To vet or not to vet that is the question

webble

webble

Well-Known Member
Joined
8 August 2012
Messages
5,749
Location
Border of Cheshire/Wirral/ N Wales
Visit site
Ok so I know the answer is to vet but hear me out.

Given that I lost my last 2 horses at the age of 9 I've become a bit cynical. I have found a mare I really like, she is 5 and fairly low mileage. I have the option of a friend who is a vet checking eyes, heart and lungs for me or the usual 5 stage vetting. Would I be ridiculous to skip a 5 stage?
 
Agria are the only insurers who don't require a certificate above 5k I think. I paid just above that for Rocky and specifically asked them if I needed a 5 stage and they said only if I wanted to insure for loss of use, so I had a 2 stage done. I'd definitely get eyes, wind and a trot up done.
 
webble said:
Ok so I know the answer is to vet but hear me out.

Given that I lost my last 2 horses at the age of 9 I've become a bit cynical. I have found a mare I really like, she is 5 and fairly low mileage. I have the option of a friend who is a vet checking eyes, heart and lungs for me or the usual 5 stage vetting. Would I be ridiculous to skip a 5 stage?
Click to expand...
I would get a vetting specially for insurance- and at least you have gone down the right route, as someone may think the friend passed it or picked up something to get price down. Best have independent person who you don't know
 
I chose to 5 stage vet and x-ray so I had as full a picture as possible. This was after loosing two horses in 2 years. Even with minor findings it didn't put me off because I was taken in by her temperament more than anything. 2 stage would be my minimum to check soundness
 
I only started vetting when prices sky rocketed, I know that not logical since sick horses are expensive regardless of price.

I would always vet now. Partly in the hope it picks up if there's something wrong but mainly because the process gives you a really good insight into the horse. I don't do anywhere near enough at viewing, I just get a feel for the horse and decide it'll do. Watching him be prodded and poked for an hour, cantered until he's breathless, have bloods drawn etc is great insight.

Its £300ish, do it.
 
Me too. Would never buy a horse unvetted.

However after my experience with Lari (who had a five stage vetting and was found lame on first ride back home, which led to all manner of investigations and a diagnosis of untreatable arthritic conditions) I'm certainly more cynical now.
 
It depends on your eye, some people can spot lameness/asymmetry/weakness, and on the other hand someone at my yard just bought something that looks entirely crocked behind to me and seemingly still haven't noticed...
I would always get eyes/heart/lungs checked though at the very minimum.
 
the cost of a vetting, versus the long term cost of keeping a horse, is low.

It is additional information, that you can chose how to interpret. I totally agree it is no guarantee horse is underlying sound.

Unless you can afford to lose the purchase price, and keep a field ornament (or make hard calls), I would always have vetted (even a free horse), so have as much information as possible before purchase.
 
I have lost faith in vettings as so many perfectly decent horses fail. It's hard enough finding a good 'un without articficially excuding 50% of them because vets are increasingly risk averse. If I am close enough to get my own very pragmatic and sensible vet to do it, I would. But I am not sure I'd trust a random vet tbh. It's a shame. No-one wins when vets fail good/sound horses.
 
I'd be wary of having a friend who is a vet take a look. Keep business and pleasure separate is my opinion. For the sake of a couple of/three hundred quid (two stage), make it official and maybe keep her as a second pair of eyes for the viewing, so vet in addition to her taking a look. I've seen friendships go sour over less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top