Breeders are horse owners too

["guest@endurance.net" <guest@endurance.net>]

K S SWIGART   katswig@earthlink.net


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.