Re: RC: Breeding:

[Teresa Van Hove <tvanhove@uswest.net>]

> OK, forget that question even.  My last question is:  Why
> in the world should a "used" horse, one presumably with
> more training, more experience, cost less?  The young,
> inexperienced horse is like the raw materials.  The
> finished product should cost *more* - but not with horses
> apparently.  It makes no sense.  No wonder so many people
> involved with horses are broke.  Lif

Well, except for a few folks that buy or raise more young
horses than they need and then sell the extra's to help
defray costs (and we are talking folks who love to work
with young horses and are not trying to pay for their time)
a "used" horse is probably a horse that is not working
out for the original owner and comes with their mistakes.
(which may be only personality conflicts - not abuse or
totally letting the horse be in charge.)  Sure some used
horses are just horses that a child outgrew, or are just
not good enough at the original owners sport; but no
way is every older horse a better buy than a youngster,
I think negative experiences are worse than no 
experience in working with a horse.  Most breeders
cant afford to keep and train horses, specially true
in endurance -BECAUSE endurance riders as a group 
have plenty of ego and would rather build their 
own foundation on their horses.  If they want good
breeding they'll buy a younger horse and raise it
themselves.  Sure paying 5 or 6 thousand or more for
a good performing older horse would be much cheaper
per mile in the long run but many of us like to
work with horses as a hobby and don't want to
buy a finished product. And quite a few are
"horse refinishers" who really enjoy uncovering
the "antique under the clumsy paint job." (not
me personally -my own horse purchases have all
been about 3 yrs old; some started under saddle,
none finished)

-- 
Teresa Van Hove
Co-Manager Long X Rides
"http://www.users.uswest.net/~tvanhove/LONGX.html"