Would You Vet A Horse That Cost Less Than £1000?

[acorn92x]

This is following on from a discussion I had at the yard yesterday following on from what a new livery said. Her new horse, a 19 year old Welsh Section D was not vetted prior to her purchasing it as she only wanted him for hacking and generally fussing over. Other liveries where horrified by this and made it quite clear that they felt that she had done the wrong this. I could understand where she was coming from, he cost less than a £1000 and what he can do is very slightly limited due to the early onset on arthritis (Controlled by supplements and plenty of turnout so he doesn't seize up) so she said that she saw no real point. She is an experienced horsewoman and checked his limbs, eyes, gums etc prior to purchase. He is a really lovely boy and is very full of life (Really does not look his age at all and hasn't had a hard life! Has been a happy hacker and done some dressage up to Elementary level in younger years) and she said that she saw no point in putting him through a vetting when he will essentially be a pet who she rides 2-3 times a week.

I personally would not have bothered with a vetting in this instance either. What would you do?

 

[budley95]

I would vet unless I knew the horse for a while before. This has always been the rule I follow. Even if it was just a 2 stage for an older £500 pony. Another livery is under the impression you don't vet under £1000. In the last couple of years she's brought 2 with "hidden" major health issues that's resulted in one being PTS and one going that way. She considers herself experienced...

 

[Red-1]

I think it is a very personal decision, and depends on a range of factors.

If the person is experienced they are reducing the risk of buying a big problem.

Some people would keep a sick horse forever, others would PTS, or even send it to the nearest auction, if the gamble did not work out.

To some people £1000 would be hard to replace, to others it would be a drop in the ocean.

Some people may not even notice if their horse was lame, so to them it would be of little significance.

To me it is a personal decision, and recently I have looked a a couple of horses that I would not have vetted due to low price, but if someone had tried to tell me that I was wrong I would have been a bit puzzled as to why they felt it acceptable to judge me. It would be doubly cruel if the horse turned out to be lame, and people gave you the told you so lecture.

In fact I am happy I keep my horses at home, and do not have to justify myself to anyone other than my husband.

 

[milliepops]

I don't think I'd bother in the circumstances you describe. If she knows it's got some manageable issues and doesn't have grand plans for a very busy life for the horse, then it sounds like she's got her eyes open.

I didn't vet my cob - I went with my physio friend to look at her, decided she was enormously fat and had overgrown feet, but was essentially sound and well and clearly not a laminitis risk! She had a basic check over by the vet when I did her vaccinations (eyes, heart etc) and is fine.
I didn't vet Millie either, but then she's on permanent loan rather than purchased. I did know her pretty well though.

Budget for next horse is going to be piddling, so I will probably take the same approach tbh. If I had thousands to spend then I'd always have a vetting, but then it doesn't always show up underlying problems, it's just an indication.

 

[FfionWinnie]

I haven't vetted anything under 2.5k. The only one I've vetted has a muscle disorder which wouldn't/couldn't be picked up on a vetting anyway.

I think she sounds very sensible and her reasons for not bothering to vet are entirely reasonable.

 

[Mariposa]

I'd always get a horse vetted at least at Stage 2 - if for no other reason than I'd like to know he/she can see properly and doesn't have a heart murmur or something worse, I think it's always reassuring to know what you're dealing with.

 

[Jo1987]

No I probably wouldn't vet a sub £1000 19 yr old arthritic horse. It almost certainly wouldn't pass anyway!
I also probably wouldn't be looking to buy said horse though.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

I have never had a horse vetted.

It was a long way from the norm when I got my first horse 40+ yrs ago. The next 2, we kept over 20 yrs, with very few vet visits, other than yearly vacs, so clearly a vetting would have found nothing.
I have had 3 young(ish horses pts over the years but none of them was because of something which could have been picked up at a vetting - one had medication induced laminitis, one had an internal tumour and the other died of complications from cellulitis. I do not like flexion tests, which can cause damage, rather than detecting a problem and a vetting, unless you have x-rays and blood tests done only tell you what the vet can see on the day. If you are spending a vast amount of money and intending to insure a competition horse, I can see the value of a thorough vetting but not in the case in OP.

I wonder why other liveries feel it is their business to sit in judgement on the horse-owner.

 

[webble]

Yes because hidden injury could cost a lot more than that

 

[OldNag]

I did.
But I don't have my own land to retire a horse to. I would also worry I had missed something.

Also, the purchase price pales into significance against vet bills if something is amiss.

 

[Palindrome]

I can understand why she didn't vet and can also understand someone in the same situation wanting to vet. Personal decision as Red-1 said. As long as the horse is well cared for by new owner, I don't see a problem at all.

 

[cbmcts]

For me, the only reasons for vetting are if they horse is over a certain value and I need the cert to insure or if there is something that bothers me even though I like the horse...

In the OPs friends case I probably wouldn't bother.

 

[asmp]

Didn't get our youngster vetted as he was only £500 but we were gutted that we missed a sarcoid between his front legs. Bar the sarcoids he's turned out to be a lovely horse.

On the other hand, I got my horse who cost nearly £4000 vetted and he probably shouldn't have passed (stupidly used a vet suggested by the seller). Again though, he has been a brilliant all rounder.

When I was trying to sell a pony some years ago one vet said she'd probably never pass a horse for a certain potential buyer as the buyer would immediately sue her if any problems appeared later!

 

[Spottyappy]

I don't vet, haven't ever vetted anything. Yes I can't see heart or eye problems, but as I'm unlikely to pay more than £1500 for anything we buy, there is little point IMHO.
We use BHS for insurance as the cost when you have several horses of individual insurance is prohibitive. So, I would not need a vetting for insurance purposes.
For people who worry about things going wrong, though, I would say if you can't sleep at night because you haven't vetted, then vet.

 

[Goldenstar]

Yes I would .
I would never ever buy a horse unless I knew it could see ( only a vet can do this ) and that it's heart is ok .
I look on vetting as the start point even on an older horse where it lets me know what issues I am managing and decide how to manage them .
I also like my vet to know what was the start point with them they are then better informed to know what's different if stuff goes wrong .

 

[Prince33Sp4rkle]

i havent vetted in a long time.

but the 2 in work (sort of) were under £1200 and the other (most expensive) a very feral youngster who you would have struggled to vet in any case so we took a punt.

we will probably be mostly buying youngsters from now on and i dont think i would vet anything under £5k as you are unlikely to pick up anything on that sort of vetting anyway (i can check teeth, eyes and heart myself).

 

[eggs]

In this case I wouldn't bother with a vetting. However I would probably ask for the horse's medical history from the current vet. If the horse has got to 19 then he probably hasn't got a significant problem other than arthritis.

 

[oldie48]

Probably not for an older horse of that value as I would expect it to have some health issues. I've had 2 stage vettings on 2 older horses that I bought as I didn't know their history and they were fairly cheap. One was fine the other had a dropped pedal bone that only became obvious when he went lame after hunting. It wouldn't have shown up on a five stage vetting, I would have needed X Rays of the feet. I bought my now retired TB as an 11 year old without a vetting as i knew his history. He was £3.5K and was worth every penny. My other purchases have been considerably more expensive and I've had 5 stage vettings on all of them with my own vets who are reknowned for "spinning" horses. I think it's a personal choice and frankly no-one else's business but if you buy without a vetting and then have a problem which would have been noticed, then you can't moan about it.

 

[The Fuzzy Furry]

No, its not just the value, but also the age.

I generally don't get anything vetted tho. I can usually spot lameness, bumps etc and like to think I have a reasonable grasp of conformation and defects over the years.
I also take along my stethoscope to check heart etc too.

My feelings are usually right but if in doubt I leave it.

 

[Goldenstar]

In this case I wouldn't bother with a vetting. However I would probably ask for the horse's medical history from the current vet. If the horse has got to 19 then he probably hasn't got a significant problem other than arthritis.

He could be partly blind have a bad heart for a start .

 

[indie1282]

I have two horses that have never been vetted - because I have had them both from foals!! 😃 They have a "MOT" once a year which checks the basics I.e heart, eyesight ect....

I would be happy for them to be vetted if I ever sold them and if I was buying something new now them yes I would probably vet it depending on price of the horse.

Vetting is quite a new thing imo - back when I was younger I don't know anyone who had a prospective horse vetted ( I'm 33 )

The bottom line is - if you feel you need to vet it then do it. And if you are happy not vetting then that's fine also!

 

[eggs]

He could be partly blind have a bad heart for a start .

Yes, he could but if he had been doing the job for that number of years I would take a punt. It is easy enough to listen to the heart yourself with a stethoscope.

 

[Goldenstar]

Yes, he could but if he had been doing the job for that number of years I would take a punt. It is easy enough to listen to the heart yourself with a stethoscope.

But not easy to diagnose what you hear many many horses have heart irregularities ,J does ,that are harmless but some like Fatties could have resulted in a dead rider it two specialists to pin down the issue and he was a young horse hunting fit at the time he was described as a death trap .

 

[milliepops]

Vetting is quite a new thing imo - back when I was younger I don't know anyone who had a prospective horse vetted ( I'm 33 )

I disagree - same age as you and I had my first pony vetted when I was 10 as 'the done thing' It told my inexperienced parents that the 15 yo pony had a splint and sweetitch, but she would do the job she was intended for :lol:

The bottom line is - if you feel you need to vet it then do it. And if you are happy not vetting then that's fine also!

Do agree with that though

 

[The Fuzzy Furry]

Vetting is quite a new thing imo - back when I was younger I don't know anyone who had a prospective horse vetted ( I'm 33 )

Sorry, need to comment on that, have 20+ years on you & when was selling childrens ponies in the early 80's through to 90's then yes, they were being vetted then.
Its not a new thing IMHO

 

[smja]

A 19yo with arthritis that she wants for hacking, for under a grand? I probably wouldn't have vetted him either.

However, even if everyone else on the yard would have had him vetted, they aren't the new owner - her purchase, her decision, end of!

 

[PorkChop]

I wouldn't have had him vetted, however I can afford a big Vets bill if necessary, so whether I had insurance or not I know that I could cover it.

 

[Enfys]

No I would not.

It is a risk/decision that you make, and take, and it is the business of no-one else!

What a rude bunch of fellow liveries to bitch about it Not their horse, not their problem.

 

[Wheels]

In this case I probably wouldn't no but more to do with the circumstances than the price

I think it's very rude of the other liveries to even comment on this, nothing to do with them

 

[huskydamage]

I never had a horse vetted and none of them ever had problems. But then I've never bought a horse more than 2k.
My current horse went to see with my YO who is more knowledgeable about stuff like conformation than me.

I would tell the other liveries to mind their own business tbh!