put through that we end this thread now? I don’t see the point in dragging it on now.
Ultimately Freckles is safe and the rest now is up to the seller, legal and the buyer.
JJS
Well-Known Member
While I’m not saying the OP is in the right here, I do think it’s important to point out that the seller stated the horse was suitable for an ‘older child/teenager’ in her original advert.
To me, a horse that can rear - however small they might be - should not be advertised as okay for a child. Look at all the stories on this thread of the horrible injuries that can occur when a horse goes over backwards, and then imagine if that happened with an 11 or 12 year old on board.
Also, having an 18-year-old sister, I think a lot of people are overestimating the OP’s maturity. In a real world sense, she’s still very far from being an adult, and so I personally don’t think she should be held to quite the same standards as, for example, I would be, buying a horse at 28.
Add that to the fact this horse was recommended as being suitable for a child rider, and I think the seller is getting off a little too easily. She essentially sold a known rearer to a teenager who doesn’t seem to have had anyone experienced accompanying her. To me, that’s incredibly irresponsible and makes her just as bad as the teen who underestimated the horse’s issues and placed her in what was - for this particular mare - a high-stress situation.
With that in mind, I think all of the back patting is a little premature, and that people are being too quick to condemn the buyer while letting the seller off the hook.
That’s my opinion, anyway, and at least the horse is now back with an owner who seems better able to handle her issues ??
Ownedby4horses
...
Freckles rider, whilst with the seller was her 14yr old daughter. x
Fred66
Well-Known Member
Why are you sceptical ?Let’s say I’m sceptical. I think in the sellers shoes I’d just refund the money (although I’m assuming they have), and be done with it.
But then, none of us no what the truth is and what’s fiction. I guess it’s probably somewhere in the middle ??
The OP told us that the seller had disclosed the rearing and that it had reared at the trial. The advert had said it didn’t hack alone and that it was not a novice ride. The Facebook posts contradict her original post on here and show that she is more than happy to play fast and loose with the truth.
The seller has said nothing to indicate that their account is wrong.
All the evidence points to the truth being considerably closer to the sellers version than the OP.
LaurenBay
Well-Known Member
I am another not sure if I would refund the whole amount. I think the seller is correct in getting legal advice. Also the seller mentions having the pony back in her care, if she paid for transport back to hers then surely she can deduct that money too.
FestiveFuzz
Well-Known Member
Out of curiosity, am I the only one that wouldn't class rearing as napping? Don't get me wrong, it definitely sits under aversions but I find it a little odd not to call it out specifically in an ad. For me, when someone says napping I think a horse reluctant to move where I want and planting, spinning, reversing to avoid doing what is asked of them...yes there may be bucking and/or rearing as part of that, but I would expect that to be mention alongside the napping, but I'm not really sure why I feel this way so happy to be told I'm wrong.
I think it's perhaps because when I sold my horse that was prone to napping, not only did I mention what he did and how I handle it, but also that he could sometimes buck/kick out at the whip when planting as I felt some people might not mind dealing with something that won't move forward, but might draw the line at bucking
I think it's perhaps because when I sold my horse that was prone to napping, not only did I mention what he did and how I handle it, but also that he could sometimes buck/kick out at the whip when planting as I felt some people might not mind dealing with something that won't move forward, but might draw the line at bucking
Ambers Echo
Still wittering on
In my experience nappy horses rear if napping is not nipped in the bud. Amber reared once in her life when napping on a hack when horses went one way and I went the other. Never again but then she was always always in front of my leg after that. And the slightest hint of sticky feet was dealt with firmly. I believe she could rear with other riders.
Meowy Catkin
Meow!
Deleted.
Last edited:
MiniMilton
Well-Known Member
Yes this. Napping is the precursor to rearing. Mine naps, reared half heartedly once. Any horse that naps has a very strong possibility that it is going to rear. Whether or not the horse rears really depends on how the napping is dealt with and the riders actions. There is also a blurred line between the two.
For just one indescression I don't think my horse would be classed as a rearer, but if I sold him and within days someone intentionally faced him with all his worst triggers and pushed him, there is probably a reasonably good chance he would rear. Should I be expected to put "naps and reared once" in his advert? or more sensibly would I just mention it to any potential buyers.
If people are going to start picking holes in the ad with it saying the horse naps rather than the horse rears, it's important to remember the seller told the buyer in person that it rears (as mentioned in the first post) and it reared on viewing. The buyer knew it reared and didn't mind. Then returned the horse for doing exactly what she knew the horse would do in the circumstances she placed her it. Hacking alone. Then hacking in front. Both of which she was told not to do.
Fred66
Well-Known Member
I think describing the horse as nappy in the advert is sufficient at that stage.
How it manifests itself should then be volunteered with enquirers.
We had one that could be a bit like this (nowhere near as bad) when asked to leave the hunting field, if you never intended to hunt then it wouldn’t be an issue as he never ever did it elsewhere.
So in an advert I wouldn’t have felt the need to mention it but would have said not suitable for hunting by a novice. I would then have told them them exactly what he could be like if they phoned or came to try him.
The OP was told he naps, that he rears if he doesn’t want to go forward. That he won’t hack alone and that he should go second if hacking.
She ignored all this. If you read her post she gives the impression that she thought it was just a habit he’d been allowed to continue with, I get the impression she thought she’d just be able to be firm and he’d do as he was told. She probably believes she is a better rider than she is and unfortunately has found out the hard way that she is not. Totally understandable and forgivable she is only 18 and at that age the confidence of youth can beset anyone. Unfortunately she is now trying to blame her folly on someone else and to my mind she should not be allowed to get away with it. Lessons learned the hard way normally stick and if all it costs her is some money then she has got away lightly.
How it manifests itself should then be volunteered with enquirers.
We had one that could be a bit like this (nowhere near as bad) when asked to leave the hunting field, if you never intended to hunt then it wouldn’t be an issue as he never ever did it elsewhere.
So in an advert I wouldn’t have felt the need to mention it but would have said not suitable for hunting by a novice. I would then have told them them exactly what he could be like if they phoned or came to try him.
The OP was told he naps, that he rears if he doesn’t want to go forward. That he won’t hack alone and that he should go second if hacking.
She ignored all this. If you read her post she gives the impression that she thought it was just a habit he’d been allowed to continue with, I get the impression she thought she’d just be able to be firm and he’d do as he was told. She probably believes she is a better rider than she is and unfortunately has found out the hard way that she is not. Totally understandable and forgivable she is only 18 and at that age the confidence of youth can beset anyone. Unfortunately she is now trying to blame her folly on someone else and to my mind she should not be allowed to get away with it. Lessons learned the hard way normally stick and if all it costs her is some money then she has got away lightly.
SatansLittleHelper
Well-Known Member
While I’m not saying the OP is in the right here, I do think it’s important to point out that the seller stated the horse was suitable for an ‘older child/teenager’ in her original advert.
To me, a horse that can rear - however small they might be - should not be advertised as okay for a child. Look at all the stories on this thread of the horrible injuries that can occur when a horse goes over backwards, and then imagine if that happened with an 11 or 12 year old on board.
Also, having an 18-year-old sister, I think a lot of people are overestimating the OP’s maturity. In a real world sense, she’s still very far from being an adult, and so I personally don’t think she should be held to quite the same standards as, for example, I would be, buying a horse at 28.
Add that to the fact this horse was recommended as being suitable for a child rider, and I think the seller is getting off a little too easily. She essentially sold a known rearer to a teenager who doesn’t seem to have had anyone experienced accompanying her. To me, that’s incredibly irresponsible and makes her just as bad as the teen who underestimated the horse’s issues and placed her in what was - for this particular mare - a high-stress situation.
With that in mind, I think all of the back patting is a little premature, and that people are being too quick to condemn the buyer while letting the seller off the hook.
That’s my opinion, anyway, and at least the horse is now back with an owner who seems better able to handle her issues ??
This, with bells on..!!!!!!
FestiveFuzz
Well-Known Member
Absolutely not picking holes in the ad at all, it was merely a question as if I had a horse that was known to rear when napping I would want to cover myself by putting it in the ad for all to see so that there was no room for misinterpretation later on down the line. Fortunately in this case the OP has posted here acknowledging that she was told it rears and had reared on viewing so the situation appears to be cut and dry, but had the OP only posted what they did on FB it could have been an absolute minefield for the seller given a lot of the disclosure seems to have been given verbally.
FestiveFuzz
Well-Known Member
Sorry made a total hash of quoting there.
I disagree napping is always the precursor to rearing, but can agree that it could quite easily escalate to that if not dealt with swiftly and correctly. The nappy horse I mentioned never reared as part of his repertoire, but was most definitely a nappy bugger. Perhaps I was just lucky that it didn't escalate as I have a low tolerance for napping and am fairly adept at spotting the signs and riding them forward positively before it becomes an issue, I don't know, but I wouldn't automatically assume a horse that's advertised as nappy would definitely rear with me. Although it's by the by really as in this case the seller disclosed the issue, like I said in my previous post, I was just curious to know if I were alone in thinking nappy doesn't automatically equate to rearer, which it seems like I am.
With the horse you mention, of course I wouldn't expect you to state in an ad it's napped and reared once, but with the horse in question this is an ingrained habit so for the seller's sake it would have probably been wise to ensure full disclosure of the behaviour was done in writing so that they could easily cover their back if an issue arose with the buyer at a later date.
CanteringCarrot
Well-Known Member
I think I understood it differently. Napping is the precursor to rearing, but not all that nap will rear. However, all that rear will have been napping first. It is true that napping is a precursor as napping generally means the horse is not infront of your leg and respecting forward aids. Rearing is the ultimate way of saying I totally disregard your forward aids.
FestiveFuzz
Well-Known Member
I think it depends on the horse. I've had some that have reared out of nowhere with absolutely no warning (usually ones that we've later found out have a physical reason for the behaviour), but with the more backwards thinking nappy types I agree it's the ultimate F you in terms of ignoring forward aids.
Meowy Catkin
Meow!
I think maybe we should start another thread about napping and rearing. I have things to say about it but don't really feel comfortable having that conversation on this thread.
FestiveFuzz
Well-Known Member
Meowy Catkin
Meow!
Ownedby4horses
...
Brilliant idea for a new thread. Great discussion everyone.
Billyandme
Well-Known Member
Not to add fuel to the fire but this has just popped up on FB. Sorry don't know how to do quotes but the OP sister in law now getting involved via Dodgy dealers. Sorry if this post is inappropriate
.
.
MiniMilton
Well-Known Member
Yes I think what I have learned from this thread, if selling a horse that is anything less than perfect then the safest thing is to have some sort of recorded evidence of what was spoken during the viewings. Be it video recording etc.
Wishfilly
Well-Known Member
I do think there's a difference between being ridden by a teenager with a competent adult around who is in charge of the management of the horse and can advise if there are problems, to being an older teenager keeping a horse independently, maybe without anyone experienced to ask for advice.
Roasted Chestnuts
Well-Known Member
cant see anything ?
Chinchilla
...
I think the main problem with what OP did buying the horse themselves is, at 18, even if you've spent your life around horses you don't know as much as you might expect for '18 years experience' because you don't take in as much as a very young child so actually probably only have half or less of the years' experience you've been around horses.
Or at least speaking for myself that's how I feel....
Or at least speaking for myself that's how I feel....
Chinchilla
...
I think it's a different horse. Freckles was £2500, horse in Sister in Law Post on Dodgy Dealers was £2000 and the advert is different.
Roasted Chestnuts
Well-Known Member
What page as there about 30 dodgy dealer pages ????
Chinchilla
...
Roasted Chestnuts
Well-Known Member
Just saw it. Different horse I think as freckles wasn’t lame.
ester
Not slacking multitasking
agreed different.