@IPEsq apprciate the clarification. My thought and warning here tho was that there was no central governing body to easily complain to like the SEC or FINRA. I assume you’re talking about a fiduciary duty being found in civil court once a suit is brought? If so, I’m definately not arguing that there is no potential recourse- just that it is more difficult (and likely more costly) to pursue.
My point simply is- no one is monitoring horse trainers/sellers behavior and business practices so it is up to the client/consumer to keep themselves educated through the process.
Try shopping in the USA for a horse before going the import route. I’m sure this is easier said than done but considering what has happened here something to factor in. Maybe this family did and felt this was still a better option.
Maybe this was the better option? I vaguely remember a thread on here by someone horse shopping in SoCal. She shared the videos of the horses when she went to try them and many, including myself, were blown away at the price tags. Not because the prices were high, but because they were high for the level of training the horse had and the quality of the horse.
Imports can be far less expensive, particularly in the 3-6 age range, started but green and showing little possibility of ever excelling at anything over 3’6”. Thats our biggest segment over here, less then they want over there, that’s why the price difference. Recall they were looking at around 35k landed at LAX…so horse was likely 20-25ish. Far less then a green, professionally started over fences and marketed 5ish year old over here.
I get that.
What I don’t get is a trainer advising them to continue to spend knowing full well it’s going on the client’s credit cards and this has been shared with everybody in the country along with asking for financial help. A real professional trainer experienced in all sides of sales transactions simply does not allow this type of thing to get started let alone take it public…and they at least advise clients against sharing financial and personal information publicly if not tell them to just shut up online.
That I don’t get and, in fact, have never seen before. Sob stories and disputes, yeah, sure, not naming and giving the age of a minor, names, profession and financial information/ credit card debt. Are you kidding me…
AND, since this has been on SM, it begs the question of “How much is true?” Some of the details, and this emotional heart-string pulling with information about the military family, the age of the child, etc., questions from others on this board about if the trainer has a financial stake in the horse, all in connection with the GFM request - well it makes me wonder.
A rule of thumb with financial investments of any kind is that there is a positive correlation between risk, and the potential for a higher return on your money.
With imported horses, it seems fair to say that though you might get a much better value for your initial purchase price of $20k to $25k, that comes with substantial additional risk.
When it comes to financial investing… most people try to quantify the risks so that they know in advance as to what sort of hit their pocket book might take if things go wrong… and they choose accordingly.
At least with this situation going viral, everyone now is more aware of the risks. In particular… even if the horse YOU imported is healthy and fine on all its tests, if another horse that shipped over on the same flight with your ms has a CFT false positive, or an issue with piro testing (I’ve heard more stories about that than glanders), then you will be paying for your import to wait in quarantine for additional time. And that seems to cost somewhere between $3,500 and $5,000.
It would be interesting to get some stats regarding how many horses were imported to the US in the last few years, and how many spent additional time in quarantine. Then you would have an idea as to the % likelihood that you could get hit with that extra 5k bill.
Just good to try and quantify what you can, in advance, going into this sort of thing.
Still question if the trainer has an actual financial stake in this horse in partnership with the client. Generally it’s not a wise choice to have a business partner also act as an advisor for how the partnership spends its money. Sure doesn’t make sense for one partner to direct the other to max out their personal credit cards for the good of the partnership.
Smells like conflict of interest if not abuse of fiduciary responsibility. Whatever…not a way to build a careeer as a horse professional.
I seem to recollect Florida having a specific law on the books that ATTEMPTS to put in place some basic rules with respect to horse buying and selling, commissions, etc. Is there anything similar on the books in California?
And would a law like that… in either state… even apply to an import situation? Or would it be irrelevant, regardless of where the seller and client resides, because the horse was actually purchased while it was still in another country?
ETA - I went back and looked up the Florida law I was vaguely remembering. It is Florida Rule 5h-26. An actual lawyer would be the right sort of person to explain if… or how… it would possibly apply to any component of this situation though, and any of the multiple people involved.
I also learned that two other states that DO have similar laws on the books… Kentucky, and California.
The California law is Section 19525 of the California Business and Professions Code. I’m still looking at it to just get a general idea of what it covers. It’s actually quite interesting and informative. Speaks to the role of agents, allowable damages that a party can recover, etc.
I seem to remember someone else mentioning on this thread that the actual lab which performs the CFT analysis is a consideration and part of the issue. I didn’t fully understand the comment, but it seemed like perhaps if a horse was physically in Europe, and you wanted to pre-test for glanders prior to import with the North American CFT that the USDA uses… it actually meant that the horse’s blood would need to be sent to the lab in Iowa (at least I recall someone mentioning that the lab is in Iowa) that the USDA presently goes to (I’m assuming the USDA has some sort of contractual agreement to use specific labs for specific durations for services… that would make sense to me) for this particular testing when it comes to imported equines meeting current requirements.
I definitely might have jumped to an incorrect assumption/inference though when reading comments. But that was what I thought I understood?
Multiple folks who clearly are professionals in this field (microbiology, or working as a professional in a laboratory) have been commenting along the way with this thread. Maybe they can clarify this for the rest of us who still are a little unclear about it?
I believe those laws are related to dual agency, which doesn’t seem to be the case in this situation. See below
5H-26.002 Definitions. As used in this rule, the following definitions shall apply: U “Dual Agent” means a person who acts as an agent, consultant, consignor, or in any other capacity that creates a position of trust with both the Purchaser and the Owner.[/U] U “Horse” means an equine as defined in Section 773.01(2), F.S.[/U] Specific Authority 535.16 FS. Law Implemented 535.16 FS. History– New________.
and in response to your earlier post about how long horses stay in quarantine - when I imported mine from Ireland 2003 - he was held for no more than 24 hours - the importer told me they ship them out as soon as the results are back. Rate was the same whether it was 24 or 72 hours. Geldings are held for less time, mares and stallions are longer. If importing to NY area mares are often sent to a place in Maryland for the rest of their quarantine Mine came thru NY. A friend of mine shipped his horse from Ireland and for some reason was shipped to Canada, and was held there for 2-3 weeks unfortunately i can’t remember for what- maybe a fever or something, and then I seem to also recall he may have been stuck up there due to having to re-arrange shipping logistics.
You are correct - after reading a bit, the laws are primarily geared towards issues related to dual agency, and outright fraud in transactions. The California law seems slightly more broad than the Florida law, and addresses required disclosures on the part of an agent to a horse purchase/sale in detail in particular. But it still all seems geared towards the notion of dual agency of one variety or another.
From what I have read, the California law does apply to this transaction, because the trainer and client both reside there. But it doesn’t appear from the public information known about the trainer’s role in this transaction thus far that she has violated California law in any way.
As far as extended quarantine expenses go… it sounds like you are speaking about CEM quarantine in particular with respect to mares and stallions. I was only referring to unexpected extended USDA quarantine in relation to testing for dourine, glanders, EIA, and equine piroplasmosis.
The multiple, public, discussion threads on this case have many different people speaking about experiences with entire plane loads of horses being held in quarantine at LAX, New York, and Miami because 1 horse on the flight over had a weird test with glanders (false positives on the CFT… ) or piroplasmosis. In this case, and it sounds like in the others… if one horse on the flight has a “suspicious” test during that initial 48 hour quarantine… all the horses on the same flight are also held, regardless of their negative test results, for a specific duration (it seems like 15 days is common). Then, they are tested again, and if they again test negative… they are released.
One specific comment made mention of a USDA vet in Miami also holding an entire plane load of horses at some point recently because one horse had abscesses on it’s jaw that were suspicious (I didn’t see anything about any issue with Coggins though). Regardless… the whole planeful of horses was held for a longer period of time until the USDA was satisfied that the horses were all really and truly negative with respect to EIA. I’m not sure how long that case went on for though.
It seems like day rates in multiple quarantine facilities in different parts of the country are somewhere between $250 and $350 at present. $300 x an additional 15 days is an additional $4500 out of pocket that someone will have to pay if their horse comes over on the same flight with another horse who has an issue with glanders or piro or whatever. Even if it’s an obvious false positive.
Maybe I’m incorrect about what seeing… but this seems to be what all the comments and stories indicate. And understandably, the people who imported a perfectly healthy horse which coincidentally got on the same plane with a suspect horse and now have to pay an additional $4500 in quarantine fees are upset with this and speaking up about their experiences. Which I can understand. So it seems worth paying attention to, and realizing that sort of thing can happen to anyone importing, even if you do everything perfectly with your own horse, and pre-testing. Seems smart to build that amount of money into your total budget before importing… just in case.
I know I can be long winded… sorry for that. I just wanted to try and be really clear about what I was saying in terms of the apparent potential for an extended stay in quarantine because of other suspect horses on the same flight over.
I still think that many reasonable, careful, intelligent people, given the choice on day 1, when a horse tests positive for a disease you’re quite certain he doesn’t have - because remember he tested negative before he shipped, and there’s no known reservoir for this disease in Belgium or the Netherlands…
Retest, probably $4500 extra quarantine bill
Send him back to be resold in Europe, $10k+ unknown board until he sells, if he sells
Euthanize for $20k
Maybe those numbers weren’t, in the end, accurate, but if that’s the choice in front of me, I’d likely have picked the same.
If it had been a different disease, like piroplasmosis, it would be much more obvious to send him back.
It seems like there were many different prices quoted for different things at different times, from the quarantine day rate to the return flight to the cost of euthanasia. I don’t know where all those numbers came from, but it was a wide range, for sure.
I read these a few times along with the international policy documents that USDA supposedly follows, and I think (but could be wrong) that these tests could be used to confirm a negative but would not allow release of horses testing suspect on CFT. Doesn’t really make sense to me given what those with better biology knowledge have posted, but I think that’s why the negative WBs haven’t gotten this horse released.
