Businesses tend to do best when they have like minded customers. While it may be cost effective to send your no longer usable horses to auction, I would not do business with that type of person. I have been in the horse business for 30 years and never once was associated with someone who treated their horses as garbage to be used up and tossed out. If that is your experience it is probably you seeking out like minded people.
That's a lot of ridiculous. Few people treat horses like 'garbage' but plenty of people find themselves in situations where they need to unload a horse.
From racing to cutting to lesson programs to private owners with unhappy spouses, plenty of people unload horses quickly when they need to. I don't know what kind of cloud your head is stuck in but I can guarantee you have 'done business' with people who have unloaded equines tout suite. Sounds like you are just unaware.
I can't answer this question unless you specify over what time period.
I expect that any professional will occasionally need to take a hit. Even large businesses have bad years. While some those hits may be because of the ethical standards they uphold, some of the hits may be due to the economy or bad luck or whatever else.
That said, any professional or business has to have a long-term business plan that will enable said professional or business to make enough money to cover their costs and generate a profitability level that satisfies whoever it needs to satisfy. For a professional individual, that would mean enough money to maintain a standard of living with which they are comfortable.
Anything else is unsustainable.
Personally, I would and do choose to work with businesses that have ethical standards I am comfortable supporting. I would like to believe there are enough people who have such standards that there is a viable business plan for professionals who have ethical standards similar to my own.
What kind of loss would a vet incur? Their gas expense and disposables are not losses, they are built into the price of the service. Same deal when I have the farrier put glue-ons on -the price of the shoe is built in to the service.
As for a "loss" of $500 when the vet sends a bill and gets stiffed? Doesn't happen in my program.
You seem to have difficulty understanding the concept that SOME PEOPLE HAVE MONEY LEFT OVER at the end of the month. These individuals are, in turn, able to meet the three and low-four digit obligations they incur.
Jesus, if I drove a new Lexus, had cable and a dogwalker, four horses, and lived in a $200k house, I would not have money left over and I would be stiffing service providers left and right. But I stick to only two horses, drive a used Benz and live in a little house with no cable, so I DO have money left over at the end of the month.
Thus my vet and farrier get paid, and my saddle fitter gets to drive out and sell me a saddle, and my mostly retired competition horse who goes in the occasional beginner/intermediate lesson will live out the rest of his days with me. My horse bills are paid for in total by my part-time professional trainer activities, so yes, it is possible to arrange your equine business in such a way that one still makes money, even when paying for a retired horse every month, and to euthanize him when the time comes.
Originally Posted by Alagirl
What I am asking is if you can afford to take losses to the tune of 1k.
I did not say anything about horses, I just mentioned a few professions we deal with as horse owners.
It was a very interesting week. Pose a couple of questions and watch foam at the mouth....
Well, not part of any poll, it has become abundantly clear that civil discourse is pretty much DOA. I am no longer surprised that so many of my favorite people no longer participate in the discussion.
Alas, it was not even the point.
As to the question about whether a set amount is substantial to the individual (oh goody, I must have really struck a few funny bones) I do sometimes forget that I am not the measure of all things. It would be nice if a select few would remember that little pearl of hard earned wisdom: because your experience is X, it won't mean a thing for somebody on the other side of the country.
At least some meaningful discussion about euthanasia and cost developed, even though that was not the goal, it's a plus.
But it brings me to the above question:
What kind of losses do you expect a business to absorb.
naturally, the poll results reflect that logic that a business has to stay in the black to continue. (and for those who complained about the nuances of the poll, write your own, it is not as easy as it looks to be precise and not overlapping! )
However (and as usual the most vocal and unfriendly people) there have been a few people in the past who pretty much expect the vet to eat the cost of euthanasia, the BO of burial etc.
Not to mention that against all common sense some demand certain professionals in the horse industry to absorb all the cost and risks because they are engaged in an activity they do not approve of, in the gleeful hope these professionals go belly up, without regard for the services they do provide for the industry.
As I said, these past few days were enlightening, on so many levels. A little disappointing in spots, however not unexpectedly so. Sadly.
Thanks to all you level headed people, and bless the little hearts of the rest.
Originally Posted by Mozart
Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.
Nice try Alagirl, but I'm not buying it. The question itself makes no sense. A business is in business to make a profit. If their losses consistently exceed their profits, they will no longer be in business. However, their business model must include ethical and moral decisions, and not just theirs, but they must take into account the ethics and opinions of their customers.
For instance. I had to put down two of my horses this year. My vet was already out for one, but for the second it was an emergency. He found someone to cover him at the clinic and practically flew to my farm. He didn't charge me a farm call, just for the drugs. I could have easily afforded to pay for the farm call and exam...it was very generous of him to not charge it. I don't know if it's an established practice for just my vet or for the practice overall, but that's the type of "eat the loss" that builds goodwill.
In the same vein, the gymnastics center I ran would occasionally run into an unhappy customer. Rather than have them poison the atmosphere in the gym, if I was unable to solve their problem, I would offer a full refund. Yes, we ate the loss, but overall it was better for the business to purge the unhappy customer.
As far as ethical and moral, the collie rescue I used to volunteer for is a perfect example. Most of their rescues were older dogs and the adoption fees didn't begin to cover their costs. At some point, the director decided it would be a wise move to buy puppies from backyard breeders and the Amish and pass them off as rescues. I fought the decision and resigned in protest...since then they've continued to buy puppies. They justify it by saying the adoption fees they receive for the puppies helps pay for the older dogs. I say it's selling puppy mill dogs, not rescue. Sooner or later it's going to bite them in the butt. It's not ethical or moral and the public will not support it if and when they find out. They should take the loss on the old dogs and continue to fund raise to help those dogs actually in need of rescue.
"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant