Katie Hoefs-Martin Dressage

I have had Katie Hoefs Martin as my and my daughter’s trainer for nearly 6 years. She is a gifted rider and trainer, with extensive experience in bringing riders and horses along, from totally green to PSG. She has guided us in choosing appropriate horses, and appropriate goals for our training. The atmosphere in Katie’s program is very professional, yet very relaxed. Unlike other trainers I evaluated before choosing Katie, she considers riding client’s horses part of the job, and her calm, even manner of dealing with training issues is appreciated by client and horse alike. I had worked with several other trainers prior to Katie, so this stood out to me as particularly valuable in a training program.
After a thorough interview process, Katie moved her program to Gilroy Gaits, and we have been really happy there and so have our horses. Katie has two veterinarians in her program, and they trust her with the care and training of their horses. She has provided excellent care for all of my horses (3) through a variety of ailments. At Gilroy Gaits, we have an on-​site vet clinic, so horses who require care are very closely monitored and the vet works very closely with Katie. She brought my young horse back after OCD surgery, and I went on to enjoy a full show season. Over 5 – 6 years, with three horses, we’ve had several occasions to require support from Katie in caring for them, and nothing has ever occurred to suggest that she is anything but competent at following a vet’s instructions, including knowing when to involve the vet at any point in a health issue.
I find these review forums useful, but occasional they are abused to settle personal vendettas. As the horse involved in a previous review is MY horse, I feel compelled to set the record straight: The accusation in another review that Katie was prosecuted for drugging a horse is completely inaccurate. I was disciplined for not filing the correct paperwork, not for drugging a horse. As my trainer, Katie was subject to fines as well. If you have any doubts about that, read the link. And then interpret the rest of the remarks in the other review with that intentional misrepresentation in mind.