Why is the horse world so messed up and confussing

OwnedbyChanter

OwnedbyChanter

With out my boys life would be bland
Apr 16, 2009
7,514
2,420
113
Raininghamshire
Now I have a dogs. I have them because I love their characters how much they just 'give' and never want anything back but a scratch. I choice them I knew the finanical implications of having them (all 3 of them) now when I have to go away I 'pay' for some one to walk, feed and cuddle them. In my eyes I am passing on the pleasure of being around them. Now I work full time and do deploy for weeks/months at a time so I have to find someone to look after my boys and girl but I PAY. When I broke my arm I had to still pay for someone to walk them as I couldn't.

Now in the horse world we buy horses because of the love of the animals but when the owners can for what ever reason know longer give the horse 100% we ask for help but we expect people to pay us!!!!!!!:frown: and not just for the pleasure of riding. Horses are very expensive to keep but we made that call when we brought them and yes some one is getting the pleasure of riding your horse but someone is also getting the pleasure of being around my dogs.

If you need someone to exercise your horse because you dont have time that person is actually offering you a service so should you not be paying them:frown:

SO

For what every reason as an owner you need either help with the actually care or you dont have time to ride surely you should pay for someone to carry out this service for you (As is livery)

Discuss
 
Interesting one!

Ok, my tuppence worth. This isn't a 'moral' issue. It's is about market forces/supply & demand

Horse ownership is daunting and expensive and requires a high degree of knowledge and skill (ideally!). Many people will NEVER be able to have their own horse, and many others will choose to loan/share first to gain experience and to get a sense of the commitment involved. Therefore there are thousands of people happy to pay for hands-on horsey fiun, experience etc. If it works well, it's 'win/win' because the owner has enthusiastic help, the horse gets a bit of extra attention & exercise and the loaner gets experience and a horse to look after and ride in a far more emotionally satisfying way than through lessons, pony care mornings etc (because the loaner gets bonded with the horse).

On the other hand there are professionals offering a service, such as livery, schooling, fittening etc etc. These people would suit owners who don't want to loan, or who need people who bring a particular skill to the horse. It depends on what you want.

Personally: I used to loan but would no longer do that. Now I would pay if necessary because I want Charlie ridden/schooled in a certain way and because I did not like the loss of control. And because he's MINE!!
As a kid I loaned myself and am so grateful I was able to.
:)
 
Last edited:
I don't think there's anyting wrong with letting someone ride your horse in exchange for helping look after him.

I think to expect payment is a bit off. I do not under stand this "sharing" thing. IF you own a horse you pay for it full stop. If you have a friend who would like to ride him and is willing to muck out and turn out etc a couple of times a week, then that's fine, but sharing bills etc??? that sits uneasy with me.
 
personally I am grateful to just get someone to get him out when I can't but don't expect payment as I would be paying everything anyway.
I had someone exercise him 2 days a week and she could do whatever she wanted. She would occasionally muck out if I hadn't had time which was great bit not part of any deal.
If I was expecting schooling/training to a certain standard then I would see the point of paying someone to do it for me. I get a house sitter when I'm on holiday but they only feed the horses and don't take them out.
I used to help friends out and paid in mucking out duties and bringing food for a cooked breakfast on Sundays.
 
I guess the real question is, should you own a horse if you are not willing to pay 100% of costs yourself?

I personally don't think that it matters who pays the bills, just as long as they are paid. I shared Bailey for 2 days per week and paid his owner £100. This worked fantastically well for both of us. I could get experience of having my own horse to see if it was what I really wanted, I got the freedom to ride how I liked without being told what to do all the time (as you do in lessons) and I enjoyed it as well. Baileys owner was able to have a rest for a couple of days a week and some help in paying for him. I don't see the problem with this. I don't think that you can generalise or say what is 'right' and 'wrong' because peoples situations are so different. If everyone is happy to pay or not to pay, and the horse is well cared for, that is all that matters.
 
I agree MP. I would not buy a horse if I was not WILLING to be 100% responsible for him or her. But responsibility means I make sure horse is looked after - not necessarily that I have to do everything myself.

At the moment I am on DIY livery with no loaners or sharers, but in the past I have done pretty much everything:

working livery (Tatton Park - hacking only. Horse loved it!)
full livery (Beaver Hall - very nice :) )
sharer
part loan
full loan

All have advantages and disadvantages. But no matter what the current agreement, I always recognised that my horses are MY responsibility.

If a loan/share doesn't work out then owners should be able to cope. Or pay!
 
When we were on a yard, I paid somebody capable to ride both our two - twice a week whenever we went on holiday. Didn't give it a second thought that I shouldn't pay! I think you get what you pay for, and I knew that the person we paid would do a good job.
 
I’m of the same thinking. If I have loaned I haven’t had to pay except for the horse’s upkeep (this has been agreed before taking them on) and my help was more than valued.

But I have been stupid enough to buy a horse specifically for someone else as they wanted to have their own horse and enjoyment with. I did after the initial cost of the horse/tack etc expect them to pay for the horse’s daily upkeep as it was a full loan and agreed before purchasing. They walked away from the horse in the end. Horse stayed with me for a few more years after, I paid for horse’s daily upkeep which I never factored in but he was my responsibility. The people who I then got to ride and compete him as I didn’t have the time for two in full work never paid a penny and I paid for all entry fees etc as I wanted him out and about and kept in full work as he was young and it was beneficial to me.
I was the one that was stupid enough to buy him without realising the person wasn’t fully committed that the responsibility lay with me for placing him in that position when I bought him in the first place. Over time it was unrealistic financially for me and when the realisation came he had to go to a new home where he was bought wanted/loved/used.

If I was looking for specific training / holiday cover I would expect to pay but I would also be expecting a certain standard and commitment in paying as well as them being insured in those circumstances. (ie not to let me down half way through a holiday – paid for service you get the service)

If I was looking for general help as I never had the time for my own horse I would offer it for free and be more than grateful for the help. If I couldn’t financially look after my horse anymore I would have to look at selling /loaning as I would worry taking someone else on to keep me going financially would be extremely risky as you can never rely on others 100% as you can yourself.

In today’s society I think payment makes an owner feel the person is taking a level of commitment but sadly it’s not always the case.

I think it really would come down to the specifics of a situation to whether payment should be necessary or not
 
Last edited:
It's an interesting argument but think it all comes down to the reasons why you are doing what you're doing, whether that's as the owner or sharer.

When I was looking to gain experience before owning my own pony, I shared and my mom was happy to pay for me to look after a safe, reliable and well-cared for pony for a few days a week. He had someone else who could worry about his feed, insurance, general 'maintenance' etc so I could just get on with the general tasks and LEARN. The share benefitted the owner who was an elderly woman unable to ride the pony herself anyway, and it benefitted me as a 12yo girl who was only really interested in that stage in the fluffy bits of having a pony and wasn't much interested in shopping around for the best insurance quotes.
By the same token I now have a safe, easy to do pony who is never going to be sold but is no longer right for me - that's not her fault and it doesn't make me a bad person but it wouldn't be fair on either of us to keep plugging at something that isn't going to happen. There is a 14 year old girl who only wants a pony 3 days a week - she's not interested in having one full time because she's at school and into other things and can't really afford it. But she wants to feel like the pony is hers for those 3 days and do what she wants with it so I'm essentially hiring the pony out and for that I don't think a small contribution is unreasonable. I still pay most maintenance costs and the pony is still ultimately in my care. The other lady who shares the other 3 days is a professional returning to horses from a break with pretty much the same circumstances - she wants the use of my pony for those few days without the commitment or responsibility of ownership, fine but again I don't think a small contribution is unreasonable.

If you can find an arrangement where someone is just looking for any chance to ride and look after a horse and you need the assistance - fantastic. Hang on to it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a relationship where both parties can benefit on a non-financial level.

What I do take issue with however is people who advertise very young or very green horses for share with very specific conditions on what kind of rider can apply. They usually ask for an experienced and confident rider with experience of young or green horses that can bring the horse on for this or that, usually for the owner to then go on and take advantage of. These kind of riders are often already owners or schooling riders with enough going on that just the privilege of schooling your horse isn't really 'reward' for doing the yard work. In this case I strongly believe that if you want your horse produced or schooled - hire a professional to do it properly. Don't get me wrong - very occasionally you can find an experienced rider who is genuinely just looking for the experience of a horse to school for whatever reason. But it could be an expensive gamble if it turns out the experienced rider who has to go out and find horses to ride isn't all they say they are.
 
I'm going to put both sides here and play devil's advocate :wink:

Horses are very expensive to keep - we have 3, so we spend a lot of money on them (and I had to wait until I was 30 to afford one!).

I do let friends ride my horses for free, one is helping someone recover her confidence, the other is being exercised while I'm convalescing by another friend who lost her own horse last month.

However, this is my choice, and if nobody wanted to ride while I'm laid up I would pay my RI to exercise him.

However, there are always people who want to take advantage of your good fortune and years of saving and working hard - example, a woman at work asked if her teenage daughter could help me/ride the horses. Why should we work hard to have horses then let her come and ride for free so she's saving money on RS hacks and lessons?

Yes you should be able to pay for your horses yourself, but I also pay for my car myself - I don't then let anybody who hasn't got a car borrow it so they can drive around for free.

You could end up paying for someone else to enjoy the horsey lifestyle without any financial commitment, and I bet they'd have far more disposable income to spend on themselves at the end of the month than I do!

I'm just trying to see both sides - I don't really mind letting people ride my horses, I was very lucky in my early twenties when some kind person let me ride theirs, so try to share the love, lol! And I remember how it is when you desparately want to ride and can't afford to.

BUT.... I don't think anyone should take on a horse if they have to rely on a sharer's contribution to look after it, they should be self sufficient (obv. if circumstances change that's different, but don't go into it on that basis).

And I also pay a dog walker on the one day per week we leave our 3 dogs all day.
 
Controversially many loan agreements seem purely to be set up to avoid the Riding Establishments act!!

I know many very novice riders...as in can barely trot or handle a horse who pay to look after/ride and 'share' a horse only under supervision of the owner, how does this differ from earning money from the horse in a RS?

I think many shares are beneficial to everyone but I really wonder when I see people needing to contribute to vets fees etc. The horses owner is responsible for the horse. Payment to them for riding effectively means they are renting the horse out...illegally!!!

If I want someone to exercise/school my horse or do anything else I expect to pay them, customers pay me to ride but the horse must be then capable of improving them not vv
 
I agree with Charlie&Me's first statement:
It's about demand and supply.
In fact if you could find people who absolutely craved dog walking I wouldn't see anything wrong with charging for it or doing an exchange of services.
I do pay somebody to ride my horse. I call him trainer. I pay him because he can teach Minnie a great deal. I definitely would not pay somebody to bebop around on her for their own pleasure. In fact nobody gets to ride my horses unless they have something valuable (skill! not money) to contribute but that's a different story.

In the other thread about 'would you be annoyed' I felt like they already had an exchange of services. I could see myself agreeing to let somebody ride in exchange for their caretaker duties.

But no matter how I approach things: it's demand and supply. And to be honest considering all the financial risk and responsibilities we incur with owning a horse I think loaning is a GREAT deal for a lot of people. I certainly don't feel like they are being advantage taken of.
At the end of the day: nobody is forced to pay for a loan. If it wasn't worth it to them, they wouldn't do it.
 
Nookster you hit the nail on the head this is my way of thinking.

Dont get me wrong after my first horse was PTS I loaned one for 3 years then shared one for another 5 years.

Now a full loan I do understand to an extend as you take the horse lock stock and hoof you are repsonible for that horse 24/7 it is all but yours in name.

Share I see as different. I was helping a lady how was to scared to ride her TB after a couple of nasty falls (bucking horse) I only paid £50 a month towards her shoes as I was the only one riding but I did 3-4 days a week riding every day with full muck out/care as well. Technically she should have been paying me as I offered her a service, I reschooled the horse to a comptetion level and did all yard duties. I was happy to pay a minimal cost toward shoes as I was the only one riding.

You could say that I was lucky enough to get to ride this horse for £50 a month but if I did not ride the horse would of been a field ornament at 12 through no fault of her own. But I also gave 8-10 hours a week for this luxury.

The other flip side is - Just because someone is paying you to look after your horse and as most have said beginer or returning riders does not mean that they have the knowledge or expertise. I personnel would not let a share ride my boy with out me around as I am controlling over his ridden work. So I would not gain any extra time with having a share as I would still want to be around a beginer. In fact know one rides my boy without me being there (apart from OH and RI which I pay (not OH!!!) while I deployed).
 
Interesting.

I think the difference between dogs and horses is I don't go somewhere (a rescue centre or something similar) and pay to walk a dog, I do however go to a riding school and pay to ride a horse (lesson or hack).

I tend to agree with Shaka's post (although I'm an adult sharer and not only interested in the fluffy bits), but I decided to get a share as I wanted to ride more than I could afford at the RS and wanted to learn about owning a horse. I look on it like I 'own' that horse on the days I have him, therefore I pay for him on those days. I also benefit from the use of the facilities at the yard - everyone else pays for them in their livery bill, so why should I get them for free?

I get so much out of my share horse (not just riding) and the relationship I have with his owner that I would feel I was taking advantage if I didn't contribute financially.
 
I have exercised people.s horses and paid towards shoes. In this situation that is normal?
I would also feed or muck out if it needed doing or poo pick, it was a good way to learn and work out if i would want a horse of my own.
One person didn't want paying as my help to them was payment. The fact i could do three days a week meant for her more time looking after a relative. You can never judge someone who needs extra help.
 
I have 2 horses. I have two as I am lucky enough to have them at home and cannot have one on it's own.

I only ride Victory as Harvey was bought as a companian for Victory and I don't have enough time to ride/excercise both.

I therefore have a sharer for Harvey so that he gets exercised too.

She pays me £25 p/w which I believe is completely fair.

She can ride as often as she wishes and spend as much time with Harvey as she likes. She treats him and pampers him as if he were her own. She can take him to shows etc and basically treat him as her own.

The way I look at it is that if she didn't share a horse she would have to go to a RS in order to ride which would cost around £25 for a group lesson.

Therefore I feel she has a good deal here. I don't see any reason why if they are riding your horse frequently that they can't pay a very small contribution towards their keep :biggrin:

I know that if the boot was on the other foot I would jump at the chance to regularly ride for £25 p/w.
 
Am afraid I agree with ginger thing, I pay for my boy ,I look after him 365 days a year & wouldn't entertain the idea of allowing someone else to have the riding.I say 365 days a year but last year I had to pay someone to look after him for ten days while I went to Tokyo for my son's wedding.Am afraid am not into sharing,a bit like Dawn French in the chocolate orange advert :giggle:
 
Now in the horse world we buy horses because of the love of the animals
Click to expand...

People buy horses because they love them, but primarily to ride. It's effectively the riding they are paying for with a share or loan, not the horse's company, riding horses that belong to equestrian businesses isn't cheap and rarely allows you to get hands on experience. I don't see it as unreasonable to chip in something towards the very high costs of a horse's keep if you're getting to enjoy riding them. I've been involved in arrangements both as a sharer and an owner, although the right person has always been more important than the money.

but when the owners can for what ever reason know longer give the horse 100% we ask for help but we expect people to pay us!!!!!!! and not just for the pleasure of riding. Horses are very expensive to keep but we made that call when we brought them and yes some one is getting the pleasure of riding your horse
Click to expand...

Circumstances change, and having someone else help you with your horses is often beneficial to everyone involved. I really don't see what the problem is.
 
Yann said:
Circumstances change, and having someone else help you with your horses is often beneficial to everyone involved. I really don't see what the problem is.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you.. you never know what lies ahead.. If any of us lost our job tomo, and suddenly realized we could no longer afford our horses in the long term (in say 6 months).. what would you do?
 
It's quite simple:
If you have something somebody else wants, they pay for it.
If somebody else has something you want, you pay for it.
You can pay for it in money or pay some other way (work, etc.). Same thing.
If whatever you have to offer isn't wanted by somebody else they simply wouldn't pay for it.
Easy peasy. Not confusing at all. :)
 
newrider.com
Top Bottom
Back