Re: RC: Breeders are horse owners too

[Bette Lamore <woa@stormnet.com>]

Dear Kat
I find it hard to finish reading, let alone respond to such an
incredibly ridiculous post. I hope it was written tongue-in-cheek. If
not I suppose you will be asking manufacturers of speed boats and snow
skis to offer you their wares for less than their costs simply because
you consider it a hobby. Hey let's not stop there, lets go to the auto
manufacturers; some of the racier model cars are certainly not
necessities. OOOps here I am responding to a silly post. Not worth my
time.
Happy Easter
Bette
Bette Lamore
Whispering Oaks Arabians, Home of TLA Halynov
http://www.stormnet.com/~woa
I've learned that life is like a roll of toilet paper, the closer it
gets to the end, the faster it goes. Smell the roses!


"guest@endurance.net" wrote:
> 
> K S SWIGART   
> 
> Bette Lamore said:
> 
> >My question to you
> >is why would you want to breed for an endurance market where the
> riders
> >USUALLY (not all) want the horses for less than it costs to feed them
> >(even some of the very affluent ones)???  Don't you ever get tired of
> >buyers who offer you a fraction of what the horse's worth is, yet will
> >spend TONS on supplements, fancy equipment and riding attire, not to
> >mention the best in trucks and trailors. It's almost like the getting
> to
> >the ride is far more important than what they are riding. Am I missing
> >something???
> 
> Yes, you are missing something.  You are not understanding the concept
> of hobby.  The endurance horse "buyer" that you are bemoaning is
> willing, for the sake of his/her hobby to lose money of feeding,
> training, conditioning, outfitting, etc. the horse.  Endurance horse
> owners never expect to recover (even if later they sell the horse) the
> money they have spent in keeping the horse.  That is money that they
> spent on their hobby.  It is not unreasonable for them to assume that
> breeders own horses as a hobby too. Where it is that breeder owners got
> the idea that rider owners should support them in their (the breeders')
> hobby is beyond me.  If the breeders made the mistake of thinking that
> breeding horses was a business and not a hobby, that isn't other horse
> owner's fault--and to blame it on the people who are buying your young
> stock for the market rate is just plain sour grapes.
> 
> There are a very few breeders who are actually turning a profit in the
> horse owning business, but they are few and far between (and they don't
> live in California where the cost of keeping a horse is so high :)).
> But these breeders are able to make money because their horses are
> recognized as being better quality (so, sometime in the past they
> probably LOST lots of money on the "business" while promoting their
> horses, and feeding their young stock so that they would have some to
> sell when their relations were proven.  And even then, it's tough,
> because there are MANY breeders who have been at it for generations
> (and I am not talking about horse generations here) and who have, and
> continue, to lose money hand over fist.  There are many breeders who
> consider it sufficient reward to have their name on the horse's
> registration papers as the breeder (no matter how many times the horse
> is sold) and will pour millions of dollars into their hobby to get that
> gratification.  As long as these people are willing to sell their high
> quality horses at a loss, other breeders will have to "compete" with
> them…and in an economic sense it is virtually impossible to make a
> profit in a "business" where most of your competition is willing to
> lose money at it indefinitely.
> 
> If you look at the economic model of the horse business, there is,
> pretty much, only one place that money comes from…and that is owners.
> Breeder owners are no different from rider owners.  You want to own
> horses, you've gotta pay. And, quite frankly, I DO think it is
> unreasonable for breeder owners to expect other owners to pay for their
> hobby.
> 
> If this means that some people won't be able to breed horses (because
> the breeding horses hobby is WAAAAAY more expensive than the riding
> horses hobby) because they can't afford it and therefore stop breeding
> horses, I am having a hard time thinking of that as a bad thing.  It
> just means that there will be fewer people breeding horses that they
> can't afford to keep.  If, as a result of many "endurance" breeders
> deciding that they can't afford it, there gets to be a shortage of
> horses as "endurance prospects" on the market…the price will go up and
> maybe some people might then get back in to it.  Until then, endurance
> "prospects" abound.  In fact, there are so many, that many of them are
> being sent to slaughter.
> 
> If, instead, a breeder wants to produce not endurance prospects (which,
> face it, that is what any young horse is, no matter what its pedigree)
> but proven endurance horses, then that breeder is going to be even more
> dollars into the horse…and isn't going to recoup THAT cost from any
> buyer either (but presumably got to enjoy the hobby of riding the horse
> in endurance while bringing it to that point and shouldn't expect to be
> compensated for that).
> 
> This, BTW, is not an economic model that is unique to endurance horse
> owners.  It pretty much applies to all horse owners, even in the show
> and racing world (and at least in the racing world there is an outside
> source of money…called the betting public and race horse owners still
> lose money).  Even in the world of "successful" competitive horses.
> Alan Paulson (the owner of Cigar) in 1997 (Cigar's last year of racing)
> was the leading money winning owner of TB race horses.  His horses
> (thanks much to Cigar) won purses of just over $10 million (of which he
> had to give more than a third to the trainer and the jockey).  In that
> same year he spent over $30 million chasing that $10 million
> dollars...but he sure had fun owning Cigar (made it all worth it).  And
> just last month I saw an advertisement for the sale of a relatively
> successful dressage horse.  15 y.o. winning at Prix de St. Georges,
> ready (maybe) to move up to Intermediare, $65,000 Wow!!!  But when you
> think about how much it probably cost to get the horse to that point
> ($1,000 a month in board and training for the last 10 years + cost of
> showing at ~$500 to $1,000 per show probably shown at least 50 if not a
> 100 times) and you can see that this horse is a big time money loser
> for his owners…and this is a PROVEN horse.  But they got to enjoy
> owning him.
> 
> I have a client who bred her mare to a top Warmblood stallion, sold the
> foal as a weanling (actually as a suckling, but the horse didn't leave
> 'til it was weaned) for $8,000 and still she lost money…even without
> counting in the cost of regular upkeep on the mare (which she figures
> she would have been paying anyway).  If anybody thinks they can do
> better than selling a weanling for $8,000 they are off their nut.
> 
> The fact is, the instant you have to pay the feed bill, figure you're
> gonna lose money.  That's what everybody else does…even people in the
> show world.  People in the show world may be able to get more for their
> foals (and that is a BIG maybe), but they have to pay more for their
> breeding fees, they have to pay more to promote their horses, and they
> have to pay more for their breeding stock…so it kinda comes out in the
> wash.
> 
> So, despite what has been tried here.  There is no reason for endurance
> riders to feel guilty about not offering to pay for the feed and upkeep
> of a horse they didn't own just because they want to buy it. If
> breeders want to get a premium over market for their foals, they need
> to prove that their foal will do better than the general market.  That
> means that they are going to have to prove that horses bred and raised
> for endurance do better at endurance than those bought out of the
> killer pens.  They are going to have to demonstrate, with real
> evaluation and statistics that "prospects" that cost more do better
> than those that are sold cheaply and/or given away.  So far, that
> hasn't been demonstrated…at any level of competition.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that it couldn't be demonstrated.
> Just that it hasn't been.  I, personally, am of the opinion that there
> is frequently a great many hidden costs associated with owning a "cull"
> that many buyers don't factor in to the equation.  But even if breeders
> can demonstrate that it is worth it to pay more for a horse that is
> bred and raised for endurance, there will still be breeders out there
> who are willing to produce and sell these horses for less than it costs
> to produce them, and breeders who are out to make a profit are still
> going to have to compete with them.
> 
> And generally, what happens to almost all breeders (and this isn't just
> endurance breeders) is that they end up with too many horses (because
> they are producing them at a ridiculous rate) and discover that they
> are financially better off by selling their produce for less than they
> have in to it, than they are in keeping the horse and continuing to pay
> the feed bill (thereby being further in to the horse).  The BLM has
> this same problem, but they have a better excuse, they have no control
> over the production process.  So, yes, the smart thing for breeders who
> can't afford their hobby to do is to stop breeding horses.  The honest
> thing for them to do is admit that they couldn't afford their hobby,
> rather than trying to blame other people for not supporting them in
> their hobby.
> 
> I'll continue to breed my own because there is so much satisfaction in
> having, raising, and competing a horse that you have raised yourself.
> But I am not going to kid myself that this is the most economical way
> to get a horse.  And I will breed horses for other people (to the
> extent that I and they can afford it), because there is so much
> satisfaction of having people happy with the horse you have bred and
> raised for them (which I have told them is NOT the most economical way
> for them to get a horse, but comes with other great rewards).
> 
> Ironically enough, if there were fewer people who were under the
> mistaken impression that you could make money breeding horses, the
> price of horses would go up…because there would be fewer people
> producing them.  Until then, there are clearly more endurance
> prospects than there are people to buy them...this will depress
> the price (basic microeconomical principle).  I don't see a
> change in this happening soon.
> 
> As a breeder (limited though it may be), I don't expect to recoup
> my costs associated with breeding a horse.  I don't have
> unlimited funds (understatemet), I just don't breed beyond my
> ability to keep the horses I breed.  The costs associated with
> breeding horses can get out of control quickly if you aren't
> really careful...and very few breeders (despite the fact that
> they wish they were in the breeding business) know piss all
> about figuring the "cost of doing business" so their costs get
> away from them and they end up having to "reduce" their herds.
> 
> Breeding horses (just like any other aspect of owning horses...
> only more so) is a rich man's sport.  And it is grossly
> irresponsible to get into it if you can't afford it.  More than
> anything, I am bothered by irresponsible breeders (and a breeder
> is anybody who breeds their mare) who do it without understanding
> that they are creating a horse that didn't exist before,
> that is going to need care for it's entire life...and they
> had damn well better be prepared to provide it and
> not hope that somebody else will come along and relive them
> of that responsibility.  To expect to make a profit at it is
> just plain obscene.
> 
> If all this means that people stop breeding horses for sale (i.e.
> those that they haven't identified a caretaker for), then as far
> as I am concerned this can only be considered a good thing.
> haven't identified ow
> 
> kat
> Orange County, Calif.
> 
> p.s.
> 
> As a completely separate issue Bette Lamore also said:
> 
> >A maiden mare came in who
> >was not halter trained---nor ANYTHING trained and she was 4! The owner
> >wanted her natural covered but I had misgivings and asked that a vet
> do
> >it (first time I'd ever done that--- a premonition, perhaps). Anywho,
> >the vet, who specialized in breeding and had been on the staff at 2
> vet
> >depts, wound up giving her 3 shots of tranq and twitching and
> >sidelining. Hal was inside her when she still managed to buck which
> >dislodged him momentarily and when she bumped down he entered her
> anus.
> >It was NO ONE'S fault---a fluke.
> 
> This, in my book, does classify as 'rape.'  Pretty much, take a young,
> barely domesticated virgin, drug her and forcibly restrain her, but she
> still manages to demonstrate her displeasure and resist… and
> gets anal sex instead and ends up dead as a result.  Yep, she was
> raped.  Personally, I think there is a much better way to handle
> inexperienced, maiden mares than to drug and twitch them.  Yes, I have
> bred maiden mares before...and what they get to do is...watch and then be
> sufficiently teased until they are willing...and if they aren't...they
> don't get bred. I realize that drugging and twitching and hobbling
> are industry standard practices, but it still qualifies as rape
> in my book, and I am personally of the opinion that that is a
> contributing factor as to why conception rates of domestic
> breeding farms is so low.  Farms that use pasture breeding do not
> have such low conception rates.
> 
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
> Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

--