[trubandloki]

So to ask again, now that I think we are being a little more precise: would you be willing to drop your horse off "at the gym" so to speak for x amount of days, without the possibility of riding it on this particular property?

Again, No.
For the reasons I wrote above that you are saying have nothing to do with you.

There is a huge leap between not having enough time to get your horse in shape and not having time to ride at all.

I can see someone being more than willing to pay for a service that would get their horse in shape for them. I can not see someone being willing to pay for a service that would get their horse in shape for them and leave them with no horse to ride at all during that process.

[MarionHorse]

I can see someone being more than willing to pay for a service that would get their horse in shape for them. I can not see someone being willing to pay for a service that would get their horse in shape for them and leave them with no horse to ride at all during that process.

Can you possibly reword this? I am unclear as to what you mean. What would be the difference between "a service that would get their horse in shape for them" and "a service that would get their horse in shape for them and leave them with no horse to ride at all during that process."

What I am trying to say is that I would offer a service to send your horse to the gym, basically. I am not offering a "horse + rider lesson/tune-up." Essentially this is to keep the horse from having a heart attack standing around wasting away, while the owner is busy working full time, or what have you.

Keep in mind this is not the only service I would be offering. I would like to do some starting work, and most definitely would NOT like to have the owner hopping up on their newly-saddled horse on my property. This falls into the "gross negligence" area in my opinion. Once I can say I feel confident in the horse's ability to safely carry a rider, then that is another thing, but to offer to train the owner and the youngster at the same time is crazy in terms of liability, in my opinion.

[MarionHorse]

No.

What is this in reference to, specifically?

[trubandloki]

I am not sure how else to word it.
I realize you are not offering lessons.
I am not including lessons or rider tune up.

If my horse is at your place for three months while you get him in shape, it leaves me with nothing to ride the two nights per week that I had been riding, which were not enough to get Dobbin in shape for whatever.

The vast majority of people who I would think would like help getting or keeping Dobbin more fit than they have time for do not want to be excluded from riding Dobbin all together. Taking Dobbin to your place, where owners are not allowed to ride, would make it so that they lose their ability to ride at all. This exclusion makes what you would be offering not appealing.

[poltroon]

Echoing Laurierace's comments about the importance of the release and liability insurance: any person with health insurance has signed a form allowing their health insurance company to sue on their behalf even over their express objection. The release is very important even among - perhaps especially among - friends.

I would not send my horse to you if I was not able to handle and ride him on your property. You might say it was for liability reasons, but I would wonder what the heck was going on that you didn't allow owners there.

If the liability makes it a no-go, you might instead change your business plan to buying, reschooling, and selling, though obviously that creates other kinds of financial risk.

[MarionHorse]

Thank you.

[MarionHorse]

Echoing Laurierace's comments about the importance of the release and liability insurance: any person with health insurance has signed a form allowing their health insurance company to sue on their behalf even over their express objection. The release is very important even among - perhaps especially among - friends.

I would not send my horse to you if I was not able to handle and ride him on your property. You might say it was for liability reasons, but I would wonder what the heck was going on that you didn't allow owners there.

If the liability makes it a no-go, you might instead change your business plan to buying, reschooling, and selling, though obviously that creates other kinds of financial risk.

Frankly, if people are going to imagine that I am doing something sneaky that I won't allow them to ride and work with their horse on this property, then those are not the kind of people I want to be around.

Speculation leads to schizophrenia. It's best to clarify and acquire specific answers, rather than imagine why someone does what they do.

[Laurierace]

So to ask again, now that I think we are being a little more precise: would you be willing to drop your horse off "at the gym" so to speak for x amount of days, without the possibility of riding it on this particular property?

This was what I said no to. Defeats the purpose of having a horse in my opinion and is something my trainer can do along with me if needed. My horses never left my care unless going to be broke before I started doing that myself as well. I could also hire an exercise rider who would come where my horse is to leg up on the days I couldn't be there.

[SMF11]

People who want their horses to get in shape probably have a riding goal (XYZ event in June!). They may not have time to properly leg up their horse, but that does not mean they have NO time to ride. And if they are wanting to event in June, they absolutely need to be riding too.

In my scenario, I'd move the horse to a regular boarding barn that offers exercise rides, so I could ride the horse say, twice a week, and someone else could ride it 3 or 4 times. Or, if I kept the horse at home, I'd find someone to come to my barn and exercise the horse for me a few times a week. But I wouldn't send the horse off somewhere where I could not also ride.

[poltroon]

Frankly, if people are going to imagine that I am doing something sneaky that I won't allow them to ride and work with their horse on this property, then those are not the kind of people I want to be around.

Speculation leads to schizophrenia. It's best to clarify and acquire specific answers, rather than imagine why someone does what they do.

I am sure you are on the up and up and well-meaning.

However, I have spent decades in other people's barns... and let's just say I come by my suspicions honestly.

[CHT]

Around here, having someone get your horse fit, but not add training, is basically free. Lots of good riders just want a horse to ride with no bills attached.

Starting horses really varies up here, and a lot of what people will pay depends on the service offered, and the references/referrals available. When starting out, an introductory rate may be a good idea to get business rolling.

Start with your overhead expenses (rent, insurance, maintenancem tack and such) and divide that by your realistic expected number of training horses, then add your variable expenses per horse (feed, bedding) to get your basic COST of having that horse there. The amount over that would be your wage (taxed of course).

You may need to have insurance that covers any of your clients (or their horses) damaging the property/building/vehicles as well, seeing as it is not your own property.

[LauraKY]

If you're going to start horses, it might work out for you...otherwise, by not allowing riding on your property, I don't see how you can be profitable.

[mvp]

OP, all the bitchin' on this thread about your plan to fix horses and not have them ridden on your place comes from the fact that HOs (horse owners) often end up judging the quality of the trainer's work in terms of how well they can ride the horse.

Almost half of the service you'll end up providing is for the HO.

I think you'll also feel better as a horsewoman if you can create a business that teaches riders along with their horses. It's hard to send a horse you trained back to a situation where there's no continuity for the animal.

[MarionHorse]

OP, all the bitchin' on this thread about your plan to fix horses and not have them ridden on your place comes from the fact that HOs (horse owners) often end up judging the quality of the trainer's work in terms of how well they can ride the horse.

Almost half of the service you'll end up providing is for the HO.

I think you'll also feel better as a horsewoman if you can create a business that teaches riders along with their horses. It's hard to send a horse you trained back to a situation where there's no continuity for the animal.

I do realize that my service is, in the end, for the owner. I also realize that I do not have any special experience teaching people how to ride. My concerns for people not riding on this property are for the reason that it is not my property, and it was the property owners' concerns that there might be liability issues. I want to know if I can work around having folks become a liability issue, or if it something I am going to have to find the cash to pay for. Hopefully I haven't been whiney about it or sounding snooty. Please forgive me if I have come across offensive in any way.

Remember, the map is not the territory. We perceive things as we react to them, not necessarily as they "are." So if it seems that I am complaining about people riding and I don't want them to do so on this property, keep in mind that "objects in mirror are closer than they appear" ...

ETA: I wanted to make sure I added that I am guilty of taking things literally at times, too. I appreciate your opinion and input. It is a very good point that you made.

[dressagegirl123]

Not only do you need liability insurance to train the horses, you need care, custody and control insurance because you are boarding the horses. Call an insurance agent. Aren't you glad you asked? The unforeseen costs are what make most horse businesses non-profit organizations!

[nashfad]

Call Jarvis Ins for your commercial liability ins-----they are awesome

[GoForAGallop]

Going to echo what the others are saying:

- If I have a horse that I have goals for, but not enough time to ride, then I will pay a trainer, while still riding some myself. Which is exactly why I have my four year old at a barn w/indoor for the winter, with the trainer riding her four days a week, and me hoping on the two days that I actually have time to ride.

-OR-

- If I don't have time to ride, but just want my horse to stay in shape, there are PLENTY of people who will catch ride for free, and maybe even toss in a few bucks towards board/vet. There's no need to pay someone just to keep my horse going.

Despite all the vehement deniers on this thread, there are plenty of people who send their horses off for a few weeks, waving goodbye to the trailer. But it's usually to have horses started, not for other training. After the horse has been started, the owner is going to want to be involved in any additional training process. (IE: nobody sends Dobbin off for 30 days to "learn how to jump" without also going for a few lessons on how to jump Dobbin.)

So you could consider focusing mainly on starting young horses...but you are STILL going to need to let people come and work with the young horse. I would never ever send a young horse off (and I have sent a few, so I'm not speaking out of my butt here) to a trainer knowing that I would not be able to go work with that young horse, for at least a few times during the last week, under the trainer's guidance. I SUPPOSE I would consider it if the trainer were really, really great, and would come to my property for a few lessons after the horse was home. But I'd start getting persnickety real quick if I had to pay for travel fees and whatnot, just because the trainer doesn't want to pay for the proper insurance on her own property.

You could also focus on flipping horses, but that's a risky business to go into as your main business, and you're STILL going to have to let people ride on the property, no way around it.

So yes, the short answer to a long post is that you are going to need to get insurance that allows people to ride. Quite honestly, if you're already paying for the insurance to allow people and horses on the property at all, the additional cost to allow them to ride is not going to be a big deal. For my particular insurance company, once you buy the CCC/boarding barn insurance, they just assume people will be riding on the property and it's included.