| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pat Mefferd
Ultra Long Time Contributing Member
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 1909
Location: California
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 5:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Robyn,
Your post prior to my posting the "Indian Pony" is as follows:
| Quote: | | Whether or not you believe the story of the Appaloosa and the Nez Perce it has been written by more than one individual that these indians had thousands of horses before the conflict. Those horses had plenty of speed and vigor to withstand what I have read was some fairly rough treatment. I don't think they needed blood from TB, QH or Arabian to survive or excel. |
.
How would you know for sure, whether those Appaloosas did or did not carry any English TB, early QH sprinting blood or Arabian blood? Are you suggesting they were all purebred Appaloosas?
I would hope that you can admit that the Appaloosas needed some refinement from outside blood, once the Draft inluence came to the breed?
When I posted the photo of the "Indian Pony", I was trying to make a point, in a "not so nice way", that not all Appaloosas were speed demons.
I am not as articulate as some, I can admit my short comings, I can admit when I am wrong. If I have offended you personally Robyn, I am sorry.
I know you were offended at my remark about real horsepeople. I was raised by true horsemen...My Grandpa K.D. was born and raised on the King Ranch, Kingsville, TX. My Stepfather Fred Kennedy was a Hall of Fame Stuntman and falling horse trainer, bit actor in the Westerns of the late 1930's thru 1958, until his untimely death. I was around some of the best horsemen and women in the business. And I countinue to be friends myself good everyday horsepeople, ranchers, cowboys (both rodeo and working). So I think I know a little about what a "true horseman or horsewoman" is.
Having said that....you are coming in from another era. I'm 73, and I would guess you to be in your 20's. I'm not asking you your age....just showing the difference between our era's. Your take on "horsepeople" is different than mine.
Not every person who owns and or breeds horses is a true horseperson.
Pat
_________________
Pat Mefferd, PM MEFFERD Pedigree Research, Anderson, CA. (Retired)
Proud daughter of Fred Kennedy (1982 Stuntmans Hall of Fame)
http://members.tripod.com/~horsefame/fredkennedy.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ftfotb
Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2008
Posts: 133
Location: Wellington, NV
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pat, you touched on a few things that I've had difficulty articulating in my previous posts. One of them is age. Of course, younger people (or those new to breeding) have ideas they feel are worthwhile. The problem is, many of those who are older have "been there, done that". There is nothing new to the concept of breeding horses. There may be new pedigree theories, or new genetic discoveries through modern technology, but the basic principles of breeding remain the same. In fact, many of those recent genetic discoveries only verify what long time breeders already knew through practical experience. Good conformation is good conformation. We used to call it "form to function". The basic type of a versatile horse remains the same. Specialization has screwed that up, for sure. I don't like it, and the foundation supporters don't like it either. The only ones who like it are those whose exposure to these horses has been very focused. Many were not even around during the height of versatility. Those horses (and their type) are all but gone today. Those are the horses we need back. Not the ones like your Indian pony, but horses who possessed all the traits needed to be the athletic, versatile horse they are/were promoted as. Speed is a big part of that. Even if you don't race horses, speed is a necessary ingredient of versatility. Without it, you don't have anything worthy of contributing to the breed. That is not only my opinion, but has been the opinion of long time breeders from way back.
Since the TB has contributed much to the quality of the QH, so has the QH (and TB) contributed to the quality of the Appaloosa. Before that, the horses were a mixture of anything and everything. As long as they had the pattern, they were Appaloosas. Along came breeders striving for a better horse (and many succeeded). The mentality of "more is better" took hold in many areas, and whenever money was involved, well, we know what happens then...
So, in my opinion, it's time to back up a bit here. It's time to get away from the crazy extremes of the horses today and get back to the real horses of substance, soundness, and quality, without the genetic diseases. That doesn't mean we need to totally eliminate all the halter horses (for example)...it means we need to breed horses who have the ability to perform a multitude of tasks while holding up as excellent examples of their breed. The best of those should be the halter horses, just as they were in the beginning of these associations. That class was created to showcase the best of the performance horses and to highlight the best representatives of the breed. People of course took that too far, especially when they started breeding horses just for halter, or just for western pleasure. If the biggest butted horse won, well, let's breed bigger butts...little feet, tiny throatlatches, upright pasterns, and all that. The same is happening with each and every discipline out there today, all but eliminating the all around type of horse that once dominated these breeds.
If you go back before these versatile horses dominated, you are going to undo all the areas of improvement that took place before specialization.
Anyway, I hope I'm making sense. It's hard to convey thoughts in the written word. If we were all sitting in a room talking, it might be much easier to have a good debate!
Susan
_________________
If you don't have any enemies, then you aren't doing anything worthwhile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat Mefferd
Ultra Long Time Contributing Member
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 1909
Location: California
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This pertains to the "Leopard" & "Solid" photos I posted in this subject. I also posted the photos in the Research area of ABDB.
I posted the following....
OK...here are the names. I have recieved private emails from several who have identified the "Leopard". That is the easy one.
It is SIRI SHEIK (foaled in 1938), taken by Fred Hulseman himself, when SIRI SHEIK arrived at his ranch in Red Bluff, CA in 1953. SIRI SHEIK had had a long trailer ride to his new home w/the Hulseman's...he had just been unloaded from the trailer. It was hard to get him to pose, being anxious to see his new surroundings and smells. Fred wrote on the back of the photo that SIRI SHEIK was "A poor picture. He was gaunt from the trip. Front legs too far back", etc. Linda told me, when she gave me the photo, that her Dad liked "fat"!
The "Solid" is from a completely different era...the late 1800's. The photo is entitled...BERRY'S COLD DECK and was found in "The Quarter Horse" (Vol II) by Michaelis & Denhardt. The photo title states this horse was foaled in 1888 and died in 1919; it also states he was sometimes referred to as YOUNG COLD DECK.
Per Denhardt's "Foundation Sires:
YOUNG COLD DECK: Brn stallion foaled 1888; by Berry's Cold Deck by Cold Deck; out of a Bertrand Mare.
BERRY'S COLD DECK: Bay stallion foaled 1873 (died 1904); by Cold Deck by Steel Dust; out of a Red Buck Mare.
My point in the photos was the similarities I say in the two horses of completely different eras. It was brought to my attention that I could not properly make a comparison of the two horses because of the perspective in which the photos were taken. I took this into consideration and understood this.
Just looking at the photos, without taking "photographical persepective" into consideration.....I saw the same or similar horse in different "pajama's". In otherwords their silhouette was almost the same.
To me, in this particular photo, SIRI SHEIK looks to have some QH in him.
Pat
_________________
Pat Mefferd, PM MEFFERD Pedigree Research, Anderson, CA. (Retired)
Proud daughter of Fred Kennedy (1982 Stuntmans Hall of Fame)
http://members.tripod.com/~horsefame/fredkennedy.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oak orchard
Yearling
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 23
Location: Medina, NY
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi folks,
I think I have had too much caffeine, so I apologize in advance for how wordy this will be.
First, thank you all for being so passionate about horses in your lives (current, past, future). I myself would rather live in a world that includes horses, and you all are helping to ensure that.
If you are like me, you were once a horse crazy kid, and it would not have mattered if your steed was big or small, bay or even purple. It would have been the center of your universe regardless.
I have bred and owned horses that were halter and preformance winners, racehorses, and even horses that had sparse manes and tails and looked like the horse in Pat's Native American reference photo. I saw value in all of them and they all made their other owners very happy as well.
As an aside, I once bred and owned a mare that was the product of crossing Tumbleweed Devil (World Champ halter horse with lots of TB) on a nice Mighty Peavy daughter. The resultant filly matured to be long-backed and light in the hindquarter. She also had a thick, coarse head, and, oh yeah, she matured to have a sparse mane and tail. She would have never won a conformation class, but she did have wonderful heartgirth, a long, clean neck, and the smoothest jog that I have ever ridden. That mare has lived a long life, and has taken excellent care of a score of riders who needed a safe, steady mount. She instilled confidence in them that a fancier but hotter horse would have destroyed. In those riders' eyes, she is just the most gorgeous, special horse.
My guess is, that in the future, the horses in the most demand will be: Those that can perform in the top 20% ot their chosen specialty; those that fit the "beauty" expectations of folks who can afford to feed and house something they want to see when they look out at the paddock: and finally those that are "bomb proof" and will take care of their riders (young and old), no matter what they look like.
These are challenging times in many ways, and I feel it is important that we see fellow horse enthusiasts as allies and not opponents, regardless of breed preference. Maybe we can all agree to disagree on some points, but I hope you can all do your best with what you have and use each other as resources. Don't base your self-worth, or that of your horse, on what you may see or read.
We may all have differences in what we want to bring to or take from the world of horses, but we all need to take better care of each other, as we are a circle that grows smaller. I may raise horses that differ from yours, but I respect you all.
One more thing. Politics come with the territory anytime more than a couple of human beings are involved. I see alot of the breed issues as more about human politics than about the horses.
Anyway, be good to each other...and better to your horses...see I told you I had too much caffeine.
Regards,
Tim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat Mefferd
Ultra Long Time Contributing Member
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 1909
Location: California
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tim.....Great post!
Pat
_________________
Pat Mefferd, PM MEFFERD Pedigree Research, Anderson, CA. (Retired)
Proud daughter of Fred Kennedy (1982 Stuntmans Hall of Fame)
http://members.tripod.com/~horsefame/fredkennedy.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ftfotb
Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2008
Posts: 133
Location: Wellington, NV
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pat Mefferd wrote: | Tim.....Great post!
Pat |
Ditto that.
Susan
_________________
If you don't have any enemies, then you aren't doing anything worthwhile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clippity_clop
Member
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 148
Location: East Coast
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I apologize for the length of this post. I tried to make it shorter but it's difficult to say everything you want to say in a compact manner. ;o)
| ftfotb wrote: |
This is where we differ, for sure. Of course you don't agree with using outcross blood if you believe the type of horse you admire needs no improvement. It is a fact, genetically, and historically, that fresh, outcross blood strengthens the gene pool. It doesn't "dilute" it, like some believe.
The only breeds that I can think of that are old enough and strong enough to sustain themselves without outcross blood are the TB, Arabian, Friesian, and other breeds similar in age and purity. As big as AQHA is, that available gene pool (without any further TB influence) isn't going to contribute to breed improvement either...it would only be propagation of more of the same. Whenever you have a mixture of different breeds founding another, the longer it is going to take before any form of "purity" will ever take place. If at all. |
On what do you base your opinion that the horses that make up the Appaloosa Horse Club from this point are not viable enough to maintain the breed? I just did some quick internet reading and found that all modern Thoroughbred horses trace back to 27 or 28 stallions from the 18th and 19th centuries. And there are over 4 million quarter horses registered in the USA and maybe Canada (can't remember for sure). I think the problem is not with the available numbers but the fact that due to fads and monetary potential, breeders frequently choose to breed to a small number of bloodlines. I think that inbreeding may be what is causing some of the genetic and disease problems we are experiencing in all horse populations. Of course that is not to say we would have no such issues otherwise. I think it is normal to have genes that just decide to mutate for whatever reason. But I do think the heavy linebreeding may have increased the potential.
When I say real "Appaloosa" I don't mean pure. My own appaloosas have a lot of quarter horse in their pedigrees but my goal is to have several generations of Appaloosa rather than quarter horse. I am not saying the quarter horse has not made an improvement though I do like that there are lines that more closely resemble the older style in phenotype. I have stated before that I do like the quarter horse with spots phenotype. I just don't think that a foal resulting from a TB or QH sire and the dam with one or two appaloosa's in it's pedigree is an Appaloosa. I think at this point, that is breed destruction rather than breed improvement.
| Quote: |
While I agree that the bottom line is the focus of many breed associations today, I don't believe it is their responsibility to govern the direction the breed takes. They institute certain guidelines, but the breeders are the ones responsible for what is created, as a whole. |
The associations make the rules that breeders must follow. If the APHC WOULD register mules with spots as Appaloosas, you can bet there would be a lot of breeders registering them. If the ApHC or AQHA or any registry required breeders to test for HERDA and disallow carriers to be registered, you can bet we would wipe that disease out of the genetic pool of registered horses entirely! In addition, the associations publish the ideals for their breed and that is what breeders are "supposed" to go by for continuing the breed. So in that respect, I do believe it is their responsibility and more their purpose to shape the breed.
| Quote: |
Again, simply being good using horses doesn't equate to breed contributing quality. Many grade horses with poor conformation can be good using horses. Only the finest examples of the breed should be used for breeding purposes. The remainder aren't of the quality to breed on, no matter what bloodlines they possess. If people continue to justify those remainders as worthy breeding animals, then there is no breed improvement taking place. |
Here is where I am likely to get in hot water on this board because I totally do not agree with you on this one. I think good using horses are what most of us buy, own, breed, show etc.. First I do not believe there is a perfect horse. I do not believe only the finest examples should be used in a breeding program simply because the finest examples are different to each individual! Even people who have been doing this for decades can not agree on that simple idea because it is, in fact, not simple. It is not a matter of justification so much as it is a matter of disagreement in principal and individual preference. In addition, does this mean there are the finest examples of every breed in every state? Who is the one to decide which are the finest examples? I recently was in a discussion where the Arabian champion stallion Padron's Pshcye (Spelling probably way bad here). He is considered the finest by many. I, and many others, think he's a horror in a multitude of ways. I'm sure he's made his owners and others a lot of money and he is probably going to be on a lot of pedigrees.
| Quote: | | Quality is usually defined by the most knowledgeable of horsemen in any breed. It is through their eyes and experience that others learn what exceptional quality looks like. |
And who would that be in the Appaloosa world? When I totally disagree with the view that we need Appaloosas that are 1/8 Appaloosa by blood, why on earth would I take the head of that association's ideas of quality as meaningful?? What criterion do I use to decide that a person is knowledgeable enough to supplant my own ideas? Honestly, there are many many examples I have seen put forth as excellence in breeds from Arabians to Quarter Horses and I would not want to own any horse that looked like them. Does that make me wrong because I don't find that example appealing? Does it make me ignorant or oblivious?
| Quote: | | I'm fairly positive that many people believe their own horses are of exceptional quality. It's not difficult to sort out the ones with knowledge from the ones wearing rose-colored glasses. |
Most people buy their horses because they find them appealing and they love them. It doesn't mean they are wrong it just means they like different things. People are much the same way with their kids! Do I think all of them should be bred? No. Absolutely not. I have seen some real doozies that should never have been bred. I don't think their owners have educated themselves at all. Hopefully, that will change with the internet and sites like this!
| Quote: | | Throughout time, horsemen have always been competitive. There has always been a drive toward excellence, and most of us love owning and breeding horses that are admired by others. It's kind of like cars...some people want to drive a Corvette, and others are happy with their beat up Ford Pinto. In that scenario, the Ford Pinto would never qualify as something to be proud of in anyone's eyes. You never hear anyone saying that is their dream car. |
I understand what you are saying here but it seems a tad snobbish. My own trail mare is an ugly specimen for conformation but I love her dearly and I'm proud to ride her  I would never breed her though I would definitely try to find another just like her should I ever loose her! I believe the competitiveness you spoke of is a big component of specialization.
| Quote: | In fact, here is what I feel is a good piece about quality:
Excerpted from “Fundamentals of Breeding”, written by Dr. Deb Bennett:
A breeder becomes qualified to practice his art not by merely being able to buy bloodstock, but by knowing what excellence in horseflesh is like and then developing or adopting a system of stock selection and culling capable of meeting that standard.
Our ability to breed excellent horses depends upon the following five factors:
CLARITY, as in “feel for type”. Excellence in horseflesh is above all boundaries of bloodline and breed and is self-evident to horsemen who permit horses to define themselves, rather than burdening them with human preconceptions and prejudices.
CRITICAL FACILITY. Breeders must be able to see and analyze the pedigrees, phenotypes and performance capabilities of bloodstock before intelligent culling decisions can be made. The quality of a horse or foal is not guaranteed by its pedigree; rather, quality and value can be assessed only by looking at the horse or foal itself. This includes minds as well as bodies.
CONSISTENCY in our vision of excellence and in the selection of bloodstock. A breeder must have specific performance and phenotypic goals before beginning to breed and then stick to them, for they may take generations to reach.
COSMOPOLITAN access to large numbers of excellent, phenotypically complementary individuals to ensure that “the best” are able to reproduce with “the best”. Prepotency, soundness and desirable type cannot be established or maintained on the basis of one or a few individuals. But you may ask, “What about Justin Morgan, the single stallion at the root of every Morgan pedigree?” Think about the multitude of mares and unrelated second generation stallions who also contributed to the breed’s original gene pool. The same may be said for the Thoroughbred; while every Thoroughbred pedigree traces back to the Darley Arabian, Byerley Turk or the Godolphin Arabian, many other Oriental stallions and hundreds of broodmares contributed to the foundation of the breed.
|
That last paragraph is what I believe is still possible for the Appaloosa now. That is proof that you don't need millions in a gene pool to create, improve and maintain a breed
| Quote: |
COURAGE to execute the primary function of selection, which is removal of undesirable animals from the breeding population. Standards must be high and strictly applied. Culling might involve gelding and spaying, selling to the 4-H market, or in some instances, euthanasia. Statistically speaking, 25 to 50% of all horses are of mediocre or poor quality compared to other members of their bloodline. To achieve any given breeding goal, ALL these individuals must be culled.
Two attitudes about horse breeding prevail today in America. One, an entrenched resistance to gelding stallions and two, the willingness, even eagerness, to breed every maiden mare at least once, no matter how unlikely a specimen she may be. This thinking derives from the varying traditions that converged from all over the globe onto North American soil. Because government control of horse breeding is unlikely ever to occur here, breeders must take responsibility for their own activities. The most powerful regulatory force in the U. S. today is the knowledgeable consumer, who demands good quality and fair price. Excellent horses come from one source only…other excellent horses. Broodmares as well as stallions must meet the highest standards of quality. If they don’t, neither they nor their owners should be in the breeding business. |
I do agree with much of what he has written. I think most people who breed do try to do most of these things on their level. I do. I may not be at the level of the next guy but I am trying to learn and improve. Though excellence is, again, subjective.
| Quote: | | You also speak of horses that have accomplished great things. By whose standards are those great things evaluated? |
| Quote: | | By the standards agreed upon by the most knowledgeable and accomplished horsemen within an association. |
Again, here you are saying that I should agree to standards made by people whose premise I am totally at odds with. I do not credit the horsemen and women who are in charge of the ApHC with that lofty status. In fact, I think they are totally out of tune to what I would hope for the breed. So it is natural that I would not put a lot of merit in their assessments.
| Quote: |
Every lofty title created by these associations was done so with consensus of many of the best horsemen in the breed. And, by the performance and production records of the legendary horses whose influence on the breed has been great. That's not hard to figure out. The history of this is there for all of us to access and study. Joe Blow's backyard stallion by Horse Trailer out of Texas isn't going to accomplish any of that no matter how much Joe Blow thinks of his horse. Joe Blow thinks he's quality, right? The rest of us know better, and for good reason. Throughout history, Joe Blow's type of horse never accomplished anything of note. |
I don't think that is very much a fair attitude. I had a discussion on a board once about the prevalence of Poco Bueno and other lines in the cutting industry. I had always wondered why the breeders would not choose other lines that were less well known to make their up and coming stars. Then someone in the industry made a very valid point that I had not considered. Trainers will not risk the money and time training horses that are not from known producing bloodlines because of the time and expense that will be wasted should the animal not perform up to par. They would rather risk (before there was a test available) a foal developing HERDA because those are the bloodlines from which champions in their industry have come. As a result of this kind of thinking, many bloodlines that could hold champions are never realized - never even given the chance to perform. So Joe Blow's stallion may indeed never attain any high awards but then again, it may never be given the chance.
| Quote: | | Oh, before I forget, many horses today can't achieve those lofty titles that were created before specialization took hold. We can toss out the specialized era and the foundation era, and I (along with many others) can still present a valid argument for what quality looks like, as opposed to horses like Joe Blow's stallion. |
| Quote: |
...And those breeding for a single trait will continue to breed horses that don't have the integrity to contribute positively to a breed. Again, specialization... |
I think there are valid reasons to specialize. I just don't think you should do it at the expense of soundness or longevity of the horse. There are also levels of quality. I've seen photos of some horses that make me hurt to look at them. I even saw one photo quite recently of a horse with a back so badly bowed that I almost felt his pain but guess what? That stallion not only is standing to the public, but he won an award at a paint (I think he was a paint) show!!! If that is quality from a professional's point of view? Thanks. But No Thanks!
| Quote: |
While I don't find value in that kind of greatness, there are valid reasons some horses achieved fame within a breed. If it was acquired before specialization, it was well-deserved.
What is your definition of "great"? What is your definition of "quality"? Can you show us a picture? What are your goals as a breeder? |
Again, I'm sure this will not be a popular opinion here. I have been informed that I am pretty much everything that is wrong with breeding these days by people who think they know everything. Of course, I don't agree. I don't know exactly what I would say qualifies as great. I have read many stories about horses that I thought were great. Some about the legendary race horses. I was totally in love with Man O War as a child and had his poster on my wall forever. I loved reading about Hard Twist - a quarter horse race horse that had grit. It was obvious from reading about him that he was more than just flesh. He had the heart - a component that isn't really quantifiable from the outside. I don't know specific examples but I have always thought the horses who made up the pony express were great in the performance of their jobs. I've read heroic stories (supposedly true) of both Pony express horses and calvary horses. It is difficult not to equate greatness with accomplishment but only when that accomplishment is not subject to human bias in the form of judges. A race, for example is won or lost by the action of the horse. I don't love racing and most recently wont' even watch it for fear of seeing a tragedy that I can't un-see. But still, it is an accomplishment to win at racing. So great can be many things.
We are currently on our very first ever foal crop. We bought our mares from the estate of a well respected local breeder who, together with his son, had bred Appaloosas for more than 30 years. I freely admit there was more to learn than I knew when I bought them. Of course, I didn't realize it then! I am still learning and hope I always will be. but I don't think that should keep me from realizing a dream that my husband and I have shared for some time. I have been criticized for my reasons for breeding as well. It seems my reasons make me selfish to some. Everyone has their opinions and what is acceptable to one is not to another.
My goals are not so lofty as to think I am going to improve the "breed" at large. I know my mares are not perfect. They are, however good, sound, registered stock with decent pedigrees. My goals are to improve on THEM. To make their young better than they are. I did research the pedigrees of these mares and found that 3 of the 4 shared an ancestor of Poco Bueno. The first thing I did was test them for the gene that carries HERDA. I did not want to be a part of continuing that disease even with a single copy. My mares all tested negative.
When I searched for a stallion, I found one locally that I felt would compliment each of my mares in some way. I have been criticized for using a single stallion. My mares are very different in pedigree. They are also different in body type but similar enough, I think, for my stallion choice to produce some nice quality foals.
My goals are to improve the stock I have. I am not blind to conformation faults or areas that are not perfect and I hope to improve those areas in the foals that come from my mares. My goals are to never breed anything that is not likely to remain sound under a reasonable workload. Another goal is to never knowingly perpetuate a deadly disease like HYPP or HERDA. One of the most important things to me has become temperament. I think as you get older, the merits of temperament are much more recognizable And the commitment I have made to my horses is to ensure that they are worked with and trainable. If I still have them when they are old enough to put under saddle, I will have them trained. We work with them throughout their lives on basics that many ignore. I try to ensure they have a good shot at a decent life. I won't breed a pasture full of wild things and keep breeding without regard for my ability to place what I already have. To be honest, I am certain I will not be able to continue to breed horses long enough to make any real change. My husband and I are older and this is something we are doing in retirement for the love of the Appaloosa and the experience. I may not ever breed another foal crop! At this point I don't really know. I'm happily awaiting this year's babies and will see where we go from there. One thing I have become interested in is the gaited lines of the Appaloosa. I think I would like to dedicate a program to that end some day but I don't know that I ever will be able.
| Quote: |
Everything I have stated is done so without using the opinions of show judges. I have judged myself, too. But I've also learned enough to judge a horse on his individual quality, not on what some judge thinks of the horse. |
That is no more, and no less that what I do as well. I'm probably not perfect in my preferences but I buy and use what I like and find value in.
| Quote: | | And not by earnings or points earned by that horse. You couldn't give me some of the World Champion horses today. But you could give me ones from the era of versatility - from the era of the horses that best represented their breed in terms of all around integrity. Those are the horses that earned "legendary status" in their breed - horses without genetic diseases to "help" them win, and horses who could run, and stay sound while working all day, and look good while doing it. |
I agree with you on that point as well but I do think many of these horses had conformation faults that many today would rip apart. It's one of the reasons I put less stock in every single conformation fault. I tend to lean toward the side of usability and healthiness of the horse. If we just want horses to look at, there are painters for that ;o)..
| Quote: | | I'm putting my money into my horses so I feel that gives me the right to decide which way I want to go with them. Since I feel that ApHC has given up the Appaloosa breed to the popular, I also feel I have the right to go to an association that more closely upholds my personal beliefs. |
| Quote: | | Absolutely. You have every right to breed what you wish and register your horses with whatever association you wish. Even if you wanted to register them with the Blue Eyed Horse Association, I don't think anyone will stop you. |
See that sounded like a flippant way of saying that the other Appaloosa registries are not valid registries. I think they are valid registries.
| Quote: |
Again, you are speaking of specialization, which many of us do not subscribe to or agree with. Like I said earlier, you would have to witness the changes, from the time of the foundation horses, to the heyday of the breed, to the demise of the breed through specialization in order to understand where I'm coming from. You can't just look at what specialization has created and automatically dismiss all knowledgeable people. Doing so is no different than what Pat was accused of - posting the sorriest example of an Appaloosa to prove a point. There really are people out there who are sacrificing what is popular in order to save the breed. And they're not necessarily the foundation people. |
It is not necessarily just to the specialization issue that I was speaking. There may be many people out there who are trying to save the breed but those who make the decisions as to how the breed is to be viewed overall (the breed associations) I believe are throwing the breed under the proverbial bus. It is not specialization that causes them to want to register everything from pintaloosas to ponies as an Appaloosa!
| Quote: |
...And, likewise, it would serve many who are new to breeding to take into consideration the opinions of those who are older and have been around a bit longer. Nothing can replace experience. |
I do listen to breeders, and others, in my area who I respect and who have years of experience. I have learned a great deal from them and hope to continue to learn more in the future. I will not, however, respect an opinion that believes something completely opposite to what I believe. I don't think anyone would do that. It goes against my nature. That doesn't mean I do not consider alternate opinions. I began the debate about outcrossing on the other side of the issue. Once I found out what CAN be registered as an Appaloosa; That changed everything for me.
| Quote: |
Since I was around when the foundation QH registries started up, I know exactly why they did so. I know the members, and I know the executives. The reasons are not nearly as noble or as romantic as they portray to their followers, and it wouldn't be nice for me to go into it here.
|
Well I don't personally know anyone involved and my decisions are not based on any person but on what I believe is good for the Appaloosa as a breed. Having 98% blood that is QH and TB and 2% Appaloosa is NOT good for the breed. That is more like breed annihilation than anything else.
| Quote: |
I see many differences between the three breeds. You must have totally misunderstood what I've said. But if you hate those associations so much, then you should turn in your horse's ApHC papers before taking up with one of the splinter groups. What? The splinter group won't accept your horse without ApHC papers? This alone should tell you that those spinoff organizations can't stand on their own. This is why I stated that if you want change, you have to work within your horse's parent organization to enact those changes. If there is enough of you, it can be done. |
I don't think it is unreasonable for an association to use ApHC paperwork to verify pedigree. In fact, the only alternative would be to register grade horses and I'm sure they would be lambasted for that as well. Everyone who is against a different registry always brings up the fact that ApHC paperwork is a requirement but considering that it has been the ApHC that has been responsible for registering Appaloosas since the beginning of the association, I don't see why that is a big deal. It is only practical. It's nothing more than record keeping really and something to build on. I think that is what I would love to see happen within the ApHC. The books closed - or at least limited, and the building on the base that has been built up to this point.
| Quote: |
All three breeds are becoming much less of what they used to be. That is due to specialization and lack of education of its members. That is the area that needs fixing. It is really quite simple to fix, in terms of long-term breed integrity. Educate the members about genetics, breeding, bloodlines, and history, along with encouraging breeders to breed toward excellence and an ideal, or breed standard. That excellence looks like the horses that earned the highest titles the association bestows upon their horses. That excellence is versatility. When breeders breed toward that, everything else will take care of itself.
Susan |
I don't think it is a simple fix. When registries are doing everything they canto register all but the farm billy goats, there is little hope for breed integrity.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat Mefferd
Ultra Long Time Contributing Member
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 1909
Location: California
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Tim and All!
Talk about "Horse Crazy"!!!
I got to grow up with these great movie horses...the following photos wer all taken at Hudkins Brothers Movie Ranch and Rental Stables...where Forest Lawn is on the Los Angeles River in California. The ranch is just below the other side of the hill where the old "Hollywood" sign is, and where Michael Jackson is now buried.
Below is Fred, my Stepdad standing roman on GOLDEN CLOUD (aka Trigger, as in Roy Rogers'), MIDNIGHT.
Below is my Mom on SMOKEY, who was in many westerns.
Below is Fred on GOLDEN CLOUD (aka Trigger)
Below is Mom holding the reins of Hudkins HI HO SILVER.
Wouldn't you have loved to have been a kid crawling thru all the wagons and coaches....I was...
Besides all the wagons in the background....they hard barn after barn full of the "good" wagons and coaches....The ones behind were ususally rigged for blind driving and wrecks.....under the expertise of Fred, my Stepdad.
Enjoy! Pat
_________________
Pat Mefferd, PM MEFFERD Pedigree Research, Anderson, CA. (Retired)
Proud daughter of Fred Kennedy (1982 Stuntmans Hall of Fame)
http://members.tripod.com/~horsefame/fredkennedy.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat Mefferd
Ultra Long Time Contributing Member
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 1909
Location: California
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OOOPPs....How did JACK TRAVELER get in there, lets try this again
Fred on GOLDEN CLOUD (aka Trigger).
Pat
_________________
Pat Mefferd, PM MEFFERD Pedigree Research, Anderson, CA. (Retired)
Proud daughter of Fred Kennedy (1982 Stuntmans Hall of Fame)
http://members.tripod.com/~horsefame/fredkennedy.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clippity_clop
Member
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 148
Location: East Coast
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh My Goodness! Did I really write a post THAT long? Well not really. I had help from Susan..
Tim I totally enjoyed your post and agree with you very much.
Pat, I was more annoyed with the pony photo combined with your one sentence than anything else. I just get tired of seeing these pictures of older horses being called foundation horses and insinuating that is what foundation people are aiming for. Thank you for your apology but it is not necessary. When debating these types of issues, there are things I've said I"m sure that have ticked you off..lol.. It is not my intent either. I do understand what you are saying. I have never said the QH and TB have not helped the Appaloosa. I agree that they have improved the breed in many ways. What I will NEVER agree is that the 1/8 appaloosa by blood is helpful in ANY way to the breed. And I don't like that we still outcross to the degree that we do. I don't think it is necessary. We have some really good examples of Appaloosas in our registry now. That's all I'm trying to say. I also don't think all the foundation horses are poor examples. I'm sure none of them are perfect and most of them don't look like a modern beefed up horse that is so popular. And I like that type too by the way ;o)..
I agree with Susan that we need to take a step back and re-take the qualities that made our breeds great. All of them seem to be losing their way these days. I know they need revenue to survive but I'd honestly rather pay more in the way of dues than to see my breed thinned by the unnecessary addition of other breeds. Or to have serious genetic flaws overlooked until it affects enough people in the wallet to make it important. Or specialized to the point they will need shock absorbers on their shoes just to walk without navicular issues. 
I have never maintained there were pure bred Appaloosas at any time and I don't think the base that the ApHC was started with was pure anything. I know horses were a great mixture but the Nez perce did selectively breed their horses. Even from the pictures of them I can see some had paint blood. So no. I don't believe there was a pure breed. I do think it is time to try to create one though. That is why I am interested in registries where the horses are started in that direction.
I did grow up with ponies and horses and dearly love them. I am not a cowgirl and I can only wish I were in my 20's again..lol.. I'm surprised I sound that young though. Still, I'm not an expert but I'm not a total novice. I'm just a baby boomer trying to fufill a dream in a small way. Probably not going to have much of an impact on the horse world if I tried to cross breed them with our black angus..lol.. I do care what happens to them though.
Thanks to everyone for the debate. I think it's a good thing!
Robyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oak orchard
Yearling
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 23
Location: Medina, NY
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pat,
Your childhood was the stuff I dreamed about while watching some of those same horses on TV! Thanks for sharing some of it with us!
Tim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clippity_clop
Member
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 148
Location: East Coast
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow Pat! I totally missed your post last night. What a wonderful childhood you must have had! Trigger was loved by both my husband and myself. Thanks for sharing those awesome pictures. Your mom is beautiful!
Robyn
PS.. what is up with the back of the third horse posted? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat Mefferd
Ultra Long Time Contributing Member
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 1909
Location: California
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tim & Robyn.....Thanks mucho! Pat
_________________
Pat Mefferd, PM MEFFERD Pedigree Research, Anderson, CA. (Retired)
Proud daughter of Fred Kennedy (1982 Stuntmans Hall of Fame)
http://members.tripod.com/~horsefame/fredkennedy.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat Mefferd
Ultra Long Time Contributing Member
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 1909
Location: California
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Robyn....The photo of the very thin horse is JACK TRAVELER. That was taken, I think, not long before he died. I clicked on the wrong photo...he is not Appaloosa but an early day Quarter Horse. This photo was used in several Quarter Horse books. There are better ones of him and I should find, scan and post.
Sometimes unflatering photos of horses are the only ones author/writers can obtain. I'm sure I have a better one of him...will have to do some checking. Maybe Susan or Frank have one they can offer up.
Pat
_________________
Pat Mefferd, PM MEFFERD Pedigree Research, Anderson, CA. (Retired)
Proud daughter of Fred Kennedy (1982 Stuntmans Hall of Fame)
http://members.tripod.com/~horsefame/fredkennedy.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat Mefferd
Ultra Long Time Contributing Member
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 1909
Location: California
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you have Legends 2, refer to pg 40, there is a photo of JACK McCUE. Frank H. wrote the PETER McCUE chapter. Pat
_________________
Pat Mefferd, PM MEFFERD Pedigree Research, Anderson, CA. (Retired)
Proud daughter of Fred Kennedy (1982 Stuntmans Hall of Fame)
http://members.tripod.com/~horsefame/fredkennedy.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.11 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
