Why shouldn't you have a horse vetted by its own vet?

horsegirl

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 June 2006
Messages
10,432
Visit site
My husband is buying a horse that he has been riding for a few months, she is at the same yard as us and her vet is one from the same practice as my horse's vet. He needs a vetting certificate for insurance purposes (unless anyone knows a company that do not require this?) but why is it not recommended that she be vetted by her own vet? I would think it would be better as the vet knows any problems she might have?
 
Some vets will do there own clients mine will and that has never caused me a problem. Ask and see but it is up to the vet and owner if one or other is not happy then you need to respect their wishes.
 
Beacause of bias. How do you know wether the vet will be giving an opinion in favour of the owner, or in favour of yourself, the potential buyer?
 
The Vet is employed by the buyer. It is the buyers money at stake. Most buyers prefer to use a vet who is independant of the seller, ie, not in the employment of the seller.

At the end of the day, Vets are profesionals, however, they are also humans and business men/women. ...

A Vetting describes the Vets findings on the day of the vetting. Past history is not taken in to account.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Past history is not taken in to account.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a horse is vetted by the seller's own vet practise, then all details of the horse's past history have to be passed on to the purchaser.
 
QR

It is not the horse's actual vet but one of the other vets from then same practice. Why would the vet show any bias at all? You are implying that vets are dishonest. Maybe some are but if they pass a horse that has serious problems there are ramifications and I'm sure most vets would not risk the reputation in this way.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Past history is not taken in to account.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a horse is vetted by the seller's own vet practise, then all details of the horse's past history have to be passed on to the purchaser.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true - I sold a horse and they wanted to use my vet. The horse had been lame a few months prior and they hadn't diagnosed anything, so to be safe, he scanned the tendon and found a hole. If it had been an impartial vet, they wouldn't have picked up anything.
 
When I sold my horse in the spring the buyer asked my vet to do it. He didnt want to but then said ok and I have to say he was very thorough. He said that he would be very particular as he wouldnt want any comebcks. Needless to say he passed but he was very honest even putting that he looked a bit weak behind on his certificate.

Maybe it might work in the reverse as they are more careful??
 
I would never use a vet which the seller uses again. We bought a horse on the understanding she was totally sound. The vet was a well 'respected' vet which the seller recommended so we trusted her later to find out when we came to sell her that she would fail every vetting she went through! She was eventually bought by someone that didn't want her vetted (I will add we never had any problems with her soundness at all!). We lost a lot of money as we had to drop the price as she was on the market for ages because of this. Maybe we were very unlicky but I wouldn't recommend it.
 
hmm, well I trust my vet implicitly, much more so than a vet I do not know. I have seen how he is with my horse (excellent) and I am sure he would be unbiased.
 
If you use a totally random vet and end up buying the horse you can tell your insurance you didn't have a vetting if its under 5k and you'll have no silly exclusions. Not that I would advocate this type of behaviour of course.
laugh.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
When I sold my horse in the spring the buyer asked my vet to do it. He didnt want to but then said ok

[/ QUOTE ]

It is my understanding (from my vet) that it is unethical for them to vet a horse for a buyer when the seller is their client - even if they have never treated that particular horse. My vet certainly won't do it - although he does my vettings for grading.
 
Top