But the absolute CRAP that is being put out there as 'foundation' based SOLELY on a percentage of 'foundation' in a pedigree is absolutely APPALLING.
The rescues are full... not just of Quarter Horses, but of all breeds. Quarter Horses, Paints and Thoroughbreds seem to dominate, however.
I'd never have any part in a foundation registry, I find them repulsive. The majority of horses registered by them are ASTOUNDING in their mediocrity, and the fact that they are producing at rapidly climbing rates and filling our auction houses and rescues is frightening.
That, and they STILL won't come out and advocate for testing of Poco Bueno-bred horses for HERDA... which is absolutely the stupidest thing I've EVER HEARD - EVER. Talk about the big eye-opener... excluding horses with Impressive bloodlines (even the N/N ones... which goes to show how incredibly IGNORANT they are...), and then having your own beloved Poco Bueno become the primary source of a genetic condition... much like Impressive himself. Hysterical, and KARMA in the extreme if ever I've heard it.
Horses like Geronimo... why is he in a rescue? Because his owners ran out of food for their horses? Maybe because they COULDN'T SELL THEIR LONG-BACKED, CROOKED LEGGED HORSES, BUT KEPT BREEDING THEM ANYWAY!
http://www.t-bar.org/horseindexPg5.htm
A friend of mine, Susan Larkin, has been an outspoken and very educated advocate for the promotion of adding Thoroughbred blood in the Quarter Horse breed.
I thought I'd highlight a few foundation 'non-eligible' horses that are absolutely OUTSTANDING among their peers.
Rugged Lark
http://tinyurl.com/23v6kj
Talk about a stallion who has 'survived the fads' (which is supposedly the foundation breeders claim to fame...), he's incredible, his offspring are all very nice, and his blood in a pedigree is still highly valued.
Holland Ease
http://www.stallionesearch.com/show_stallion.asp?horse=198
A stallion I have long admired, he is a sire of sires as proven by his son, Corona Cartel.
And before you say that Quarter Horses with high amounts of thoroughbred blood are good for nothing besides racing and barrels, check out these guys:
A Streak Of Fling
http://www.fultonranch.com/fultonAStreakOfFling.htm
Skys Blue Boy
http://www.skysblueboy.com/skysblueboy.htm
Te N Te
http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/te+n+te2
I'm not saying DON'T breed foundation quarter horses. I AM saying DO IT INTELLIGENTLY.
- Don't linebreed Poco Bueno anymore, unless the horses involved are tested for HERDA.
- Don't breed horses based solely on color and foundation percentage. All that does is create ugly, relatively unuseable but marketable-to-the-irresponsible-and-uneducated type of horses. And they in turn go on to produce more fugly-but-colored animals that people don't seem to have enough sense not to keep breeding.
- DO SOME DAMNED RESEARCH! AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN READING JUST READING A FEW 'NICE STORIES' IN THE AQHA LEGEND BOOKS - IT MEANS GETTING THE REAL STORY FROM THE PEOPLE WHO BREED RESPONSIBLY AND SUCCESSFULLY WITH THE BLOODLINES YOU'RE INTERESTED IN.
That's all. Is that too much to ask? Apparently so.
Check out www.unwantedhorsecoalition.org ... it's something we ALL should read and understand.
7 comments:
Even sadder than "Geronimo" is the two Arabians on that rescue site.
A senior horse like that, who has apparently been ridden hard...tossed out on its ass when it got too old. Give them away, pay for a damn retirement home, or euthanise them. Don't clog rescues with horses that have worked hard all their lives and deserve a little dignity.
People suck.
Indeed, they do suck.
All of the assholes out there breeding the mares I posted suck. They ARE EXACTLY the type of people responsible for the flood of the market, and they are the first to speak out against the people breeding ACTUAL QUALITY ANIMALS... which riles me to no end. If the horse industry does implode and we're left with little pick from, I won't be picking from their crap horses for breeding prospects, that's for sure. I'd rather NOT BREED AT ALL, which is what those losers should be doing as well... but I digress...
All of the people responsible for the elderly and the infirm winding up starving to death without any care or concern to their comfort... yes, they definantly suck.
I'm a big advocate for euthanasia. It's much better than many of the sad alternatives, that's for sure.
Yes... people suck.
Great post! I agree, and if the foundation QH registries would quit LYING to their members and tweaking historical information, these people might figure out eventually how to breed a good horse.
I find it hypocritical of these people (who refuse to test for HERDA or even acknowledge its presence in their bloodlines), to frown upon and eliminate Impressive blood.
If these foundation breeders are so intent on "preserving" these horses, then why don't they look back to see what created them in the first place? One would think that they would want to try to duplicate what they think so highly of. It was predominantly TB blood that was responsible for the legendary horses they so admire.
It has been proven time and again that duplicating a single male ancestor (like Poco Bueno) in a pedigree (while ignoring all others) is a recipe for failure. These people aren't creating anything other than MORE of what already exists in huge quantities. They are not improving the breed, nor have they bred anything outstanding that will contribute to the breed in the future.
A representative at AQHA recently suggested that we contact a "foundation" breeder for pedigree information on older horses not in their database. I don't think so. If they will lie about their foundation horses, I wouldn't trust them with any pedigree information, that's for sure.
The "foundation" registries will
register a high percentage TB horse as being "100% foundation"
if it was registered with AQHA BEFORE a certain date. They would
count every bit of TB blood against a horse bred just like that
if the second horse was registered by AQHA AFTER a certain date in time.
This is very poor business practice at its best, and very dishonest,
since ALL of the foundation registries promote the idea to their members that a horse is a much better horse if it doesn't have any (or very little) TB breeding. Their literature is evidence of a cult-like organization, willing to lie to its members for self-preservation and promotion.
All of the foundation registries count back more generations than what is on the papers to figure out how much TB blood a horse has. How many times have we heard, "Oh, nothing matters past what is on the horse's papers."
It's not that they count back too far - they don't count back far enough. If they really believe that more TB blood creates inferior horses, I think they should count ALL the known TB blood, no matter how far back they have to go in the bloodlines to find it.
But aside from all that - If a well bred horse can be a sorry example of quality, then pedigree is not the ideal selection criteria. The quality of the INDIVIDUAL is first and foremost, if one wishes to breed top quality horses.
Knowing what I know, every time I see an ad or website promoting horses as FQHR, NFQHA, etc., I write them off and move on. If these breeders want to be taken seriously, then they need to disassociate themselves with these "foundation" registries and promote their horses on their OWN merits.
I agree completely, FTFOTB!
If they truly want a foundation horse, they need to go back to the selection process the AQHA used IN IT'S INFANCY, doesn't THAT make sense? A horse that has proven itself in the ring or under saddle and displays ideal conformation for the breed... then we wouldn't have the monstrosities I listed popping babies out one after another... well, maybe, but the would likely wise up after the foundation registry refused them.
But the real kicker is that, if the foundation registry held their horses up to better PHYSICAL standards, there would BE NO NEED for the foundation shows... the horses would likely be competitive enough to show in regular breed shows.
That's what, to me, is the kicker: if you want to show and be reasonably competitive in AQHA, you have to trim your horse's bridle path and whiskers, and you're likely going to buy a saddle and bridle with some 'bling', right? Well, if a person wanted to show BOTH registries, they couldn't. Because excessive clipping of the horse is frowned upon, as is excessive silver. Silly, and it sounds like a rule made up by someone who was tired of getting beat by people who actually CARED ABOUT WHAT THEIR ANIMAL LOOKED LIKE, as opposed to their mount who likely had spent the last 6 months on pasture and they probably hadn't bothered to clip or bathe them before hauling them to the show.
I have an enormous respect for the foundation quarter horse. The TRUE foundation quarter horse (and they ARE out there, even if they are not foundation registered) is a joy to work with and use, exhibits a remarkable work ethic and athletic ability while retaining the traits that kept the animal popular through the ages and SOUND on the long term.
That said, I have NO respect for the foundation registries, which obviously seem to be run by some truly BACKWARDS folk. Foundation is a TRENDY GIMMICK TERM people are using to sell inferior quality animals bred only for their pedigree percentage and color.
Who looks more like the ideal quarter horse?
Dash For Perks
http://tinyurl.com/25qcaz
or
Tough Silverado Ace
http://tinyurl.com/ysofzj
or how about...
This nice Dean Miracle/racing bred quarter horse colt(of course, not foundation eligible)?
http://tinyurl.com/2z9gws
or this monstrosity?
http://tinyurl.com/2cgv66
It just doesn't make any sense...
I LOVE the Rugged Lark line. One of my friends has had several Rich Rendition babies out of her Thoroughbred mares, and they are awesome. Easy to train and have no problem competing at the breed show level. Just what everybody wants to buy.
I too have been VERY impressed with the Rugged Lark line of horses. They combine structural soundness (many of his get are still competing well into their 20s), and they are also said to have extremely easy-to-train dispositions.
They're awesome.
First I definetely agree that there needs to be thought and time deciding which horses to breed together and not make any assumptions based solely on pedigree and color. However I believe the best we can hope for is to set the example of how to bred a quality horse that is put together well and is sane and pleasent to be around and train and do our best to educate everyone.
My AQHA yearling stallion (yes he qualifies as foundation) is one of the horses I believe we should strive to bred since he is confirmationaly correct, has been handeled everyday does not require a stud chain to handle and is out with an older gelding who helps keep him in line. I do believe though that due to the fact that he is a true foundation he is on the smaller size and as such does not catch the judges eye like the larger horse. I went to a AQHA bred show this summer and we were competative to a point we placed 3rd and the horses we placed behind were also yearlings were both already over 15 hands and were very ill behaved requiring a stud chain through the mouth!!! and would not stand still and one even tried to kick the judge but these horse placed better than my horse and after talking to one of the judges was told that mainly it was because he was small about 14 hands at the time. So does that promote the best qualities of any breed that would allow a confirmationaly correct horse that is smaller to place behind a horse with a long back and crooked legs you mentioned that has to be controled with a chain through his mouth at a year old but is bigger? How is this more appealing? Would you bred to a stallion that at a year old before you have even bred him can only barely be controlled by chain through the mouth? I would not. Plain and simple that horse is a danger to all those around him.
Somehow there has to be a happy medium we need to get the judges to look more at the horse as a whole and get rid of preconcieved ideas. Also why do we need to have "bling" to distract from the true appearance of our horse. My horse can look just as nice clipped and bathed etc in a plain leather halter as he can in a silver one neither is going to chage his confirmation.
And the one thing I do like about the "foundation"shows is the fact that if you have a few scars it is not a detriment to your score. I have never known a minor scratch that didn't heal right to affect a horse's gait but at a bred show you get knocked off for that. How do you let your horse be a horse and not get scratches etc. They are herd animals and are meant to be together and not seperated and practically bubble wrapped to keep them unblemished. And trust me my horses are spolied and I have done everything to keep them from getting scratched etc but nothing is 100%. And things happen whenever you have horses together.
Also one of the best horses I think they ever allowed into AQHA was Three Bars and have had several of his offsping and can not say enough about how great they are. SO there does need to be allowances in what is considered foundation.
And one correction to one of the comments is that it is the date of birth not registration that is the consideration for foundation and I believe the date was all horses born before 1941.
Post a Comment