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

[indie1282]

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

Comment away! It's just an opinion - like I said I didn't know anyone who used to vet - I'm not saying everyone in the country didn't do it. I do think that competition horses/ponies might have vetted but don't remember leisure horses/hackers being done.

But then I am from Cornwall and we are a bit behind the times down here so what do I know eh ! 😃😉

 

[The Fuzzy Furry]

Comment away! It's just an opinion - like I said I didn't know anyone who used to vet - I'm not saying everyone in the country didn't do it. I do think that competition horses/ponies might have vetted but don't remember leisure horses/hackers being done.

But then I am from Cornwall and we are a bit behind the times down here so what do I know eh ! ����

:biggrin3: @ Cornwall comment :biggrin3:

 

[Cortez]

No, I wouldn't have had the horse vetted. In fact the only horse I've ever had vetted was the one who went catastrophically wrong shortly afterwards (bought in partnership (with a vet, ha!) and the other half insisted on vetting). But then I am quite experienced, have bought and sold many, many horses, and don't buy expensive horses.

 

[wildhorses]

In this situation I wouldn't have had the horse vetted either. If I were to buy an artheritic 19 year to hack lightly my expectations of what purpose the horse would fit for would be quite low. Also as I have chosen to buy a horse with degenerative joint problem I would accept that I was likely to be its last owner and my time with it limited. So if anything were to go wrong the end result is the same.

I have never had a horse vetted, just go with my guts, I like them to basically have good conformation and move well, I'm also very suspicious of horses that are too quiet and so far in my 30+ years I have been fine.

 

[wildhorses]

In this situation I wouldn't have had the horse vetted either. If I were to buy an artheritic 19 year to hack lightly my expectations of what purpose the horse would fit for would be quite low. Also as I have chosen to buy a horse with degenerative joint problem I would accept that I was likely to be its last owner and my time with it limited. So if anything were to go wrong the end result is the same.

I have never had a horse vetted, just go with my guts, I like them to basically have good conformation and move well, I'm also very suspicious of horses that are too quiet and so far in my 30+ years I have been fine.

 

[Golden_Match_II]

We never had any of my ponies vetted until we were paying more than 2k. They were expected to do fairly reasonable stuff, including one competing at national level. My parents just felt that if I liked riding the pony and it was talented it was a risk worth taking at that price. I definitely don't think the OPs friend made the wrong decision - it is all personal preference anyway, and it sounds like the sellers were up front about any issues.

 

[lelly]

I haven't read all the replies but I am one who has never had a horse vetted. I have been lucky but did miss a hernia on my last purchase. It's a long story and it was down to horse being like a yak and wild so still don't know if it was there when I viewed her, I never saw it. It's been sorted and I still think I got a bargain.

 

[BlackRider]

Hmm I've never really understood why people scimp on a settings, the cost of which is quite low compared to 6 months livery of the horse (which costs more if unfit!).

I had a 2 yo filly vetted (she was up for £5k) -best thing I ever did! She had an eye defect and was partially sighted, her vision wasn't good enough for her to be ridden, so it was very worthwhile. I was gutted at the time, as I'd really fallen for her.

 

[MDB]

We didn't vet either of our horses which we rescued here in Spain. We were only looking for something which would be an occasional happy hacker. I doubt it would have mattered if both had failed vetting procedures as we couldn't have left either where they were in the conditions they were in.

I think if I was buying a horse which I wanted to do serious work with, to ride every day in some form or another I would want vetting to ensure the potential horse was suitable for what I wanted. As it is they are more family pets that I feed carrots to out of the window and go on the odd hacks. And if one of them suddenly showed up some problem which meant I couldn't ride them, then so be it. They can be a happy 500kg substitute family doggy in the field and join us on our hacks but without a rider.

 

[rachk89]

Probably not if its just gonna be used for hacking. My one got a full 5 stage vetting by a vet I trust and know well but he was costing us a lot more than under £1000 and is being used for competing purposes, so was obviously gonna be vetted. I wouldn't consider her stupid.

 

[madmav]

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

I'm also ancient, and probably should have been vetted myself years ago. But have to concur with the fuzzy fairy, horses were vetted back in the olden days. Bought one in the early 70s that was passed. Turned out to have wind problems.
If I were the OP, I would not bother with a vetting for horse at that price. Go with your instinct.

 

[Eggshells]

Would very much depend on what I wanted the horse for. In the situation described by the OP I would probably have gone for a 2 stage if I didn't know the horse prior. Nowadays I think I would vet anything I wanted to have a long ridden career with (or sell on) no matter the price. I would probably have front feet, hock and back xrays done too... and MRI feet and bone scan the entire horse and borrow a time machine to see how it is doing 10 years from now!

 

[SO1]

I am normally one that would say get a vetting, however if she already knew the horse was arthritic and understands the implication of this and is looking for a horse as a very light hack/pet then maybe I would be tempted not to get a vetting or just go for a 2 stage to check heart and eyes.

I don't think it is just about the price when it comes to vetings but also what your ambitions are.

 

[flirtygerty]

I have never had a horse vetted, but mine tend to be cheap(ish) happy hackers, trotter x, most expensive, has only been lame once in 6 years (fingers crossed here) lost an older horse to colic, was sound until then, perhaps I have just been incredibly lucky, however, a friend does everything by the book, paid 3k+ for a PC pony, which passed a 5* vetting, got him home and immediately had problems under saddle, turned out to be KS, I would have sent it straight back, this family have spent more than the purchase price again testing for this and that, vetting vet is now bricking it, how do you miss KS, really sad bit is, it's only a young pony, who is right?

 

[fathorselover]

I didn't vet my little mare, she was £800. No problems that i can tell so far, fingers crossed hopefully i have been lucky. In my mind i would vet anything that was going to cost me over a couple of grand- i am more prepared to take a chance on something cheaper.

 

[Enfys]

Hmm I've never really understood why people scimp on a settings, the cost of which is quite low compared to 6 months livery of the horse (which costs more if unfit!).

.

Thankfully I don't have to consider livery, I wouldn't have horses if I had to.

I don't vet because I don't pay vast amounts for my horses, neither do I insure them, if they break, basically, I mend them or shoot them.
Simple, my lookout is the way I see it.

 

[Barnacle]

I would always have a new horse vetted regardless of price. I mean, the first thing to do with a new horse would be to have it vetted - even if you got given the horse for free. If I don't know the horse's history, I want to know of any hidden issues or anything likely to come up from the get-go. Besides, if I can't afford the initial vetting, i shouldn't be buying a horse.

 

[el_Snowflakes]

It's a personal choice. I would always vet but as the horse is a bit older & only to be ridden lightly I could see why they would choose not to. Not sure why it concerns others at the yard though, it's your friends money & horse after all!

 

[Merrymoles]

I probably would not have done in this case. I don't insure my horses for vet fees so don't need a vetting for insurance. I have a £5k "slush" fund for vet's bills.

However, when I bought my current horse I had him vetted. I had had one for a trial and was concerned about her way of going so had her vetted and she failed. I was upset as I liked her a lot. So I then had current horse vetted, despite being under £2k. I just had a two stage but got the vet to have a quick look at a sarcoid on his face as I wanted an opinion as to whether it was likely to interfere with tack or be an aggressive form. Sarcoid still there but unchanged three years on, but would have been excluded by insurance anyway.

I do think that vettings only give you confidence that on that particular day, the horse was OK. We all know that horses are masters at breaking so, unless I wanted the horse to be able to compete at a high level (in which case it would probably cost more than £1k), I probably wouldn't bother.

 

[YasandCrystal]

I had a 5 stage on my dressage horse and he passed wth flying colours. I ended up claiming in the region of £14k from the insurers in an 18 month period - he was written off with LOU.
I bought one for £1 unseen well bred with a sarcoid which I successfully treated. Sadly she has trauma caused ringbone in one fore fetlock but is now sound and will start light work.
I did not have my Dales youngster vetted and I would not get a native youngster vetted unless they hAd an obvious issue and then I wouldn't consider buying anyway.