Vettings - the new rules?

EQUISCENE

EQUISCENE

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 February 2007
Messages
467
Location
North Yorkshire
Visit site
With regard to the new rules for vettings where vets will have to declare previous knowledge of every horse they examine. As I understand it this will only be advantageous to a buyer who uses the vendors vet, so if the vendor wont let you use their vet or the practice wont carry out the vetting because its one of their clients then surely alarm bells will be ringing. Or am I missing something?
 
EQUISCENE said:
With regard to the new rules for vettings where vets will have to declare previous knowledge of every horse they examine. As I understand it this will only be advantageous to a buyer who uses the vendors vet, so if the vendor wont let you use their vet or the practice wont carry out the vetting because its one of their clients then surely alarm bells will be ringing. Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

But its standard practise to NOT use the same vet as the vendor for vetting so there can be no question over the vets findings... so what has changed?
 
The whole vetting/insurance thing is worrying, I suspect that 33% or thereabouts of all horses and ponies would not be fully insurable if the Insurerers knew the whole story/history.

I'm not sure there has really been a change at all nor whether it will make any difference.
 
Having had my lovely horse vetted for his prospective buyers yesterday, where he passed all soundness tests including flexion and circling on a hard surface, only to be failed by the vet as she felt he was "guarding" his off hind slightly and was a little tense behind the saddle on his off side, I do wonder how many horses there are out there who will pass the vet these days. Although the buyers are still very keen, at the moment they cannot proceed as of course he will not be insurable without a full vet certificate. So he's having some physio to see if that improves things. The vetting was carried out by my own vets with my agreement, I have nothing to hide as he has only ever seen them for routine vaccination. If the physio sorts him out, then he will have to go through the entire vetting process again, plus x-rays, so keeping all fingers crossed. Talk about stressful!
 
To be honest, these are things that all good practices are currently doing (apart from strongly recommending insurance perhaps). Certainly mine are. And I always recommend buyers to try to get the vendors vet on the basis that they must declare knowledge to avoid a conflict of interest. I believe this followed a ruling a couple of years ago. Our practice always informs buyers that the vendor is a client and that thy need to contact the vendor for permission to disclose history. Is permission no longer necessary? Is it to be taken for granted? Or i it still just a buyer warning if seller refuses to disclose?
 
Tass, we have had the same sort of carry on with a mare we sold, she passed everything in a 5 stage vetting but the examining vet wanted her re-shod just to be sure (she was due to be shod in a fortnight anyway)... and both we and the purchasers knew she was slightly toe in prior to the vetting.

She passed.
 
I don't think this is new, I've been aware for it 10+ years.

I always thought it a very good idea to use the vendors vet; no secrets about it's history!!
 
I would always use our own vet now for buying and selling. Just had a horse failed by our old vet for having a slightly swollen fetlock despite passing all flexion and soundness tests, he said he'd wait for x-rays and said he'd come down the next day when we weren't there to x-ray my mare. Mum said no way as Genna had taken a severe disliking to her (he was very rough and she's not had the best history around men) and instead got our own vet out. Just to prove how she didn't have 'behavioural problems' as vetting vet had put down on form, Genna was x-rayed with no sedative and stood stock still for half an hour as our vet examined her. He found the swelling was bio-lateral (so bloody vet had missed it on the other fetlock!), very minor and her x-rays were perfect. However petty other vet had had a rage and failed her as we didn't get him to x-ray! Well he then had to pass her off the back of the x-rays, and thankfully buyer trusted us and she now has a lovely home and they've certainly not had any behavioural issues. Perhaps naive of me but I thought that to be very unprofessional :/
 
When you say you would use your own vet for selling, I would not be happy with a vet cert from a dealers vet for example, in general before this I would always use an independent vet, but now I if wanted to know all the previous problems, could I use the vendors vet?
The only thing is with my own boy, I have, in the past three years, used three vet practices, and at one, I was getting some stuff for another owner, but that would have been put down to my horse [only a minor medication], so its not all plain sailing. If I were a vendor who had recently bought the horse and one vet had vetted it and failed it, I would be telling them to go to my other vet practice who had never attended the vet!
 
foxy1 said:
I don't think this is new, I've been aware for it 10+ years.

I always thought it a very good idea to use the vendors vet; no secrets about it's history!!
Click to expand...

Thats been my experience too. Very happy to comply, any horse I've sold has gone with buyers having full knowledge of all its history, special likes etc.

Also give them farriers details too.
 
MrsD123 said:
Yes, but that assumes you are selling a sound horse, half the horses on sale are either not sound or not suited to owners needs/abilities
Click to expand...

Well yes. Wouldn't dream of selling a horse that had undisclosed problems or wasn't suitable for its new home. Would hate to think of the horse's needs/ailments not being known as that would be to the detriment of the horse.
The unsellable, 3 legged ones I have kept.
 
My own vet came to vet one of my youngsters for an overseas sale. I was really angry at his report as he didn't ask me anything of her history.

He told the buyer that she had not had much handling - would not pick her feet up and was obsessed with returning to her paddock mates.

She was 2 years old, been shown in hand and was upset because over the gate her friends were having a hoony. She did pick up her feet for me - she had never been handled by anyone else before.

Fortunately the prospective new owner told me what the vet had said and after assuring her that the horse was in fact a well handled and easy to work with she bought her and loves her to pieces - she has owned her for over a year now and has a wonderful partnership with her.

I think it should be standard practise for all previous veterinary treatment to be disclosed at the vetting - so my vet should be able to ask your vet what treatment he has given the horse in the past. Then my vet can make a well informed decision as to the suitability of the horse for the purpose I want it for.

I was always told that the vet NEVER passed or failed a vetting but gave a professional opinion on the soundness and suitability of the horse for the purpose it is being bought for and that the final decision was the buyers.
 
I think it should be standard practise for all previous veterinary treatment to be disclosed at the vetting - so my vet should be able to ask your vet what treatment he has given the horse in the past. Then my vet can make a well informed decision as to the suitability of the horse for the purpose I want it for.

I was always told that the vet NEVER passed or failed a vetting but gave a professional opinion on the soundness and suitability of the horse for the purpose it is being bought for and that the final decision was the buyers.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this vets should share information the buyer can then make an informed decision for their specific use, not everyone wants to compete at the highest level and maybe be prepared/able to manage any ailments that were highlighted. If this was always the case then the horse would benefit and may lead a longer more useful/happier life.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top