Why should people share a horse for nothing???

F

Fruddy

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 March 2007
Messages
302
Visit site
Just had a bit of a debate on another forum about whether people who offer their horse for share should expect to receive a financial contribution towards its keep and I was quite shocked by the amount of people who stated that they didn't think a sharer should pay.

My horse is full livery (my choice) and I can also afford to keep him without the necessity of a sharer - i don't NEED one. However, if someone is riding my horse three times a week and on those days treating him as though he were her animal, I don't think that it is unreasonable to ask her to pay something towards his upkeep. Being full livery, there are no stable chores to do, all that she does when attending the yard is groom and ride.

I fail to see why, if someone is getting the benefit of horse "ownership" for three days, they wouldn't want to help out? A riding lesson in this part of the country costs between £20.00 to £30.00 an hour, fair enough I know that you are getting an instructor's expertise for that too, but I personally don't think having a horse for three days a week and paying £25.00 per week for the privilege is asking too much.

What are your opinions?
confused.gif
 
Depends on the horse and arrangement.....................if it was a genuine ahare, I would pay. However if I was schooling/exercising the horse for the owner, I would expect to be paid.
 
On the flip side, if they are a decent rider who can school/teach your horse and are exercising it when you can't - you should pay them
wink.gif
 
It really depends on the arrangement.

If a person *cant* ride their horse, but *needs* someone to keep it fit, I dont think they should have to pay....

If the horse owner doesnt *need* anyone to ride their horse, but lets someone ride, then I think they should contribute.

I think each case differs tbh.

eg I have my own horse to ride, but if a friend asked me to ride their horse to keep it fit mid-week or something, I wouldnt expect to pay.........If I didnt have a horse, and asked a friend if I could ride, then I would expect to contribute.......
 
I think you are quite right.

HOWEVER, I may be lookingfor a sharer with one of my horses and if the right person came along I would be happy with just a contribution towards his shoes as I really just want some-one to tick him over as I find two horses quite difficult to keep fit. Perhaps I am too soft! In any event it probably wont happen as I am also too possessive!
 
Personally for me when I decided to start looking for s sharer I didn't expect any contribution other than front shoes. I have chosen to keep the boy for life, so I foot the bill! Its only that he could do with a little excerise here and there and I don't have the time that I am looking for sharer. To be fair he would be equally happy staying in the field, but at least if he's worked it keeps him active (he's 17 now).
 
well when I used to share a few years back - I was just out of uni, loads student debt but desperatly missing horsey contact and the lady that owned the horse was pregnant / had small baby, could find the time for her horse (well certainly not daily)

I mucked out /cared for horse 5days a week in return for riding. I paid for nothing but in effect I actually saved her money cos she didn't have to pay the yard to muck out etc

I think it probably depends on individual situations and what owner/sharer want
 
I agree it really depends. I've been looking to share myself but money isnt something i have much of (£20-£30 a week max) however i am able to work hard and do as many chores as i can.

It depends on the livery, so for your example if they only ride then yes they should pay a little more. If it was DIY then i wouldnt want to be paying alot AND doing extra yard chores.
 
I agree with the above. I have 3 horses at the moment and would never have time to ride them all, but one is an oldie and I don't ever ride him myself, but let someone else ride him twice a week, just to keep him going really. She pays for his shoes which I think is fair - she gets a nice horse to hack out and doesn't have to do any yard duties, etc, although she does occassionally muck him out.
 
I disagree with the whole principle of paying for a share. I have gone into reams of depth about it in the past and don't want to repeat myself ... but in short

1. the ownership is still the OWNER

therefore

2. the sharer is not getting many of the benefits of OWNERSHIP

3. 99 time out of 100, the sharer is doing the owner a favour saving them time and/or money

a share is never an equal input into a horse - that simply wouldn't work for the horses benefit.

work for rides is completely acceptable to me, 'sharing' (and that is a false term) is not.

i appreciate many disagree with me though!
 
I will be taking a share of a horse soon and will be paying £125 per month which i think is quite alot. But the horse is lovely and i will be able to compete too. I think sharing is fine but the arrangement needs to suit both parties.
 
Depnds on the circumstances, but I certainly wouldn't expect a share/loan to be free, although some people are living on another planet with the amount of money they want from the person.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with the whole principle of paying for a share. I have gone into reams of depth about it in the past and don't want to repeat myself ... but in short

1. the ownership is still the OWNER

therefore

2. the sharer is not getting many of the benefits of OWNERSHIP

3. 99 time out of 100, the sharer is doing the owner a favour saving them time and/or money

a share is never an equal input into a horse - that simply wouldn't work for the horses benefit.

work for rides is completely acceptable to me, 'sharing' (and that is a false term) is not.

i appreciate many disagree with me though!

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the PITFALLS of ownership that the sharer doesn't have the responsibility of dealing with?? Vet's bills, Insurance, Farriery, replacement of tack, blah blah.....

Also, why on earth is my sharer doing me a favour??? my horse is FULL LIVERY, I don't need anyone to school him for me, I don't need anyone to muck out...... its all done for me, so why is riding him helping me out?? My yard would do this if I needed them to?
 
[ QUOTE ]


What about the PITFALLS of ownership that the sharer doesn't have the responsibility of dealing with?? Vet's bills, Insurance, Farriery, replacement of tack, blah blah.....

Also, why on earth is my sharer doing me a favour??? my horse is FULL LIVERY, I don't need anyone to school him for me, I don't need anyone to muck out...... its all done for me, so why is riding him helping me out?? My yard would do this if I needed them to?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no understanding of why on earth you have a sharer. I'm in the same position as you.....so no-one shares my horse! You sound like you resent your sharer, don't need them and think that you should be paid as you are providing them with a service which somewhat inconveniences you. So why bother?
 
they do avoid the monetary pitfalls too, that's fair!

but if you are on full livery, why do you need/want a sharer if everything is already done for you? If being exercised is part of the livery price, than I would prefer a professional rider on baord my horse under my instructions re. what exercise the horse is doing.

I find the idea of paying for shoes to be ok - especially if the 'sharer' is doing most of the riding and therefore making the shoes neccessary.

I think I mainly take offense to the word sharer, since it's not really an accurate portrayal of what is happening.

it's probably not something I would ever do... once money is involved, there is far too much margin for disagreements and noses being put out of joint.
 
I can see from most angles on this one.

When I had a sharer before for my boy it wasn't really a share, she had unlimited use of him and could treat him like her own. Only stipulation from me was that he stayed at my yard. She paid half his running costs and I acted as back up to exercise/muck out when she couldn't.

Same horse, now different situation. Due to injury has been in the field, I'm happy to leave him there but have found someone wanting to share a horse for hacking. She only wants 3 days a week and I have asked her to cover his shoeing cost, as this is the only additional cost to me for him being worked.
 
Having been a loanee/ sharer, owner and also having had a sharer for my horse I reckon I am qualified to comment!!

I part loaned my first pony, her owner was at uni and the current loan fell through so I was asked to look after her until owner got back, she was really happy with how I was looking after her and it meant she could stay at the local yard, so she she offered me the part loan (I couldn't afford to have full loan) So I kind of had her on full loan but only paid half!

Next horse I had on part loan, to start with then full loan for nearly 8 years, I paid everything, then was given the option to buy but refused and bought a youngster!

I never thought twice about paying for everything, I was having ownership of a horse without the expense of buying it in the first place! I was hugely grateful that I was able to use the horse as I wanted, as if he were mine.

Then when I had my 2nd own horse I got a bit in the poo financially I was desperate not to sell her so got a sharer 3 days a week, she gave me £100 per month and just rode her on her 3 days, I still did all the other stuff. It worked really well and she was very happy with it.

If you want someone to school your horse for you then its a different kettle of fish, they are doing you a service and therefore should be paid.

But really it depends on the person doing the sharing, if someone doesn't want to pay then they don't become a sharer, they should advertise a service of riding/ schooling!!

Now I have my horses at home (and don't pay livery) if I didn't have time and thought that someone could enjoy a horse that I wasn't able to ride for whatever reason, I'd advertise for someone to ride out my horse but I'd expect them to pay for shoes or some contribution for shoes and to insure themselves!! If I couldn't ride it would be out in the field and not costing me shoes...
 
I think it really depends on what each person wants from the arrangement. For example:

Someone who just wants to ride/compete and does no chores should pay more.

Someone just needs their horse exercising and only asks for payment for shoes or feed/hay in winter.

Someone who does yard chores and exercises probably shouldnt be paying alot because i see it as a fair exchange anyway - do the owner a favour by doing chores, you get to ride an hour or so each time.
 
If its a sharer who pays then I reckon they have certain days of the week the horse is 'theirs', the owner has less say over little things that might not be done exactly as they would do them (as long as horse not in danger), and they would be able to maybe take them to competitions etc.

If its an owner paying someone to ride their horse or no money changing hands then they would ride when the owner needed them to not necessarily when they wanted or specific regular days, they would be expected to do with the horse what the owner needed eg schooling or hacking and if there was anything owner didnt like they could say so. Theres nothin wrong with this, owner does keep their horse as theirs but financially thats more of a drain than a benefit so fair I think, and when you look at all the costs of ownership most shares prob only pay a quarter or a third. And it is voluntary!

Ive always felt more comfy with the riding arrangement than the sharing, as Ive never wanted to feel that my horse isnt all mine. I have often had arrangements with friends for them to ride, they only pay me in buying the iced buns or buying horsie a nice new rug for Xmas, I wouldnt accept any other payment. They are aunties not second Mums! But I am lucky as I have been able to manage financially, and if I cant ride as much I accept that my horse wont be so fit.
 
totally agree haffieliesel

the 2nd arrangement you describe is what makes sense to me - plus paying for shoes and/or the additional feed for a horse that would not receive them unless being ridden by sharer.

the trouble with the 1st arrangement, is that no responsible owner would want to totally relinquish their ownership and allow a sharer to do whatever they liked on their days. I don't think that has the interest of the horse at heart.

I can appreciate that in a tight spot, a share arrangement allows someone to keep a horse... but increasingly people seem to be getting a horse with the intention of having a sharer to start with
confused.gif


I'm sure that sharing didn't ever used to happen when I was younger - there were all sorts of local ponies that I rode as a favour for owners, or did chores to get rides ... perhaps it is to do with the area, because around london 'sharing' seems to be the norm.
 
[ QUOTE ]
What about the PITFALLS of ownership that the sharer doesn't have the responsibility of dealing with?? Vet's bills, Insurance, Farriery, replacement of tack, blah blah.....

Also, why on earth is my sharer doing me a favour??? my horse is FULL LIVERY, I don't need anyone to school him for me, I don't need anyone to muck out...... its all done for me, so why is riding him helping me out?? My yard would do this if I needed them to?

[/ QUOTE ]

You would pay your yard to exercise for you.

If a sharer wanted the expense of vet bills, insurance, farrier, replacement of tack etc, they'd loan or buy.

Each situation is different. In yours, I don't understand why you would want or have a sharer.
 
I feel there is no right or wrng with sharing, each share has it's own circumstances, each owner and sharer has different needs.
For us, allowing our horse to be ridden as/when the sharer wanted, with no costs, was ideal for us. We had to keep the horse anyhow, but we benefitted by the horse being exercised, so both parties 'won'.
 
I think the question here is why is someone else riding your horse, there could be several reasons why an owner may have someone else riding thier horse:

1. The owner needs someone else to ride thier horse to help with schooling - in this case if the owner advertises for someone to help them or asks someone specifically then the owner should IMO pay the rider as the rider is providing a service.

2. The owner requires someone else to ride thier horse as they do not have time to keep it fit or something like that - in this case the owner may advertise and still pay the rider, after all the owner needs someone to ride their horse. But in this case there will always be people in the horse world looking for a ride - these people are usually willing to ride for free and even help with stable chores in return for riding. (But still remember in this case that it is the owner that is asking for the horse to be ridden to benefit them, if that makes sense).

3. If a someone is actively looking for a horse to ride they may advertise themselves and be willing to pay / do stable chores in return for rides.

4. The owner of the horse may be struggling with money or require some help actually keeping the horse - at this point they caould advertise for a sharer (as opposed to a rider) to help with the monetary aspect too. The sharer may get more of a say in e.g. feeding, may be able to take the horse to shows etc. and a proper contract might be drawn up

That is kind of the way I see it - it all depends on why that person is riding the horse and who asked them to ride the hrse. OP - how did you end up with someone sharing your horse. It doesn't sound as though you need a sharer. Did you advertise for someone to help you ride the horse in which case they are in effect doing you a favour as you wnat your horse riding or did you advertise for someone to help with costs in which case that should have been clear from the start surely? Most of the horses that I have ridden for people have come midway between point 2 and 3 - people have asked me to ride their horses as they don't have time etc. and I've been unbelievable greatful to have a horse to ride and done things like muck out for them etc. but never paid the owner to ride their horse when they need help riding it if that makes sense.

Phew, long post, sorry guys.
 
I free loan a lovely mare. I'm the only one who rides her, and I don't even pay for shoes. I pay nothing. Apart from the occasional bag of horse treats.
The owner wanted me to take her, he actually kept asking me until I said yes.
He pays for everything, he sadly cannot ride again. Due to a bone illness.
The mare was born (and her mother was born) at home with this person so he won't ever sell her. But She's an ex-competition mare, so she meant a lot to him and his son (who competed with her).
He knows I will take good care of her. Why ask for money if you can afford to pay, and if the sharer is helping YOU out rather than the owner helping the sharer out. I think if people want a loan horse, they should pay. But if like me, where it was the owner who desperately wanted me to look after her and ride her. I don't see the real need to pay.
 
We have a lady that comes up to ride our oldie. She has free rein on him and can ride as little / as often as she likes. She does no stable chores unless she wants to. She can even leave him in for us to turn out after she has ridden. For this she pays his livery. He is on DIY so I feel like this is fair and so does she. I wouldn't call it a share as if I want to ride him and so does she then I step back and let her. I'd say its more of a part loan really.
In my eyes a share is exactly that. Someone that shares everything - costs shoes feed vets bills etc and I have quite often seen it work out ok.
 
It depends on situation.

I share a horse, it costs me nothing financially - except anything I choose to buy (treats, saddle soap, Rider Insurance etc). I ask if I can ride on a certain day and if owner isn't riding then I can, if she is riding then I don't. If I really wanted a certain day for whatever reason then I am sure I could ride on that day. I am soo lucky that her owner allows me to ride such a fab horse but she doesn't need me to ride. I do all chores when I go up (I'm not asked to, i just do it as it's only polite to help with the mucky jobs as well as the nice ones!).

It works for us as a different arrangement would work for someone else.
 
I don't really understand the point of the question to be honest having been both an owner with sharers, a loanee and a loaner. These things are determined by supply and demand. If you want to demand a thousand pounds a week for someone to share your horse a day and you can find someone willing to pay that, good on you both! If you want to share Salinero for free six days a week and Anky is willing to let you, good on you both! The trick is to find someone who is happy to enter into the arrangement with you, whatever that arrangement may be, totally free, in exchange for help or in exchange for money by them or you having to pay them! If both parties are happy with what they have agreed, how can anyone else say they shouldn't do it?
 
I'm with Fruddy on this, even if someone is schooling the horse they are still riding a horse for free and in this day and age any contribution towards keep is a bonus.

I've not ridden for a year and pay my trainer to ride as I did not want to get into a loan for this sort of reason. My friend hacks Ralph out once or twice a week and she is doing me a favour/vice versa, she gets to ride a well schooled horse and neither of us ask for payment.

However, if she was riding all the time and getting the fun out of my horse, then I would ask for a contribution, I think its fair.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I don't really understand the point of the question to be honest having been both an owner with sharers, a loanee and a loaner. These things are determined by supply and demand. If you want to demand a thousand pounds a week for someone to share your horse a day and you can find someone willing to pay that, good on you both! If you want to share Salinero for free six days a week and Anky is willing to let you, good on you both! The trick is to find someone who is happy to enter into the arrangement with you, whatever that arrangement may be, totally free, in exchange for help or in exchange for money by them or you having to pay them! If both parties are happy with what they have agreed, how can anyone else say they shouldn't do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agree! So long as both parties are happy with whatever arrangement then there is no problem, there is no right or wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top