Okay, here's the thing . . . 

I'm at the end of the horse appraiser certification program, and coincidentally I've been watching some people buy and sell horses lately.  The course makes it all sound pretty cut-and-dried, but I've noticed a total disconnect between what the seller says about the horse and what the buyer sees and hears and interprets.  I've seen good horses go begging and bad ones find homes.  Prices are all over the place.

So I'm thinking that maybe there needs to be a set of basic terms for accurately describing a horse and for assessing one's own riding level.  Anyone want to bite on that?  

For instance, most of the online ads ask the seller to rate the horse's level of hotness, usually from 1 (cold to the touch and only moves when electrical stimulation is applied) to 5 (just get out of the way and keep the ACE handy).  But MY 3 (as I mentioned in another post) and someone ELSE'S 3 might be (and have been) quite different.  I've got three horses here that I adore, that I consider pretty much quiet and safe (with the occasional brain fart notwithstanding), but that others would probably rate a 3 or 4.  I'd rate them 1 (for the Appy who needs significant encouragement to make it around the arena in under an hour) to 2.5 (for the Paint who actually jumps and has been known to move at a tidy clip when pressed, though he'd just as soon stand around and eat given his druthers). I bought one from an owner who was terrified of him, then I used him as a beginner lesson horse.  I bought another from a family who neglected to mention he'd been a confirmed bucker in his youth, and he's my dead-quiet trail horse. See the issue?

Whaddya say?  How can this gap be closed so more horses find appropriate owners and vice-versa?  I'll forewarn you some of this will turn up in my blog and possibly in my current book, so don't mention names of folks who might hunt you down and remove body parts.   

JMFriedman:

I'm at the end of the horse appraiser certification program

Well then, who else would be better qualified to define such standards?  "J scale" sounds nice!

Hmmmm.  Good question.  What I've found over the years is; horses are such individuals, and they can read people so very well, that it depends on who they're "paired up" with as to how they react to them - so it makes it very difficult to rate a horse on any kind of scale.  Now surely there are some standards that can be fairly generalized, but like the 3 horses you (JM) describe - they turned out to be very different for you than for their previous owner.

 So I guess my answer is "I don't know".

gypsy fly:

Well then, who else would be better qualified to define such standards?  "J scale" sounds nice!

Now, see, gypsyfly, that's exactly what it is!  Whether you hire an appraiser (even for an informal appraisal) or you ask a friend to give you an opinion, you're getting the "J scale" (or T or Q or whatever).  So if I was appraising the horses my friend was looking at, I'd be, basically, WRONG.  LOL  The USPAP defines "desirable" as a series of traits worth x points each, and that's the basis for comparison against other horses in the same market, blah, blah, blah (the manual weighs about 20 pounds, so that's a lot of "blah").  But what I think is "attractive" is going to make some horse folks turn shades of gray.  

I really never gave all this much thought until I took the course.  I took each horse as an idividual and just made a well-thought-out snap decision about whether or not it would fit into my plans.  Only once did I even go look at the horse a second time.  It didn't matter to me what the seller said about the horse.  I decided on my own based on some very questionable parameters, and I did fine for the most part (once I had the "first horse" debacle under my belt).  

So . . . yes.  I'm overthinking this.  I can't help it.  Suddenly the entire process has taken on a massive quality it never had when I was just wandering around wide-eyed, checkbook in hand, sniffing out the smell (or whatever) of a good horse. Now that horses are having trouble enough finding homes, it seems more important (to me, at least) to find a way to make good matches.  Am I losing my mind (again), or does anyone else see this as an issue? 

I'm okay with "Why don't you go have a drink and watch Oprah" as an answer.

JMFriedman:

the basis for comparison against other horses in the same market

So these comps function as a determinant for what a horse is worth in the current market?  Are we to "ass u me" that the horse is an appreciating asset or a liability?  If an asset then it needs to be colored up.  If a liability then it needs to be covered up.  If the appraisal includes matchmaking, then a well rehersed trial period may be the most reliable measure.

As for my Sweetheart, she'd say of any equine appraisal, "You had me at horse ..."

JMFriedman:

Now that horses are having trouble enough finding homes, it seems more important (to me, at least) to find a way to make good matches.  Am I losing my mind (again), or does anyone else see this as an issue? 

For what it's worth, I see this as "an issue" about the same way I see arranged marriages as an issue. No difference in the results.

And standards... WHAT standards? "We don't need no stinkin' standards!" Have you ever gone from one show ring or horse sale to another and experienced reliable "standards"? There's not even much uniform enforcement of RULES.

For an experienced horseperson to match un-saavy riders of various skill levels with the horses they SHOULD be on is pretty easy. But actually convincing them to buy, ride and keep those horses is another matter. As soon as they bump up against horse psychology or bad riding technique problems, the horse suddenly becomes either a "bad fit" or the wrong color, and winds up in that "having trouble enough finding homes" category. And the horse matchmaker that made the purchase recommendation becomes the scapegoat.

I do occasionally go with someone to "look at a horse". But that's ALL I usually do. Look. When they ask me to ride the horse for them, I ask if they're buying the horse for ME to ride. That often gets my point across. If I see them riding with poor skills and blaming the horse, THEN I'll ride to see who's really at fault and actually tell them where I think the problem is.

In over 30 years I can't remember ever telling someone "This is the horse for you!" And I've also lost count of the times I HAVE said "You need more riding lessons before you're ready to own this horse". I suppose there's a standard in there somewhere. But I know it doesn't weigh 20 pounds and doesn't appear to be widely accepted either. ~FH

gypsy fly:

JMFriedman:

the basis for comparison against other horses in the same market

So these comps function as a determinant for what a horse is worth in the current market?  Are we to "ass u me" that the horse is an appreciating asset or a liability?  If an asset then it needs to be colored up.  If a liability then it needs to be covered up.  If the appraisal includes matchmaking, then a well rehersed trial period may be the most reliable measure.

As for my Sweetheart, she'd say of any equine appraisal, "You had me at horse ..."

The asset/liability situation depends on the purpose of the appraisal.  I'd guess if the horses were part of a rancorous divorce settlement they'd be worth quite a bit more than if they were part of the estate of a dearly-departed horse lover.  

FLH, you certainly got that right!  The way I look at it is if you need me to ride the horse because you're afraid or you don't trust the seller, then you don't need that horse.  I will only ride a horse for someone else if there's a reason--like the buyer is out of state and wants an assessment of the horse's training level.  I try to be honest without being unpleasant, but that's not always workable.  LOL 

I do suggest that a friend take a second look on another day if I think they're being too quick to judge, but I'm really not emotionally invested in the process unless it's someone in my family who's doing the shopping.  If I'm going to have to live with the repercussions, then I'm much more assertive about my opinion.  

I haven't been in the business end of the business as long as you have, so maybe my experience isn't wide enough, but it seems to me that buyers are far pickier now than they were ten or fifteen years ago.  And they want guarantees up the wazoo.  Maybe that's just here in the Sue Me State.

I just heard an eHarmony commercial.  How nice it would be to have several established points of compatibility between equines and owners/riders.

 And I just got a lovely image of a horse and owner walking hand-in-hoof along a beach.  LOL

Yep, that's just what I think we need.  

Now, Richard Shrake did a bang-up job of coming up with some very realistic and easily administered tests of trainability for the horse.  I've seen them used in part in videos by various trainers.  They're just as useful in getting a reading on how difficult a horse will be for a particular owner to handle.  The trick is getting the information out to buyers and sellers and putting the process into a framework that is simple and easily applicable during shopping expeditions.  

  I think we need a standardized riding test the appraiser can use to rate the rider! (1-5)  Then matching up horse-rider would be easier, right?  I've seen too many riders rate themselves 3 or better when they're really about a 1...or a .5   Seriously if an accurate evaluation of the buyer were available it would make your job easier. Maybe relative levels are needed.  A 3 to me would be a 5 to my dad.  ( I'm guessing I'm about a 2.5 & hes a .5 LOL).  Just an Idea. 

 YESSS!  Thank you! 

I've been saying for years that we need some sort of certification program--just a simple thing with a few basic points--that would result in, say, a piece of paper being issued to the rider/buyer clearly noting what his/her actual riding level is.  A short online course on horse care and management could end with a test.  Then the test paper could be validated by an actual human being who would watch the person handle a horse and ride.  Kind of like what the Boy Scouts require for a merit badge in horsemanship.  I had to sign off on a boy once, and it was an interesting experience. If the whole thing were offered for free, wouldn't that be a tremendous boon to the horse business?

Of horses, there are prospects and there are projects.  I'm sure the same goes with riders.  Therefore, either one could mentor the other who needs to step up.

Like a new rider benefitting from an older bomb proof schooling horse rather than an up and coming show horse.  Of course at some point the learning curves could intersect, the abilities of the horse and rider could match up and "fit" each other.

As mentioned in previous posts, riders may consider taking riding lessons to measure up to the horse or conversely, afford more training for the horse.

Is there really a perfect match unless both empower each other?

 Well said!

For our riding stable operations, we use the standards defined by the Certified Horsemanship Association.  Each rider has to show profiency at a certain CHA level before they can take out a particular horse.

We do have one arabian that is attentive of any rider and can take a beginner to a jockey.  In fact, two point and raise the reins and he'll look at you first to confirm your intentions.  If he feels you really want him to go then he goes!

For the most part, each horse is best suited for particular CHA levels, mostly intermediate to advanced. 

So, perhaps the CHA standards can help match the rider to the horse.  I don't know dressage, but from what I gather, a Level 1 rider would probably mess up a Level 2 horse.  Unless the Level 2 horse knows how to school a Level 1 rider up to a Level 2