Would you be getting it Vetted?!

[Walrus]

Ignoring the pelvis (as that's already been seen by a vet and you are fully aware of it) I suppose your question really is should you get a vet to check everything else - so heart, eyes, wind... (whatever else they check at a vetting, I've never owned horse.). In a way it makes sense to get him vetted - at least you know any issues you may be starting with. But my question is.....he's been doing the job you want him to do for 7 months, you know he has limitations / care needed re his pelvis (no Burghley for you!) so if something minor was discovered that hadn't affected him in the last 7 months would you not buy him because of it, as you're willing to buy him with the pelvis issue anyway. I don't know, just throwing some questions around! At the end of the day, the big diference here is that you know him and you've bonded with him, if he was a horse you had vetted without having him on loan you prob wouldn't buy him knowing his history but that's not the case here. Good luck with what you decide - he's very pretty!

 

[Ranyhyn]

Hmm, difficult one.

I have never bothered having a horse vetted - but part of me feels because you know he's had an accident, it may be worth being doubly 100% sure he's fit and healthy in all other ways.

TBH, as useless as this is, its completely what you can deal with - if in a years time something happens which reders him useless, but could have been picked up - will you be saying 'What if' or not?
x

 

[bushbaby28]

if its my post you were referring to then YES YES YES YES YES>... i nearly made that mistake. if the owner had given him to me for 2k i would not have had him vetted.... and i'd of ended up with a broken horse.

an asymetrical pelvis would also not automatically fail the vetting. the vet said she wouldn't of failed the vetting for me based on just his pelvis... as long as his muscles are symetrical it shows he's coping. Its just a risk factor later in life.

 

[Ziggy_]

I bought an 'unsound' (LOU) horse without having her vetted on the basis that she'd been ridden hard by the girls at the yard for two weeks, then me for a week, without an inkling of any problems - my judgement has turned out to be right and she hasn't had anything wrong since. Doesn't stop me getting paranoid about the slightest hint of stiffness but it always turns out to be nothing

I paid £1500 which some would argue was too much, but she's my perfect horse so who cares.

If he's everything you want, and you have no niggling doubts over his soundness, buy him and don't bother with a vetting.

 

[BobbyMondeo]

Aww hes is lovely, personally i wouldnt get a vetting as you know he is unlevel and would fail it anyway. however it may show up any other concerns.

dont know if id pay 2000 for a unsound horse though

 

[AandK]

QR, personally i would get a 2 stage vetting to check eyes, heart and wind etc, but i would def be looking to get a reduction on the price of £2K..

 

[ladyt25]

If you are happy with the horse, you know the reason for his asymmetry then really it's entirely up to you. I'm assuming he has had vet treatment so, as part of this have they not then done overall checks anyway - ie to ensure that the pelvis was the only area needing treating?

A vetting is unlikely to tell you anything you don't already know to be honest so to me would seem a bit of a pointless exercise on this occasion. If you wanted to have him vetted then maybe just a 2 stage (ie heart and lungs) to check no underlying probs there.

Insurance is irrelevant to be honest. At the price you are likely to pay for him most insurers would not ask for a vetting anyway (I am assuming he is youngish looking at the pics?). You would obviously have to disclose the pelvic problem though.

If you like him and he can do the job you want then I wouldn't bother with a vetting, In 7 mths of having him any problems are likely to have come up by now. Anything else that may occur - well that's just how it is with having horses surely?! I would however def haggle that price (but I like haggling!!)