USDF Connection comments by Jennifer O Bryant. [Archive]

Oldenburg Mom

Oct. 2, 2008, 12:20 PM

...but it's another to have a $300 a month pasture pet that you only knew a year and barely rode and now lives 300 miles away and might live 10 or 20 years.

Well, isn't that one of the issues of horse ownership? Isn't that why you need to really THINK before you buy? Isn't that what the responsible thing to do is? I have a pasture, sure, but it's a RENTED pasture.

I don't want to get into me vs. you or them vs. us or ... anything like that. But, I wonder about the "throwaway" mentality. If it doesn't work, throw it out ... or even better, pass the problem on to the next person. I actually had a vet suggest that one to me.

And yes, I wonder too what's going to happen to the horse. I guess I just don't think of horses as livestock...and too often in Europe, I suspect chronic horse problems turn into sausage.

And, I must say, I guess I hold the USDF people to a higher standard...they are people I would hope to emulate.

Like I said above, this may just be a very very touchy issue for me ... I may just have a leetle too much baggage for something everyone else thinks is SOP.

poltroon

Oct. 2, 2008, 01:12 PM

But similarly, you don't get to sell your problems on to someone else. If I take a lame horse out of my pasture and sell it for $40k to someone who is shelling out the money so they can compete and learn, I don't think it's right for me to make my problem theirs. The seller is taking the horse back, so the seller clearly agrees that rescinding the deal is the right thing.

FriesianX

Oct. 2, 2008, 01:29 PM

And yes, I wonder too what's going to happen to the horse. I guess I just don't think of horses as livestock...and too often in Europe, I suspect chronic horse problems turn into sausage.

Based on what I've seen with people who have purchased and imported horses, I've come to the conclusion that too often in Europe, chronic horse problems turn into sales to U.S. buyers :no: I say that only partly in jest - honestly I see many, many imports or almost imports (where a U.S. vet provided a 2nd opinion and said DON'T BUY!) that have chronic problems.

In fact, I wonder if one reason this breeder took the horse back is because of the higher level of publicity working with a USDF person?

I don't have a huge problem with eating horse meat (well, I don't eat red meat, so guess it's a moot point), in fact, I think it is a better end to a horse than ending up in an abusive home or starving to death... There is a perception that Euro bred horses are superior - I think a big part of it is they are quicker to cull, and as you point out, cull doesn't mean pull the papers and sell for cheap, cull means kill (or sell to US buyers ;)).

It is a tough call - what to do if you have a horse that has a career ending injury? I've got a couple of them, but also the luxury of having lots of pasture. We call it the "free loader pasture" - where the horses go that aren't earning their keep. They still get fed, checked over daily, hooves trimmed, shots, worming. Even with pasture, they aren't free, but at least I'm not paying $300 or $400/month for each one...

atr

Oct. 2, 2008, 01:40 PM

O'mom, it left me with a really bad taste in my mouth, too. But I also have 3 retired pasture puffs.

Maybe we are just softies.

That horse will not come to a good end. She's either extrememly naive or in hopeless denial if she thinks a lame horse returned to a dealer is going to "find a person."

Eclectic Horseman

Oct. 2, 2008, 01:46 PM

The article said that the horse had an injury, so I did not take it to mean that the horse was unsound when purchased.

I have known sellers in a couple of cases to take a horse back when the seller was emotionally attached to the horse and had the wherewithal to give it a forever home (or to rehab it or whatever.) Isn't that what reserving a right of first refusal is for? So I assume that emotional attachment was the reason that the seller took the horse back.

Oldenburg Mom, I understand where you are coming from, but for many, many people it is just not financially feasible to keep more than one horse, and some people do not want to give up riding. In a perfect world, everyone would have a satisfactory exit strategy for every horse that they own along the way. With the expense of keeping horses in my area, that would be very, very few people indeed. :sigh:

Zen and Horses

Oct. 2, 2008, 01:54 PM

There are certainly several good points to her article. I have witnessed with a heavy heart more than one 20 something year old young professional pin their hopes and $ on an import, only to find themselves with a decidedly lame 4 year old that may or may not ever become truly sound. And certainly will very likely not be able to be sold for anything other than a huge loss. But whether you are 24, 44, or 64, there is really no stage of life where taking a loan to acquire a horse (which means buying a horse you cannot afford, or could not save up for) is a good recommendation for people. Young or old, proven or not, a horse can go 'ka-put' at any moment. Then what ?? How many thousands and thousands to spend after the insurance runs out?

Recommending to people to borrow money to buy a horse was a GROSSLY irresponsible thing to do. Bryant's article is a welcome answer. But really, I'd like to hear from Sydnor. In light of the recent bank bail outs this would be a good time for her to APOLOGIZE and admit that what she advised was VERY BAD ADVICE. This is a big part of the problem with the horse industry, isn't it? The higher up's, Gurus, judges, etc. NOT BEING ABLE TO SAY THEY WERE WRONG.

Eclectic Horseman

Oct. 2, 2008, 01:57 PM

Oldenburg Mom

Oct. 2, 2008, 02:04 PM

atr, well, at least I don't feel like I've got six heads :lol: and should be sent immediately to the funny farm (well, at least not for THIS reason!)

EH,... your comment <<many many people it is just not financially feasible>> Look, I own 7 horses. I made some mistakes, yes, in purchasing and/or breeding, and I should have stopped at five (:lol: THAT is a very funny statement!) BUT, no one stood with a gun to my head and said "You must buy/breed these horses." Sure, I could sell them off for a couple of hundred and my liability would drop to zero (and I'd probably have a line from coast to coast waiting :lol:) but I'm asking the question, Is it the responsible thing to do?

I bought my first horse, who had to be retired at the age of 8, and that's the way the cookie crumbles. Do I want to pay $250+ a month for the rest of his days? HECK NO! But I do not believe, as a responsible owner, I have a choice.

I had a great time when he was sound ... now that he can't do his job ... hey, send him to slaughter? What's wrong with this picture?

Eclectic Horseman

Oct. 2, 2008, 02:13 PM

Do I want to pay $250+ a month for the rest of his days? HECK NO! But I do not believe, as a responsible owner, I have a choice.

Would that you could find somewhere around here for $250 a month!!!

Yes, you are very responsible, but you are also very, very lucky indeed that you COULD make that choice. Obviously, you did not have to make the choice of giving up riding so that you could support that single horse for the next 20 odd years. Lucky for you!

For everyone else, let them eat cake? :confused:

Oldenburg Mom

Oct. 2, 2008, 02:20 PM

One more thing, yes, I know how disappointing it is to put your faith and hope,...and money!!...into a horse that just won't come right. I have one that had colic surgery (no insurance) and now a tendon problem. Another had a behavior issue then a stifle injury. I'm not preaching to do what I'm not living, and I'm not the only one.

But this is an issue of responsibility, I think it's just the flip side of the coin to get to bank bailouts. Can't ride because he's off? That's ok, give him some bute and ride anyway. Can't afford X, get a credit card and pay for it. Can't afford to pay your credit card? Stiff the bank...heck, it's a corporation, they can write it off.

It's TOUGH to be disappointed, and keep going. It's HARD to have your darling baby that you think the world of come in 25th (I was so disappointed :(). It makes you cry, get depressed, scream rant and rave.

AND, like I said before. The USDF puts itself out there as our governing body. They're leaders for crying out loud. They should set the standard...

I don't know ... maybe I'm just too old.

Oldenburg Mom

Oct. 2, 2008, 02:25 PM

Yes, you are very responsible, but you are also very, very lucky indeed that you COULD make that choice. Obviously, you did not have to make the choice of giving up riding so that you could support that single horse for the next 20 odd years. Lucky for you!

No, EH, that's just my point. I'm not lucky. If I were lucky, I would still be riding him. I've CHOSEN to be responsible. It's not like I just sit down and bang off a check every month. I have to scrimp and save, and I work in a feed store on Saturdays to help pay the bills, on TOP of my regular job ... where I'm goofing off at the moment. :lol:

I'm not saying I'm an angel, Lord knows I'm so far from it it's not even funny. I'm just saying—I guess as I'm not even sure anymore—can't we be a little more responsible?

Eclectic Horseman

Oct. 2, 2008, 02:29 PM

No, EH, that's just my point. I'm not lucky. If I were lucky, I would still be riding him. I've CHOSEN to be responsible. It's not like I just sit down and bang off a check every month. I have to scrimp and save, and I work in a feed store on Saturdays to help pay the bills, on TOP of my regular job ... where I'm goofing off at the moment.

I'm not saying I'm an angel, Lord knows I'm so far from it it's not even funny. I'm just saying, I guess as I'm not even sure anymore, can't we be a little more responsible?

You don't get it do you??? :no: You have seven horses. Obviously you did not have to make the choice to give up riding so that you could continue to support that single horse that you could not ride. That is the position that many people are in. You ARE lucky that you never had to make that choice.

If every horse owner is to be held to the standard of giving every horse that they buy a "forever home," then I am afraid only millionaires will be horse owners in my part of the country. Those who are elite enough to be "reponsible" by your definition.

Oldenburg Mom

Oct. 2, 2008, 02:44 PM

You don't get it do you??? :no:

No, EH, I guess I don't. And I don't mean that in a bad way either... especially since I rode on Tuesday for the first time in about 6 months!!! I'm so busy taking care of them, who's got time to ride!!! :lol:

I guess I just expect, probably part of the problem, a little more care, especially from one of our governing bodies.

Maude

Oct. 2, 2008, 03:51 PM

atr

Oct. 2, 2008, 04:03 PM

I understand that she had to do something with the horse. Heck, I've had to give unsound horses away, put them down, and otherwise get them off the payroll, but I've always known where they were going and kept an eye out for them. I haven''t always had a place of my own to retire them to.

It's what she actually did whilst busily professing her love for the animal that I found hard to stomach. Like I said before, naive or in denial, or so desperate to get her money back out of the horse that she chose to close her eyes to the probabilities of the situation.

The "European Agent" isn't going to be "emotionally attached" to this horse and won't have taken it back out of the kindness of his heart. And I'd take a small bet that he wouldn't have taken him back from your or me, either.

I'd really like to think there was a whole lot of good news and happy talk left out of this story...

STF

Oct. 2, 2008, 04:05 PM

And, really, how many of us truly has the talent to bring that talented youngster to it's full potential? Realistically?

Very few if any.

WBLover

Oct. 2, 2008, 04:11 PM

EH is right, for many parts of the country, land is SO expensive people cannot afford to buy their own horse properties to keep multiple horses. Such that the boarding barns that do exist in those areas can charge $600+ per month--it's supply and demand. For someone to have to pay $600 per month for a horse they can only look at and then not be able to afford board on another one that's rideable--it's just not do-able. Maybe it was her best option rather than shipping it off to a retirement farm far away where she couldn't check up on it and visit. But she knew the seller was somebody she could trust, and would see after the horse's well-being better than she could. We don't know the whole story. And I'm sure it was a very heart-wrenching decision for her to give up on her dream horse that she probably was very attached to.

If she had the recourse to send the horse from whence it came, that may have been her best option. You don't know what the seller was going to do with the horse it took back, maybe the horse could end up as a companion, or is rideable on a very light basis and the seller knew someone who would take it and give it a good home.

quietann

Oct. 2, 2008, 06:40 PM

Another MA person here, and yes, pasture/rough board around here starts at around $350/month for *really* basic care and goes up from there. Land is expensive, everything is expensive!

I am lucky enough to have a little bit of land that *could* be turned into a pasture for a retired horse, if the neighbors didn't fuss too much (our zoning allows it but it would be difficult to carve out a pasture a sufficient distance from the property lines.) But yes, many many riders can really afford only one horse. I've seen more people willing to put down a young but unsound horse... a very sad fate, but better than what might happen otherwise.

I was just thinking earlier today about what I would do with my mare if I decided that she is too much horse for me (and true to form, she was an utter angel today!) I don't think I could sell her, simply because I know from previous experience that things can turn bad with her very very quickly if she's pushed or handled in an unsympathetic way, and there are trainers out there who'd have her on the meat truck without a second thought if this happened. She'd make a fabulous Pony Club mount or low jumper for the right young rider, so I could hope to free-lease her. But she's not going to have another owner, ever... I simply have this huge obligation to make sure she's OK wherever she is.

slc2

Oct. 2, 2008, 07:25 PM

i REALLY think it's unfair to judge Bryant or even Sydnor so harshly, but this has been discussed ad nauseum and that is not the acceptable opinion to have on this bb.

I think Sydnor was treated very, very badly here and her remarks taken out of context.

I was actually shocked at how vicious people were here towards her. I think it shows how badly people can gang up on someone on the internet. Mrs. Sydnor is very conscious of horse welfare and I don't really believe she's done 99% of what people here accused her of.

I really don't think Sydnor caused a legion of people to go get horses they couldn't afford, I think it had a lot more to do with giving people who are considering the move to a better horse, something to think about. It's not very easy to get a loan to buy a horse. Typically banks require alot of support behind such a loan. Someone who doesn't have a lot of backing isn't likely to get a loan for an expensive horse.

I also think it's abouut her daughter, and I'm glad her daughter now has some more appropriate horses to ride, actually.

Too, I also don't think all the facts of Bryant's story are there, people are making an awful lot of assumptions about her actions and motives as welll as the dealer's. It's quite possible that after a layup the horse might be fine for sport use or something less demanding. Bryant may have felt more comfortable returning the horse than gambling on a recovery.

As far as buying that expensive horse, people quite often do very well by doing so. When the person is ready, and is realistic, a more talented, bigger moving horse can be a great mount to learn from.

it is when people's egoes go nuts, and they get horses that are really out of tune with where they are at and what they are capable of doing (now and in future) that those costly purchases go wrong.

i've seen people do both. One friend, with very little sticktoit-iveness and no experience riding stronger horses and NO ability to do so physically, failed miserably after buying a very inappropriate horse. The trainer was happy, he had a GP horse to show for some years til the owner got fed up.

another friend, with years and years of experience training her own horses up thru the levels, got an equally big strong horse and now rides him very, veyr well at home and competitively. However strong he could be, he was lighter and more sensitive than horse in example #1, and more correctly trained to start with. He was, in short a better and more appropriate horse. She was also more fit physically and more energetic, and more persistent and instructable. She had more supervision from someone who wanted her to wind up more independent, and set her up for that.

It's ridiculous to even suggest that EVERYONE who gets a step-up horse that's expensive, fails miserably to master it. In fact quite a few people do well. It tends to go better with more advice and supervision, and with a more appropriate choice - a more laid back horse for the nervous, a smaller horse for the tiny person, and a not-quite world class mover for the person who's limited physically.

people DO need to get a 'stepping up' type horse at some point if they have specific goals. They have mastered certain skills, and the bigger mover, perhaps friskier or more sensitive horse, is their next logical step...even if it DOES involve some struggle for a time, can work very well.

----------------------------------------------------------

All sale agents, even European ones, aren't necessarily sheisters. They are out there, but it's not a german or a dutch thing. There are plenty of americans selling crappy, overpriced, unsound horses too. Caveat emptor. Some say 10% of the purchase price should be earmarked for veterinary evaluation and trainer evaluation, even with the most expensive horses. That's alot. And worth it.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I think a great many, even most horses, wind up at some time, needing to 'drop down' or stop doing sport horse work. It's demanding and requires a lot of each horse. Most horses can't handle the hardest levels of work and never reach those top levels, but may need to drop from 4th to 1st or the like, and gradually over time, drop downn further in how demanding their work is.

There's often a job for the horse at each level. Mom may want to go for a hack or just ride around with daughter. A local teen may want to learn training level. The therapeutic riding center may want a quiet horse. if a horse is very nervous and/or difficult, it can be nearly impossible to find a workable way to 'drop him down'.

Everyone argues about what should happen to them, and how far the owner is obligated and everyone feels slightly different about it.

Many of these horses that are 'pasture potatoes' might be able to do a little light work, but quite often, the owner is limited as to how much time he has, and he may see little point in working a horse that can't be shown or can't advance. He may even feel bored riding around quietly at a walk. But for most it's a matter of time. Horse care, riding the ones that are 'going' and other obligations tend to make it less easy to get the retired out out and go for light rides.

Some are really disabled and can't even be ridden. There isn't much one can do for them except keep them, find a pet home, or in some cases, have them euthenized.

Whisper

Oct. 2, 2008, 09:11 PM

I don't have the article in front of me, but I had the impression that the horse was injured during the shipping/quarantine time, and so the owner/dealer was willing to take him back. If a seller or dealer does offer a guarantee or trade-in policy, and the horse proves to be unsuitable during that initial time period (I don't think any offer it for more than a month or at most two), I think it is completely reasonable and appropriate to take them up on it if needed. I recall reading the article and being impressed that the seller followed through.

I've seen so many people with new horses, both online and in person, who've had the horse get injured right away, or change behaviour dramatically, or otherwise really not work out. It definitely makes me nervous about buying rather than leasing!

Yeah, it's a risk you take with horses, but if the seller is willing to mitigate that risk, I guess I see that as a good thing. There's also (in my perception) a big difference in what you "owe" to an animal you've had for a month or two, and one who you've had for years.

In general, it seems like a lot of people have a Pharoahnic view of horses - if they die, or the horse doesn't work out, they want the horse to be euthanized rather than giving it a chance to work out with other people. In some cases, that is reasonable, especially if the horse is dangerous, but a lot of older but sound/healthy horses can have fantastic homes with people who do love and take care of them.

Hopefully her former horse will come sound after time off/treatment, and will find a good home.

slc2

Oct. 3, 2008, 06:38 AM

There are a couple mistakes one sees over and over. First, changing the horse's shoes when they come over. If it ain't broke don't fix it just because it looks wierd.

Second, the horses are usually not used to being turned out. Not in the same way we do here. They very often get hurt in turnout, either on the harder ground or the fences.

Third, the horses are often very, very fit, and if one doesn't ride the snot out of them every day, they are way too fresh, and fresh horses tend to get into trouble.

Fourth, our footing here is very, very different. Often the footing in Europe is very soft, and not deep and holding but a little deeper than here, the use of felt and other products tends to make for a very soft footing. I think the horses often get bruised or injured when they come over here because the footing is so different.

For these and other reasons (lots of miles, getting older, etc) horses can come over here and do far less well than they did over there.

And of course, fifth, some of them just aren't 100% sound. There are dealer's barns in Europe where the dealer doesn't even know the history of the horse, and there are barns where they know the horse isn't up to the work and sell them as sport horses anyway.

If the horse is not quite 100% it is going to be far more likely that it has problems with the American footing.

ise@ssl

Oct. 3, 2008, 08:59 AM

I have not read the article but horsepeople have to get their heads screwed on straight about horse purchasing and ownership. BUYING a horse should be considered a down-payment - over time it's probably the smaller part of the expense than maintaining the horse. You aren't in the business for a long time that you don't face tragic and un-fair situations that end up costing money over long periods of time.

Buying at the maximum price you can afford should have included setting aside the money required to maintain the horse (even in dire situations) prior to coming up with the that max price.

Too often people are so focused on their own goals with their riding they fail to face the REALITIES of owning horses. It's a long term commitment and how and where this horse would live if it became injured or aged is something all owners should think about and have a plan in place.

We see this in the breeding business all the time when breeders (I use the term loosely here) try to market aged broodmares who have served them well. Shame on them. They refuse to face the fact that even if they get an older mare in foal and sell her - she will probably NOT continue to produce many foals into the future. So what will the new owner do then? Have they considered if the buyer has the financial ability and is responsible enough to care for the mare after she isn't breedable? Otherwise she will go to the killers. I would put an aged mare down before I would do this to her.

It's the same with some horse owners who buy horses to achieve specific goals and then when the horse isn't fitting into the rider's plans - they don't want to care for them. How shallow are these people? But I'll bet if their employer came to them and said - well today's your last day - we've found someone who can do the job better and has more skills - they would scream their heads off and say it wasn't fair.

What goes around comes around in life. If horseowners don't consider the long term ownership of horses - they shouldn't buy one.

flynride

Oct. 3, 2008, 09:29 AM

I don't own a horse property, and the cost of field board in my area makes it an either/or proposition. I can afford to keep only one horse.

It is not uncommon for an agent to take back, on varying terms, a horse that is found to be unsuitable for some reason. The agents are of course trying to keep their clients happy, and their main clients may well be the buyers' trainers, who may do quite a bit of business over time with agents they know and trust.

In my case, the agent believed that he could get the horse sound, and I am told that has been the case, which is a relief.

I have gone into debt in the past to buy a horse, and everything worked out just fine. I'd probably be wary of going into debt again at this point in my life, but my risk tolerance has also decreased as I've gotten older.

Jennifer Bryant

FriesianX

Oct. 3, 2008, 09:52 AM

SLC, I don't always agree with you, but in this case, both your posts seem pretty accurate! Another thing people forget, when importing a horse, we change their FOOD, the AIR they breathe, the pathogens they are exposed to - the horse's mental and physical system will be compromised for a while. Some handle it well, others don't. I see a lot of babies get sick when imported - simply because of all those changes plus the stress of import.

And I do think Cindy S has been raked over the coals for some decent advice. I really took her point to be - if you want to advance in an equestrian sport, buy the best horse you can. Best = best match for you in both temperment and ability and training. And, honestly, isn't that advice we hear on a regular basis? Want to advance quickly? Buy a schoolmaster, invest in the best training, etc. Is it financially feasible for many of us? No. But if you CAN afford it, do it. Affording it might mean NOT buying that new car or NOT going out to dinner every weekend. You might find the investment well worth it.

I'd also like to point out, MANY people don't have pasture or even access to pasture board! If the choice comes between supporting a non-rideable horse for the next 20 years at a cost of $700/month or more (not uncommon to pay that in places on the East and West coasts), is that really a reasonable expectation? I agree we have a responsibility to our animals, but in all reality, I wouldn't expect someone to go that far. I'm relieved Jennifer was able to return her horse, and I hope others have that same kind of opportunity if needed. I don't see it happen often (again, I know of several people who are desparately trying to rehab for the 3rd or 4th time on imported horses), but it is a relief that at least ONE dealer agreed to take a horse back.

As one who has lost an expensive (well to me, expensive) horse, and one who was loved greatly, I can tell you it is an awful thing. Why rake someone over the coals when they are already feeling pain over it?

mickeydoodle

Oct. 3, 2008, 12:27 PM

You know, it is really not just imported horses that can have problems. They can all become ill, hurt themselves, become compeletely unsound no matter what they cost and where they came from.

I bought a lovely US bred 2yr old at the top of my price range. He was just a doll, and I was able to back him myself he was so kind. About 6 months after backing he started falling, it got worse over weeks. He walked like a really drunken sailor. We thought he had EPM, treated him with no improvement. He could not be in the pasture because he was a danger to himself. He did not know he was unsteady and would take off cantering, then fall down when he could not stop. I finally had to put him down, necropsy showed he was a "wobbler" which is an often genetic advanced arthritis of the cervical spine, his was extensive, no surgery would have worked.

Then I had an expensive US bred (for me) mare who got an infection in the coffin joint from a puncture in the pasture. Now she is not sound for even light riding- pasture ornament. Luckily I found someone who wanted a pretty horse in their field just to look at.

I could go on and on after having horses for 30 years. They are fragile creatures.

I agree that if you want to get better, get the best horse you can afford who fits you. You may have a week of good rides, you may have years. No one can predict it.

I am glad that Ms. Bryant was able to send him back, and that they were able to fix him. Again, horses (and people for that matter) are unpredictable. Who knows what will happen tomorrow for any of us?

ise@ssl

Oct. 3, 2008, 12:34 PM

The problem is how people decide what price they can "afford". And those who actually take out loans - well I would never go there. Even with loss of use insurance you will be challenged that the value you put on the insurance really relates to the value of that horse.

poltroon

Oct. 3, 2008, 01:44 PM

Jennifer, I'm glad it worked out for you and for the horse. And I thank you for telling your story. I know many people who have bought horses for five figures with high hopes to advance to the next level, only to end up quitting competition altogether when the horse and the vet bills and the retirement ate their budget.

NoDQhere

Oct. 3, 2008, 01:49 PM

As usual there are 2 sides to every coin. Most people don't have the option of keeping an unsound horse forever. Then they have to choose which option will work for them. Hopefully their horse can comfortably live out it's days as someones pasture ornament. However we have also seen old crippled horses hobbling around painfully in the name of retirement and that isn't fair to the horse either.

As much as we love horses the fact remains that they are large, complicated, expensive animals to keep. Replacing an unsound horse with a sound horse does not make a person "bad" as long as the horse's welfare is put first, EVEN if that means euthanasia.

We are lucky enough to keep retires as pasture ornaments, but when they get to the point where they are no longer comfortable, they are put down.

Equibrit

Oct. 3, 2008, 02:49 PM

The interesting thing in the whole article is what she didn't say. Why even write an article like that if you are not willing to reveal the underlying facts?

slc2

Oct. 3, 2008, 08:14 PM

It isn't necessary to have all the details to make it thought provoking, unless, of course, your thoughts are all geared toward picking apart what the person did, instead of just reading about it in order to help one decide how one will face one's own horse's different problems.

Equibrit

Oct. 3, 2008, 08:21 PM

It isn't necessary to have all the details
journalism 101 - who, what, when, where. Doesn't meet requirement.
to make it thought provoking,
It really isn't.
unless, of course, your thoughts are all geared toward picking apart
my thoughts are - why would this person bother writing an incomplete article
what the person did, instead of just reading about it in order to help one decide how one will face one's own horse's different problems
now - exactly what problems would those be?
She would have been better off just keeping her mouth shut.
.

Have a nice day!

JMurray

Oct. 3, 2008, 08:46 PM

Jennifer..you have my support

quietann

Oct. 3, 2008, 11:35 PM

Yeah, it's a risk you take with horses, but if the seller is willing to mitigate that risk, I guess I see that as a good thing. There's also (in my perception) a big difference in what you "owe" to an animal you've had for a month or two, and one who you've had for years.

Oh, one thing I should add about my mare -- not that I would consider doing this now, since we are getting along so much better -- but when things were really bad, about 2 or 3 months in, so bad I was afraid to ride her -- her breeders did say that they would take her back as a consignment sales horse any time, and would charge me a very reasonable boarding fee until she sold. Knowing that they would do this really helped me get over my fears; the stakes of what would happen if I just couldn't work it out with her became much lower. They had a very hard time deciding to let her go up for sale, and she's a favorite of theirs.

slc2

Oct. 4, 2008, 06:23 AM

quietan, I don't think most people realize that your experience is actually - normal. It's just very often like that.

MaresNest

Oct. 4, 2008, 07:26 PM

I haven't read the article because I've just let my DT subscription lapse, but - having 4 horses, 2 of which are rideable, 1 of which is lightly rideable, and 1 of which is not rideable at all - this topic is one I have thought a lot about.

I think, fundamentally, we have a responsibility to assure the well being of the horse if he becomes unrideable. Frequently, the best way to do that is to keep the horse as a pasture puff, and - indeed - it was what I have opted to do. But, in some cases, that may not be possible. In that case, it's our responsibility to send the horse along to someone who CAN toss the horse out in a pasture. (Or rehab him or whatever is necessary in the particular case.)

The well being of the horse has to be assured before a person even thinks moving on to another one. Horses are, as we are all well aware, living, feeling creatures, and the well being of the horse is vastly more important than whether or not the person can ride. It's our responsibility to take care of the horse FIRST.

Touchstone Farm

Oct. 4, 2008, 09:27 PM

slc and ise --I totally agree with your posts #25 and #26. Jennifer is fortunate the dealer took the horse back. But for those who bring up Cindy Sydnor again... She was advising people to buy the best horse they can afford so their learning will be easier. Poor Ms. Sydnor...the bank crisis is now placed on her doorstep. :-)

If you are buying a horse (cash or loan or whatever), and you can't afford to "lose" the money if it gets injured or dies, buy loss of use insurance and mortality insurance. That's what it is there for. If you are stretching your financial means to buy the horse AND you can't afford to pay for the insurance, then perhaps you shouldn't be buying the horse. (I've had a friend need to collect on the loss of use for her event horse...it was no problem, no hassle. The horse ended up in a wonderful home and my friend got her money. That's what insurance is for IF you can't afford to replace your collateral.) An old horseman once told me, and I've never forgotten this advice, "Caryn, if you can't afford to throw the money over your shoulder and never see it again, don't buy the horse. If your financial status won't be that affected, then you can afford the horse."

magnum

Oct. 4, 2008, 10:50 PM

This sport is one of the most arduous sports imaginable. It can wipe out every bit of resources AND energy one has .... it has to be the only sport where the (human) athlete can do everything RIGHT and still end up at a total loss as far as goals were concerned.

I have been in Jennifer's shoes too often. While I was too soft to make the same *hard* decision that Jennifer made (which is the hardest one of all), if that is what it took ... and if the horse did not suffer (as she stated), then what is there to criticize?

Magnum

IdDynamic

Oct. 4, 2008, 11:03 PM

Have a nice day!

I just want to point out that Jenn's column was an editorial, not a journalistic piece. Her goal, I'm sure, was to identify with the rest of us and share her feelings about a sad subject. We should all be thankful that the editor of USDF Connection is a devoted dressage rider who's entrenched in the sport. She is going through something that could happen to any one of us, and she's sharing her story. I read the column and thought, "That sucks for Jennifer." Not, "what a horrible person." I think we should all walk a mile in someone else's boots before judging so harshly.

Kaluna

Oct. 5, 2008, 12:46 AM

I just want to point out that Jenn's column was an editorial, not a journalistic piece. Her goal, I'm sure, was to identify with the rest of us and share her feelings about a sad subject. We should all be thankful that the editor of USDF Connection is a devoted dressage rider who's entrenched in the sport. She is going through something that could happen to any one of us, and she's sharing her story. I read the column and thought, "That sucks for Jennifer." Not, "what a horrible person." I think we should all walk a mile in someone else's boots before judging so harshly.

I had this same reaction. I also had the reaction of being surprised that the dealer took the horse back. I think it is a sad story, and I'm glad she shared it. But she speaks of a reality that many experience in this sport. For many, it is too expensive to keep a horse who cannot be ridden or bred. I do wonder what happened to him, though.

I was not a fan of Ms. Sydnor's column, though. I understand her perspective as it applies to her, but I think that too many people spend too much money on horses and the result is something like Jennifer's column but the dealer didn't take the horse back or the insurance company stopped covering specific legs, etc. many trainers can be equated to "aggressive lenders" in the subprime mortgage market and, well.... That is also an unfortunate reality.

slc2

Oct. 5, 2008, 07:48 AM

YankeeLawyer

Oct. 5, 2008, 09:17 AM

The reality is that most horses at some point in their life, have to drop down to a lower level of work. Part of horse ownership is planning for that time. For most 'single horse' owners it means finding them a new home. That isn't always easy. But an appropriate home doesn't mean the original owner must keep the horse. It's not exactly easy right now with the economy so bad, though.

I am a little surprised at people's reactions here. What if, instead of getting injured in shipping, the horse was injured at the dealer's, but the dealer masked the injury and sent the horse on to the new owner? Would it be okay for the new owner to return the horse then? Why? It would still be sending an injured horse back to the dealer and to perhaps an unknown fate.

It happens that in my case I view my horses as part of my family, and I could not imagine passing one along in "its time of need" (in fact, parting with any of them for any reason is fairly unthinkable to me). But horses are not pets, at least not for most people. I grew up showing on the A circuit where horses were bought and sold all the time, particularly as their riders moved up the levels. I see nothing wrong with that. The horses we owned liked to do their jobs (e.g., packing a little kid around a course), so, for example, when I outgrew them, imo, the best thing for them was to find them another kid that they could teach. When a horse can no longer do the 3'6 division, but is perfectly capable of and happy to show at 3 feet, the horse typically would be sold to a 3-ft competitor or leased out to someone. With the aged horses, we typically leased them out and then retired them ourselves, but not everyone can do that.

I do agree with ISE's statement to the effect that the purchase price generally is a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of caring for and campaigning a show horse, so the determination of "affordability" has to take that into account. And anyone who goes into debt to purchase a horse - well, suffice it to say that I think that is an imprudent move, at best.

Equibrit

Oct. 5, 2008, 09:18 AM

She is going through something that could happen to any one of us, and she's sharing her story.

The "editorial" would have been complete if she had actually stated what the horse went through to kick off these events. I for one find it rather unbelievable that a dealer took back a horse that was "injured" subsequent to his sale.

slc2

Oct. 5, 2008, 09:53 AM

I think we are getting a little bit ridiculous if we expect a buyer of a new horse to keep a lame or injured horse because it's a 'member of the family'. When a horse newly arrives and it is not as it was when tried out, I bet most of you would not keep it. and I bet the loudness with which you would complain would not be related to the purchase price, but more to the unfairness of the situation.

Yankee Lawyer, in most cases, the dealer would not take the horse back unless he was reasonably assured he could get the horse sound and resell it, but actually most of hte larger agent/sellers seem to have some sort of arraangement, at least on paper, that the new buyer CAN send the horse back if they are not comfortable with it or find the horse isn't working out for them.

Alot of these matters are very grey areas. Quite often, it is a matter of opinion if the horse is going to be usable in the future or not, and no one can be sure.

A buyer may be very, very cautious about a new horse, and not knowing the horse, have no idea really if it will become sound. The buyer may want to err on the side of caution.

Say I buy a horse for 200,000 dollars, and he's lame when he arrives from Europe. What his injury is and whether he will get better or not may not be something my vet and the seller's vet agree on. I may even just be uncomfortable with the situation, despite assurance from my own vet. That does happen sometimes. Then the buyer may simply say they'd rather have another horse, and most agents usually have another similar level and cost horse they can send.

The dealer sells about 200 or 300 horses in a year, most of them having been in his barn for a month or less, and out of the total sales he handles in a year, one horse is a very small part of it. He has a very big business going (certainly not all profit, i'm talking about the amount of sales dollars he handles, not profit).

In point of fact, where and how the horse got injured and what the horse's future can be in one important sense, is not as important as what people say about it and how he's viewed in the community, which could affect his business for the rest of his life. That makes eating one 'paltry' 200,000 dollar sale more of a necessity of business than anything else.

He's far better off taking the horse back and finding it a nice retirement home or having the vet treat him and reselling him when he's recovered, than having the entire horse world flapping their yaps about what a dishonest SOB he is and how he ripped someone off, for the sake of 1/300ths of the sales he does in a year.

The horse's future and how he handles it is also going to be known very well around the community, and it's something that if he's smart, he'll handle very well, even if he cares nothing about the horses as individuals.

He may not even ship the horse back to Europe in all cases. That's expensive, so he's often motivated not to. He very often will have an agent or trainer he works with here in the USA, and that agent will take his horse to his barn, work with it, get the vet work done, and the horse may be turned out or worked lightly for a few months, and recover perfectly well.

I know of a horse that had a lot of physical problems and was for sale for a logn time in Europe. It was finally sold to the USA, and had to be completely retrained and taken a year or more to rework his problems both physical and mental. He is now for sale for a very decent amount, working at a very good level, surely not what was hoped for by the original american purchaser, and I think the american owner/agent may be disappointed in the resale amount, but probably feels he can make up for it as time goes on. The horse will still be very useful and have a good life, though may not reach the full potential it had at first.

These things are never ideal, but they can at times be made to come out to a decent resolution. I don't feel everyone selling horses is totally heartless, even those selling more expensive horses or selling a lot of them. Even if they don't care much about the horses at all, they realize that all eyes are on them and how they resolve any problems.

YankeeLawyer

Oct. 5, 2008, 10:15 AM

I think we are getting a little bit ridiculous if we expect a buyer of a new horse to keep a lame or injured horse because it's a 'member of the family'. When a horse newly arrives and it is not as it was when tried out, I bet most of you would not keep it. and I bet the loudness with which you would complain would not be related to the purchase price, but more to the unfairness of the situation.

I am not sure if you are responding to me, but to clarify, I too think it is ridiculous to expect a buyer of a horse that arrives injured to be obliged to provide it a forever home.

Yankee Lawyer, in most cases, the dealer would not take the horse back unless he was reasonably assured he could get the horse sound and resell it, but actually most of hte larger agent/sellers seem to have some sort of arraangement, at least on paper, that the new buyer CAN send the horse back if they are not comfortable with it or find the horse isn't working out for them.

In either event, with high ticket horses, at least, the dealer has every incentive to get the horse sound so he can sell it for $$$. I can't imagine that dealers would be rushing to sell six figure horses for six hundred bucks to a kill buyer.

Say I buy a horse for 200,000 dollars, and he's lame when he arrives from Europe. What his injury is and whether he will get better or not may not be something my vet and the seller's vet agree on. I may even just be uncomfortable with the situation, despite assurance from my own vet. That does happen sometimes. Then the buyer may simply say they'd rather have another horse, and most agents usually have another similar level and cost horse they can send.

I insure my horses from the second they become mine, effective before they even leave the seller's barn. But, for those that suggested that loss of use insurance is a better option than returning a horse, etc -- you might have a look at those policies. Frequently, they specifically provide that the insurer has the option to take the horse from you and/or euthanize it if you make a loss of use claim. So don't kid yourselves.

The dealer sells about 200 or 300 horses in a year, most of them having been in his barn for a month or less, and out of the total sales he handles in a year, one horse is a very small part of it. He has a very big business going (certainly not all profit, i'm talking about the amount of sales dollars he handles, not profit).

I know few high-end dealers that do anywhere near this kind of volume, even in Germany, but I suppose some might.

He's far better off taking the horse back and finding it a nice retirement home or having the vet treat him and reselling him when he's recovered, than having the entire horse world flapping their yaps about what a dishonest SOB he is and how he ripped someone off, for the sake of 1/300ths of the sales he does in a year.

That would be true regardless of the volume. Your reputation is your most valuable business asset, and in a sport plagued by some unscrupulous types, it becomes even more important to avoid being cast (albeit unfairly) as one of those, because unfortunately it often is all too easy to believe.

FriesianX

Oct. 5, 2008, 12:08 PM

I just want to point out that Jenn's column was an editorial, not a journalistic piece. Her goal, I'm sure, was to identify with the rest of us and share her feelings about a sad subject. We should all be thankful that the editor of USDF Connection is a devoted dressage rider who's entrenched in the sport. She is going through something that could happen to any one of us, and she's sharing her story. I read the column and thought, "That sucks for Jennifer." Not, "what a horrible person." I think we should all walk a mile in someone else's boots before judging so harshly.

Yeah, that was my feeling too. Not an article, but something to invoke thought and discussion and remind those of us who have gone through such an experience, we are not alone. My thoughts when I read the column were pretty much "Damn, that is awful for her, and the only bright light in a dark tunnel was the dealer DID take the horse back, that doesn't often happen. Yeah, I understand that feeling of not wanting to ride anymore (Jennifer, you will come back to riding, it may take a while, but the desire to be on a horse does come back)." And then I thought - another imported horse with a problem - and that thought hit because I've seen so many friends and acquaintances run into issues with imports in recent years. :no:

She didn't do anything bad - in fact, she was quite responsible in her solution - the horse is being shipped back where he came from.

slc2

Oct. 5, 2008, 12:21 PM

Not often I agree with a lawyer, LOL, but I sure do agree with this one alot.

Equibrit

Oct. 5, 2008, 12:28 PM

So - she's encouraging everybody with an injured horse to return it to it's previous owner?

Wunnerful!

slc2

Oct. 5, 2008, 12:46 PM

LOL. Equibrit, now you're starting to sound like someone who sells lame horses.

From the start you've been INCREDIBLY nasty to Jennifer. Jennifer is a real person, not a desktop icon, and she posts here. Why are you being so vicious and so incredibly negative about her?

I seriously doubt, Equibrit, that you would buy a horse, have it show up at your place dead lame, and not be screaming bloody murder that the owner needs to come and pick it up toute de suite.

In fact, i can imagine that we would be hearing about it for years here, about how you were ripped off and how you drove the horse back and tied it to the lamp post in the dealer's front yard if they didn't come and get it quick enough.

Zen and Horses

Oct. 5, 2008, 04:28 PM

s

If you are buying a horse (cash or loan or whatever), and you can't afford to "lose" the money if it gets injured or dies, buy loss of use insurance and mortality insurance. That's what it is there for. If you are stretching your financial means to buy the horse AND you can't afford to pay for the insurance, then perhaps you shouldn't be buying the horse. (I've had a friend need to collect on the loss of use for her event horse...it was no problem, no hassle. The horse ended up in a wonderful home and my friend got her money. That's what insurance is for IF you can't afford to replace your collateral.) An old horseman once told me, and I've never forgotten this advice, "Caryn, if you can't afford to throw the money over your shoulder and never see it again, don't buy the horse. If your financial status won't be that affected, then you can afford the horse."

I do not think you will find that all people have had the same experience with insurance companies. It is not so easy to find a veterinarian who swear to the notion that this or that horse will NEVER be usable for the intended purpose again.

Anyone claiming to have any depth of experience in the horse industry has had the experience of the "not sound, but hard to figure why he's lame. Maybe it's lymes, mabye EPM, maybe ESPM, maybe kissing spines, etc. etc. etc" horse. Insurance companies do not go on forever just paying for any and all modalities of treatment that an owner can find to try to fix their horse.

Personally I know a horse that has been on and off lame for almost a decade. At times the owner has averaged 3-6 months of riding time per year. Sometimes these horses are eventually 'sound.' More often, the owner struggles (and drives veterinarians, farriers, feed companies, chiropractors, massage therapists, acupunturists, and barn managers crazy) and struggles and pays as much as if she owned 2-3 horses instead of just the one !!

My friend's horse is insured. They will not pay for 'loss of use' as the horse is on and off "usable," though he will likely NEVER accomplish the level of training he could have were he not basically always somewhat impaired. The owner so attached to the horse she cannot part with him, though in retrospect I think I should have snuck down to her farm in the middle of the night and stolen the damned beast!! He probably would have suited someone very well as a low level jumper or hunter (once upon a time,) but she had her heart stuck on making him up as a dressage horse. For what she's paid in medical she could have purchased at least one other horse if not two.

It has been her decision to proceed in this manner, but I would never pressure anyone into doing this sort of thing. It is a free country, and you may keep and feed as many unusable horses as you wish. But to criticize others who would not or could not do the same is not fair. It reflects ignorance of the circumstances and lack of compassion for your fellow man.

This whole notion of "Service to the Horses" has really gone off the rails. The original intent of Animal Husbandry has been lost.

Bayou Roux

Oct. 5, 2008, 04:52 PM

The interesting thing in the whole article is what she didn't say. Why even write an article like that if you are not willing to reveal the underlying facts?

Agree 100% here-- I'm willing to accept that there may have been all sorts of extenuating circumstances that readers were not made aware of in the article, some which may have made her choices seem logical, perhaps even humane. But they're not in the article, not there for us to digest and learn from, to mull over difficult issues and come to a new understanding in light of her experience.

Without the details, it comes across very much as, "oh, poor me!" to an audience of people who have made all sorts of sacrifices for all sorts of animals. Not the best light for the author.

So, with all the details left out, and the weakly-written piece chiming sour notes with readership, I was left to wonder about the credibility of not only the writer, but the editorial staff of the publication-- that vague, off-key piece got past a board of editors for the publication that comes from our governing leadership body? How? Why?

Equibrit

Oct. 5, 2008, 08:26 PM

LOL. Equibrit, now you're starting to sound like someone who sells lame horses.
Speak for yourself!

From the start you've been INCREDIBLY nasty to Jennifer. Jennifer is a real person, not a desktop icon, and she posts here. Why are you being so vicious and so incredibly negative about her?
No I haven't. Why even bother if you're not going to tell the whole story.

I seriously doubt, Equibrit, that you would buy a horse, have it show up at your place dead lame, and not be screaming bloody murder that the owner needs to come and pick it up toute de suite.
I would neither buy a lame horse nor complain if I had the poor judgement to do so.

In fact, i can imagine that we would be hearing about it for years here, about how you were ripped off and how you drove the horse back and tied it to the lamp post in the dealer's front yard if they didn't come and get it quick enough.
Sorry not my style at all.You could imagine any scenario you cared to, but it wouldn't make it credible.

She would have been better keeping her mouth shut unless she chose to tell the whole story. Are you somehow privy to the facts when you presume that a horse has "show(n) up at your place dead lame" or is this a fabrication?

YankeeLawyer

Oct. 5, 2008, 08:33 PM

So - she's encouraging everybody with an injured horse to return it to it's previous owner?

Wunnerful!

Are you referring to me? If so, try rereading my posts. That is a rather extreme interpretation of what I wrote.

Equibrit

Oct. 5, 2008, 08:36 PM

No - not everything is about you!
But on the other hand. If you wrote an article in the USDF Connection under an alias, then it is about you.

YankeeLawyer

Oct. 5, 2008, 10:19 PM

No - not everything is about you!
But on the other hand. If you wrote an article in the USDF Connection under an alias, then it is about you.

Your post immediately followed SLC's, in which she said she agreed with me. Hence my question about your post.

slc2

Oct. 5, 2008, 10:35 PM

"I would neither buy a lame horse..."

Most of the time, that isn't an intentional choice someone makes.:lol:

Touchstone Farm

Oct. 5, 2008, 10:37 PM

I do not think you will find that all people have had the same experience with insurance companies. It is not so easy to find a veterinarian who swear to the notion that this or that horse will NEVER be usable for the intended purpose again.

Anyone claiming to have any depth of experience in the horse industry has had the experience of the "not sound, but hard to figure why he's lame. Maybe it's lymes, mabye EPM, maybe ESPM, maybe kissing spines, etc. etc. etc" horse. Insurance companies do not go on forever just paying for any and all modalities of treatment that an owner can find to try to fix their horse.

Personally I know a horse that has been on and off lame for almost a decade. At times the owner has averaged 3-6 months of riding time per year. Sometimes these horses are eventually 'sound.' More often, the owner struggles (and drives veterinarians, farriers, feed companies, chiropractors, massage therapists, acupunturists, and barn managers crazy) and struggles and pays as much as if she owned 2-3 horses instead of just the one !!

My friend's horse is insured. They will not pay for 'loss of use' as the horse is on and off "usable," though he will likely NEVER accomplish the level of training he could have were he not basically always somewhat impaired. The owner so attached to the horse she cannot part with him, though in retrospect I think I should have snuck down to her farm in the middle of the night and stolen the damned beast!! He probably would have suited someone very well as a low level jumper or hunter (once upon a time,) but she had her heart stuck on making him up as a dressage horse. For what she's paid in medical she could have purchased at least one other horse if not two.

It has been her decision to proceed in this manner, but I would never pressure anyone into doing this sort of thing. It is a free country, and you may keep and feed as many unusable horses as you wish. But to criticize others who would not or could not do the same is not fair. It reflects ignorance of the circumstances and lack of compassion for your fellow man.

This whole notion of "Service to the Horses" has really gone off the rails. The original intent of Animal Husbandry has been lost.

I'm thinking you missed the entire point of my original post....(or maybe I've missed yours?). I was suggesting that if people want to buy as much horse as they can afford, and if they are "on the edge" then perhaps they might want to look at loss of use and mortality insurance and, hadn't thought of it until your post, but medical/surgical as well. And of course, insurance won't cover every circumstance. That's why you need to read and understand the policy thoroughly and, again, if it doesn't cover what you think it should cover, check with another carrier....or don't buy the horse. Only buy what you can afford to lose, was my point.

I am certainly not advocating nor would I ever find it ethical to expect a veterinarian to state a horse won't be able to return to its intended duty if this wasn't true. If a reputable vet states the horse will never be able to perform as a preliminary level event horse ever again due to its shattered knee (one of the experiences I'm familiar with), than I would expect the vet believes it cannot.

You wrote, "Insurance companies do not go on forever just paying for any and all modalities of treatment that an owner can find to try to fix their horse." That's true...there are coverage limits. However, I was referring only to mortality and loss of use insurance...not medical/surgical coverage.

Again, if purchasing any kind of insurance, a person should understand how it works, its coverages, limits and exclusions. Why someone would purchase insurance and not understand what protection will or will not cover his/her situation doesn't seem like a wise purchase. If you are going to collect, for example, on loss of use insurance -- in other words, make a claim -- you are giving up the control of what to do with the horse. Consumers need to work with insurance providers and understand what they are buying in their policy. As a consumer, you make choices on what risks you will take on as an owner of a house (choice to live in a flood plain, earthquake fault line, etc.), or a car or even a horse. If you can't afford to take on the risks that insurance will NOT cover, then don't buy that particular horse, house, car.

I'm sorry your friend has had a bad experience, but as you stated: "My friend's horse is insured. They will not pay for 'loss of use' as the horse is on and off "usable," though he will likely NEVER accomplish the level of training he could have were he not basically always somewhat impaired." Insurance doesn't cover what MIGHT be in the future (or as you wrote, what "he could have" accomplished); insurance covers what the value of the horse, house, car IS. That's like expecting insurance to reimburse you because you dream of owning a Ferrari when you drive a Ford Taurus! :-)

Anyway...people should make the decisions that work with their own personal financial situations and their own philosophies on horse ownership.

FriesianX

Oct. 6, 2008, 08:44 AM

Another thing to realize with insurance is - if you carry mortality and medical (which is what most of us do), the insurance company has done their part if your horse ends up PASTURE SOUND. There is no requirement they be rideable. Very few people carry loss of use insurance (unless they have an FEI or top breeding stallion) because it is extremely costly, and as pointed out above, limited in its coverage.

And with insurance, you do lose a lot of control over your choices. I've had two insurance claims over my many years of horse ownership, and in both cases, the insurance companies changed what I would have done, or at least WHEN I would have done it. In one case, they held up euthanizing a horse who was in horrible pain, and could not be saved - they told me I would void the policy by euthanizing. My vet pulled out a camcorder and recorded the horse for a few moments, then did the right thing for me. He backed me with the claim, and ultimately, they paid out (the necropsy supported our decision). In a second case, I was basically forced into a surgery that made my pasture puff pasture sound. Nothing more. Cost a lot of money (insurance does not pay for everything), and I have a beautiful pasture ornament.

Sometimes we make TOUGH decisions - they are painful, and each person's circumstances, and each horse's circumstances are unique. It really isn't fair to second guess a person's decision, especially without knowing the details intimately (through much more than an editorial or article).

Thank you Jennifer for sharing your painful decision with us...

ise@ssl

Oct. 6, 2008, 09:58 AM

Take off those rose-colored glasses. I have to believe if an agent takes back a horse (especially one that has to ship back to Europe) - and they are dealing in 200-300 horses a year - they are probably NOT spending time finding a retirement home for the returned horse IF it is not rideable and isn't a mare and if it's not very old.

As a breeder - it's an upclose experience with how UNFAIR - life can be in this business. So for the people posting that it's "unfair" that a horse that vetted sound arrives and isn't sound. Is it the seller's responsibility to make it FAIR - if the unsoundness did not exist prior to the shipping? Not legally.

Let's say you buy this horse and it arrives just fine - then you head off to a show in a month and the horse walks off the trailer un-sound. Then what??

The risks in this business are OBVIOUS AND NUMEROUS. I cannot imagine venturing into it assuming it will be FAIR.

Eclectic Horseman

Oct. 6, 2008, 10:09 AM

You can't always know how things will turn out with a horse and an owner in a new situation.

The high volume/lower end horse dealers that I have known are happy to take back a horse in exchange for another one. They will not refund the purchase price, but they will trade for another horse. It is not uncommon that the horse that is initially purchased was worth substantially more than the horses that the dealer is willing to trade for. So if the buyer wants something equivalent to the initial purchase, then the buyer needs to get off his wallet again.

I have seen this happen so many times, that I cannot help but wonder whether unscrupulous dealers sell the same problem horse over and over again, knowing that it will be returned and traded for something that is not worth the purchase price or might pry even more dollars out of the purchaser. :no:

That being said, a dealer may never know really whether a horse will work out or not. I know a woman who bought one from a dealer that she later found out had been returned several times because it would have bucking fits out of the blue. My friend was able to work with the horse by longeing it, so the horse worked out for her, whether the dealer thought that it would or not.

I cannot help but think about what happens in the situation when the buyer has purchased the horse on credit, however. Only very, very ugly alternatives in that situation. :cry:

Mozart

Oct. 6, 2008, 02:00 PM

Well, I'm supporting 5 and have nothing to ride :( I have a 20 year old and an 18 year old retiree, my 15 year old "dream horse" who now has an injury she will not recover from enough to be a dressage horse again, a babysitter pony and a homebred yearling who is my next FEI hopeful. Were I smart, they'd all be gone but the yearling, but I can't do that to my beloved friends. Someone once told me that you should never spend more on a horse than you can afford to lose. I wish I had the money to buy a big-time prospect, but I don't. And, really, how many of us truly has the talent to bring that talented youngster to it's full potential? Realistically?

Hey, parallel lives. Sort of. I have five and nothing to ride. 20 yr old retiree that I rode for many years, then leased out so he could show others a good time and now has retired to my back yard. 29 yr old child's pony. A two year old that I bred and yearling that I bred. The young WB that was purchased to tide me over until the babies were old enough to ride has been lame for 7 months. May or may not come sound. Fortunately I did not spend my life savings(or incur debt) on the young WB but the purchase price is the not the biggest thing, the biggest is potentially having a 7yr old old pasture ornament. He is a nice, personable and lovable goof of a horse and I have made the decision that he and I are stuck with each other. If he becomes sound enough to have a job I will find a gig for him but if not....well, one more to feed I guess.

At least I have a small acreage that can (almost) accomadate all of them and job that can pay for them. But I am certainly not going to buy another one at this point! If I were not in the position to keep all of them I would have some tough decisions to make and I don't envy any one having to make those decisions.

So my glorious adult amateur dressage career has stalled again...:lol:
I have come to the conclusion that to advance in this sport (considering how long it takes to develop horses..and riders...) that one must either be

a) lucky
b) wealthy
c) prepared to put riding as opposed to horses first

But maybe I am just feeling a little bit bitter since this is now horse #3 that did not "work out" for one reason or another.....