Breed registries: what's more important, paper or performance?

[3Ponies]

Situation:

Have bred a beautiful mare with excellent conformation, nice movement, and a solid performance record to a stallion of a certain breed...

Mare has no papers, though her identity is not in question, her pedigree is known, but her reg wasn't finished...so, no papers.

Sooooo. Stallion's breed registry will not even consider accepting mare, no matter how good her performance record has been or will be, even if she makes GPx or the Olympics.

Foal will ony have a breed certificate, w/b eligible to compete for awards, but again, even if it turns out to be a perfectly conformed, correctly moving GPx horse or goes to the Olympics, won't be eligible for full registration, so can't participate this registry's breeding programs.

The good news is that I don't much care...I've bred for performance, any decisions about whether to breed an as yet unborn foal are completely pointless.

What's puzzling to me is that if the mare were just an average example of her breed, with not much special about her pedigree, and didn't have any performance record at all, she and foal would be completely eligible for registration IF she had her own registry papers. The papers are apparently so important that they outweigh every other consideration, as the mare can't even be inspected if there are no official breed registry papers. Her type, correctness, athletic ability, temperament, and performance record cannot be considered on their own merits at all without the breed papers.

What I don't understand, in reading the histories of the breeds, is how any of them would have come up with much foundation stock without picking the best performers, with desireable conformation and great performance records--not all those horses had known pedigrees, let alone breed papers.

So, much as I love the idea of having a registered foal, and participating in the breed's programs, and supporting the idea of tracking pedigrees, I am left with the uncomfortable feeling that it's all about the quality of the papers, and not much about the quality of the horses.

I'm not naming the breed because my question for you breeders has more to do with what you are actually after...I know that in an ideal situation, there would be both papers and performance in one package, but would you go in for the idea that the papers should trump performance? If I had to fill my barn aisle with one or the other, I think I'd have to look for known performers over registered horses...

Comments, please!

[EquusMagnificus]

If it were my mare... I'd pay what is required to get her papers. Down the road, if you need to sell the foal for whatever reason, papers do matter.

I would be leery of purchasing even the nicest foal in the world without papers out of a dam that is not registered.

As far as I know, as a buyer, the dam could be a perch/TB cross and her fancy schmancy pedigree could be entirely made up. That's the value of papers and DNA tests: Proper identification.

Performance is great but in a buyers' market, I'd want papers AND performance.

[STF]

Papers are bloodlines and bloodlines are very important in the breeders world. Breeding several generations of postive traits to a stallion with nothing but proven and postive traits will increase the odds of a breeder getting what they want out of a foal's future.
Being of "odd" bloodline can really reduce the changes of a broodmare getting into stub books or their offspring getting papers (other than COP), etc.
There are many super mares out there with proven pedigrees of solid preformance and as a breeder and a young horse buyer, I would not risk ever buying a foal of "questionable" pedigree.

[tuckawayfarm]

I am a small breeder (six mares) and am still on the learning curve when it comes to WB registries, but I can understand their restrictions.

If your mare was just average for her breed without an impressive performance record or pedigree, I doubt she would be accepted into the stallion's registry. So your suggestion that an unimpressive registered mare would be preferred to an outstanding unregistered one doesn't really make sense to me. Although I have limited experience with WB inspections, they seem to be quite picky when it comes to approving outside mares.

There are registries that will inspect your mare for their lower books. It may take a few generations, but her offspring could eventually work their way into the main studbooks. If she is as awesome as you think, I would seriously consider either pursuing her papers or presenting her to one of the more lenient registries.

Five of my mares are registered and approved for breeding. The sixth is a lovely mare with a show record and fabulous temperment. She does not have papers, so none of her foals can be registered. So far, she has produced the nicest babies of the bunch. She is definitely my favorite and I will continue to breed her because I am far more interested in performance. I can understand why the registries who have approved my other mares won't look at her though. However if any of her offspring turn out to be Olympians, I bet there would be plenty of interest in breeding them (papers or not!). If the Indoctro foal she is currently carrying turns out to be a filly, I will be thrilled to have two unpapered mares in my herd!

[class]

Five of my mares are registered and approved for breeding. The sixth is a lovely mare with a show record and fabulous temperment. She does not have papers, so none of her foals can be registered. So far, she has produced the nicest babies of the bunch.

but i am curious how her unregistered foals sell and for what prices compared to the babies that are registered?

to the op: i agree with the people who say just fork over the money and get her papers. it's not that papers are more important than performance, it's just that every single breeder in the world that i talk to will tell me that their broody is a "beautiful mare with excellent conformation, nice movement, and a solid performance record." it seems horse breeders aren't the most unbiased group i've ever come across.

[STF]

I know many breeders who have broodmares that have limited preformance. The reason for this is because after they get approved for breeding or get their mare status, etc - they are USED for breeding. That is their job, to reproduce their bloodlines, traits and such.

I know I have repeated here several times but that is why a lot of the top registires require that stallion prospects be out of the top of the registired mares and lower level studbook mares can not produce a stallion prospect.

Its quality control and selective breeding that makes a good breeding program and increases the odds of producing the best quaity.

So, in short - what Im babbling about is that a lot of the best mares I know out there, in the states and in europe have limited preformance (other than say the mare preformance testings) due to that their whole job in the horse world is to reproduce.

[Donella]

I agree with STF. It isn't the perfomance record of the mare that counts. I want my best mares making babies. If I have a super filly, first thought is about it's potential as a producer.

We care about bloodlines because even if a horse is fantastic in and of itself, the phenotype of that animal is just one aspect. If the horse in question is an exception to the rule ie a non traditional breed that for whatever reason excelled in sport, it is a genetic fluke. You do not want to breed genetic flukes. The chance of throwback to the actual norm for that breed/cross is too high IMHO. A breeder wants a solid predigree with a strong damline because you know that what will come through in the foal in most cases is not just the phenotype of the dam.

I also think you are selling yourself majorly short if you don't get the papers for the mare because if the foal is a filly, and she is really well bred, you might get alot more money for her because she can be marketed to breeders as well as to riders.

[siegi b.]

Just because a mare has the ability to perform at high levels does not mean that she can pass that ability on reliably. The same holds true for stallions which is why I will not breed to one that didn't pass the approvals and performance test but got his license through the sport. There are reasons why stallions don't pass their initial approval....

As a long-time breeder I continue to be amazed by folks that absolutely have to breed their mare without doing the research regarding registration possibilities first. Then, when it looks like they will be out of luck and the deed is already done, the complaining about the registries and the "paper vs performance" argument begins.

Fact of the matter is that a foal with papers brings more money than one without, and you don't even want to try to sell a mare without papers and expect to get decent money for her.

[M. O'Connor]

Interesting as the OP's hypothetic is similar to my actual situation w/my very nice TB mare...I have all her paperwork, I believe there is even DNA, the works, just not the final JC papers; I've been told by some people that she's too old to get them now (she's 7, I don't THINK she is too old, but I do know it will cost thousands). She's bred to the Hannoverian As di Villagana. She doesn't have much of a record as she has only been to a few shows, but she shows promise, so much that I decided not to wait to breed her, but to see what she puts on the ground, which will help me decide which path she'll take in the future...as for her bloodlines, they are not at all shabby; her sire is a proven hunter producer, a son of Buckpasser. Her dam was a successful AAA circuit junior jumper, with (as vinyridge pointed out) Boran and Mourne in her 'tail male' line...from what I read of them, this is a very desireable line. I haven't even begun to seriously consider whether to finish her registration...maybe that will depend as much on my finances as anything else. At this point the foal won't be for sale, but you never know. So...hmmm.

[Iron Horse Farm]

As a long-time breeder I continue to be amazed by folks that absolutely have to breed their mare without doing the research regarding registration possibilities first. Then, when it looks like they will be out of luck and the deed is already done, the complaining about the registries and the "paper vs performance" argument begins.

Fact of the matter is that a foal with papers brings more money than one without, and you don't even want to try to sell a mare without papers and expect to get decent money for her.


I couldn't have said it better myself. When I'm on the sales sites, I click the button and only look at horses that are registered. With all of the very nice horses to choose from in that category, why would I want to step down to a horse without? If, as a buyer, I can have it all - I want it all!

[M. O'Connor]

So...your best mares never perform, they just breed?

:confused:

And if you get a colt, you would normally just geld it, unless it was assumed to be a great stallion prospect on paper before it's ever conceived...and then it could stay a stallion if it kept passing the inspections...

So other than exceptional stallion prospects that turn out to be performers, the only ones who do perform are geldings, and mares who don't look good on paper, because the fillies who do look good on paper are gonna get bred...

I'm losing track of my thoughts big time here...

[PineTreeFarm]

I know that most of you think that horses won't sell if they don't have papers but that's not my experience. If it's a hunter/jumper prospect or a made horse and it can do the job it will sell regardless of papers.

So you are saying if the horse is a success showing and it has no papers it won't sell? Or are you saying that a weanling sells better with papers?
Or do you mean that if you have a filly for sale and your market is other breeders it won't sell without papers?

[TKR]

Everything mentioned is a "component" -- traceable/proveable bloodlines are essential, particularly when most wb registries are not yet considered a "breed" because they have open books to other wb's, TB's and Arabs (to some degree). So being able to trace the bloodlines and see the matches and nicks develop is an important part of the process. In addition, the other components are also important to develop horses in any registry or closed book/breed. You are shooting in the dark with genetics if you don't know the pedigree and cannot identify particular traits of individuals throughout -- I like to compare a pedigree to a map -- as it is! -- a map or genetic puzzle where each one contributes to a degree or percentage and even placement in the pedigree is important. The performance is important in order to "prove" how well a certain combination of bloodlines perform and hopefully predict similar results by breeding along those lines -- thus you develop some "nicking patterns". Inasmuch as performance matters, just because an individual is an Olympic gold medalist does not mean or predict that he or she will be a prepotent producer of the same calibre. However, you can still look to other individuals bred in a similar fashion for a more prepotent sire or dam to produce those results. The only problem I have with the "performance testing" of the stallions is that it does not necessarily predict their prepotence at stud. Many outstanding TB sires did not have a stellar (or long) race record, so you have to wonder if some of those wb stallions spun out might have been a great contributor to the gene pool for the wb registries. Breeding is enough of a gamble -- leaving out a valuable component would not appeal to me. So, yes if she peforms well -- that's great and certainly a plus as a broodmare, but she also needs registration papers or her produce record has a "mystery" side.

JMHO and good luck!
PennyG
www.krugerrandrunfarm.com

[Brutust]

I think that if you want to breed for yourself, with no intention of selling the foals or if you are open to selling for less money until the horse is old enough to perform, you might get into breeding with a good mare that is not registered. Basically, if you raise geldings registration papers should not matter to an experienced horse person. However, if you raise an exceptional filly that might have a future as a broodmare, it is better to have her registered. I have heard that the foals of mares that are not registered can get ISR's papers provided their sire was accepted in that registry.

[fish]

In my experience, the people I most wish to sell to--i.e., big name trainers and riders who will not only pay good money for my horses, but also show them well enough to make a name for my program-- don't give a hoot about papers. Indeed, the BNT who bought my daughter's pony told me he'd probably throw them out because he'd rather she wasn't a was half Arab. When looking at a fancy youngster, many of these good show homes will ask who the parents are and what they did, but registration means nothing to them. It used to be that this board would complain about H/J people being like that, but if I've been reading my COTH articles correctly, it turns out that it doesn't matter what the discipline is-- the big name dressage riders don't know or care much about their horses' registry status-- and sometimes even their bloodlines-- either. Not too surprising when one considers that some of the best performers and most influential stallions out there (e.g. Galoubet and Voltaire), flunked their initial inspections.

I suppose if you want to market your horses to breeders (or at least the ones who are not like me)-- papers might be worth something, but if you want to sell your horses as performance prospects, I wouldn't worry about them.

[YankeeLawyer]

Not too surprising when one considers that some of the best performers and most influential stallions out there (e.g. Galoubet and Voltaire), flunked their initial inspections.

I think you are giving those who refuse to educate themselves about bloodlines too much credit. I can just about guarantee that they are the same types who, when Galoubet first became available in the US, insisted that jumping was not a heritable trait.

[Donella]

No, most of the best broodies do not have performance records because good breeders will only breed mares that appear to have the best qualities. If a breeder sold all of her best fillies and mares as performance horses and kept the ones that didn't look very good for breeding, there would be a real problem. A mare cannot be a competative perfomer and a broodmare at the same time and to me, an excellent mare has much more value as a producer than as a performance horse.

And while many people insist papers dont matter on a gelding..tell me this: which would you choose? Two three year olds, both well started, both good basic gaits. One has 5 world champion dressage horses close up in pedigree. One has an unknown pedigree. Your goal is upper level dressage. Not much of a choice in my mind. Hence the price difference. Paper tells you probabilities.

Notice that there are certain, very specific genes that are found in upper level dressage, jumping and eventing. This is no accident, nor should it be ignored by those looking to be competative. There are always exceptions to the rule. I prefer the highest probability possible.

If it weren't for the true breeders who recognize the HUUUUGGE value of genes in the breeding of sport horses, 99 percent of the worlds top riders would find themselves without the talent neccissary to complete the task at hand with any success.

[DownYonder]

In my experience, the people I most wish to sell to--i.e., big name trainers and riders who will not only pay good money for my horses, but also show them well enough to make a name for my program-- don't give a hoot about papers.

Unfortunately, most BNTs in this country are so uneducated about the importance of genetics that they are total hypocrits on the subject. On the one hand, they say that registration papers and thoughtful selection of dam and sire don't matter, then they turn right around and fly off to Europe to purchase mounts produced by systems that place tremendous value on those items.

But one needs to remember that it isn't the registration papers themselves that are of value - it is the fact that they certify the bloodlines behind the horse. Knowing a horse's family history can be a very big plus when selecting young prospects or breeding prospects. Tell me what BNT in the hunter world would pass up an Alla Czar or Rio Grande or Voltaire or Popeye K offspring in favor of one from a no name sire, given that everything else about the two prospects is equal?

[3Ponies]

(This reply screen looks weird...where are the quote things?)

"No, most of the best broodies do not have performance records because good breeders will only breed mares that appear to have the best qualities."

Appearences can be deceiving...how do you KNOW without test-driving that the mares have the ability to perform?

ummmmmm I was under the impression that the *ability to perform* was a desireable quality in and of itself. I might be mistaken, but isn't this the MOST desireable trait? What's the point of breeding to breed? I thought breeders were breeding for performance? I sure am; to me it doesn't make sense not to have performers on BOTH sides of the pedigree.

I don't think it makes sense for a BNT to be expected to buy a horse that is genetically programmed to perform, but hasn't....

And I thought that mares COULD perform AND have babies, via embryo transfers...

[EquusMagnificus]

3Ponies -

That's where siblings; geldings and lesser quality (breeding-wise) mares and offspring come into play ;)

They prove the performance promised by the genetics.

[okggo]

A mare cannot be a competative perfomer and a broodmare at the same time and to me, an excellent mare has much more value as a producer than as a performance horse.

I don't know if I totally agree with this. If the mare is actually THAT wonderful, I would think she would be worth more as a competitive mount for ET foals. If two horses were similar, but ones dam was never even broke, and the other was a world class show horse o/o a receipient mare, I'd take the one with the proven dam.

I think it would be nice to at least see some mileage on these broodies, even at lower levels. Or at least start them under saddle so you can see what you've got, and what kind of rideability they have to offer.

It just seems a bit hypocritical to me...the stallion is held to SUCH a high regard and tough performance standards, but I know a lot of people that are breeding mares to these stallions that are not and never will be broke to ride. It's a shame, imho.

[STF]

They prove the performance promised by the genetics.

I think genetics are only a suggestion to what we can get but it def. increases the odds of getting something correct and natural for the sport.

[STF]

I think it would be nice to at least see some mileage on these broodies, even at lower levels. Or at least start them under saddle so you can see what you've got, and what kind of rideability they have to offer.


I agree that it would be nice, but........ as a breeder ET raises the financial risk even higher than we already have. Its hard enough to get the original mare pregnant, foal out to have a healthy foal, etc - and putting in ET is even more risky. Yes, its getting better and better each year, but there are very few vets that specialize in it. Go adding one the travel, time, effort, losses, etc is a huge cost for breeders, when honetly breeders really dont make much money on selling young horses under the age of 2.

[risingstarfarm]

I absolutely agree that it is important to at least have an idea of what a mare can do undersaddle.

Best shouldn't just be best bloodlines. It should also reflect temperament, athetic ability, rideability, etc.

While none of my girls have competed at the highest levels, most of them have show miles - and their performance is part of what makes them important to my program.

And if I was lucky enough to have a very competitive mare, you can bet that I'd keep her in the ring and get ET foals from her.

However, there is no reason why anyone should have to choose between having a mare with papers or a mare with a performance career. With the variety of breed registries in North America, there are plenty of talented, registered horses available.

[Renae]

It just seems a bit hypocritical to me...the stallion is held to SUCH a high regard and tough performance standards, but I know a lot of people that are breeding mares to these stallions that are not and never will be broke to ride. It's a shame, imho.

Well, if that is an important quaity to you papers come in as being useful as well. Such as on Dutch papers if the mare has the predicates of keur, IBOP, Sport or Crown it means she was broke to ride or drive and either proved her ability at the keuring in front of the jury or in sport. The registration papers can be a way to keep track of no only her achievements, but her ancestors achievements, and her offsprings acheivements. One of my keur mares has a dam line of keur mares going back 4 generations, to me that shows a dam line of proven trainability. That mare in Holland before she came ovr here produced two sons that went on to be decent show horses, thus further proving the trend already shown in her dam line. Now without the predicates on her paper as a guide I don't even know where to start to try to dig up show records on mares form 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago that are in a foreign language.

And 3ponies, have you ever done an embryo transfer? Even with good vets and a mare who is an ideal candidate (young and healthy) it can still be a time consuming, expensive process. You don't just take a mare who is in full training and inseminate her one day and 10 days later flush her and have an embryo to implant in the recipient mare without missing a beat in her training. Would be a wonderful world if it was easy as that with every mare every time, but its not.

[STF]

In my experience, the people I most wish to sell to--i.e., big name trainers and riders who will not only pay good money for my horses, but also show them well enough to make a name for my program-- don't give a hoot about papers. Indeed, the BNT who bought my daughter's pony told me he'd probably throw them out because he'd rather she wasn't a was half Arab. When looking at a fancy youngster, many of these good show homes will ask who the parents are and what they did, but registration means nothing to them. It used to be that this board would complain about H/J people being like that, but if I've been reading my COTH articles correctly, it turns out that it doesn't matter what the discipline is-- the big name dressage riders don't know or care much about their horses' registry status-- and sometimes even their bloodlines-- either. Not too surprising when one considers that some of the best performers and most influential stallions out there (e.g. Galoubet and Voltaire), flunked their initial inspections.

I suppose if you want to market your horses to breeders (or at least the ones who are not like me)-- papers might be worth something, but if you want to sell your horses as performance prospects, I wouldn't worry about them.


Breeders care about papers. Educated buyers care about papers.
So, why buy papered and "proven" - increase the odds of the horse having the ability to be a top preformer by crossing postive genetics of conformation, movement, mind, rideability, soundness, etc, etc.
I think some people use "You cant ride papers" as a cop out. Its not hard to look at any given horse and spot quality and good blood. If more people would think in this direction then North America would increase their odds against Europe's competition horses more.

I have been quietly looking for a broodmare prospect for the last year with proven blood on top and bottom from proven sires, etc. The pickings have been slim. Tons and TONS of half proven with questionable blood usually on the dam side. And the ones I do find are priced way out of my price range.

Anyway, in short, bloodlines do matter and the more educated people become the more they will realize its important. Until then, North America will be on the lower side of quality.

[Ravencrest_Camp]

Unfortunately, most BNTs in this country are so uneducated about the importance of genetics that they are total hypocrits on the subject. On the one hand, they say that registration papers and thoughtful selection of dam and sire don't matter, then they turn right around and fly off to Europe to purchase mounts produced by systems that place tremendous value on those items.

But one needs to remember that it isn't the registration papers themselves that are of value - it is the fact that they certify the bloodlines behind the horse. Knowing a horse's family history can be a very big plus when selecting young prospects or breeding prospects. Tell me what BNT in the hunter world would pass up an Alla Czar or Rio Grande or Voltaire or Popeye K offspring in favor of one from a no name sire, given that everything else about the two prospects is equal?

But really, are all other things going to ever be equal? No they won't be. At the very least there will be a premium in the price due to the sire.

The only reason that a BNT or LNT for that matter knows those four sires, is because their impressive performance careers. Beyond those few names, they don't know or care about bloodlines.

But to put it in perspective, most of the hunter/jumper market are looking to buy horses going under saddle. Very few are buying unstarted youngsters as prospects. And once a horse gets to that point, its bloodlines don't mean a thing. The BNT will look at the horse and evaluate it on its own merits. (how it moves, how it jumps, temperment ect.)

[fish]

To each his own, but I place great value on the fact that those "uneducated" and "hypocritical" BNT's to which you refer are the same people who routinely purchase youngsters in the $15K to $50K range, make them up into athletes worth 6 figures (and sometimes even more), and return to the same sources for similar prospects, both in Europe and here. Many of these people know and care quite a bit about bloodlines, too, the main difference between them and registry affiliated breeders being (a) that they are capable of a verifying a horse's parentage to their own satisfaction without registration papers (e.g., for many IHF nominations, breeding contracts, word of mouth from trusted contacts, etc., suffice), and (b) they are always willing to take their chances on an outstanding individual whether they can verify parentage or not.


IMO, we very much need to respect and cooperate with those trainers who are capable of proving the value of our horses in the ring if we are to "increase their odds against Europe's competition horses," and I hardly think that calling them names because they do not share the registries' views on the importance of papers is very conducive to that end.

[STF]

When I look at the end of year awards in all the disiplines I see mostly all well bred horses. Mostly in dressage........ all the top horses in each region are well bred. Jumpers and Hunters are not far behind.

[HighFlyinBey++]

For breeding stock...

What is your opinion of a horse marketed as "purebred" within it's registry, but a close inspection of the papers shows "unknown" or a breed that is not an acceptable outcross? If it helps, the books are open but limited and there is no inspection process--it's bloodline only.

Does it matter if an official "percentage" of any acceptable outcross does not reflect the true nature of the pedigree? Example: one stallion had 25% known lines 75% unknown, but is listed as having a 50/50 status.

Does it matter that the papers in question were issued under a now defunct association's rules? Should they, or their offspring, be accepted/grandfathered by a current association with very different rules?

Does it matter how close up those outcross/unknown factors are?

Would you factor in the performance record or how "true to type" the offspring are?

Yes, I have a specific reason for asking: I'm part of a grassroots group of people working hard to find a compromise that will unite our tiny breed once and for all. The conversation thus far has been very informative. Any and all opinions on my questions (aside from "y'all are whack" because that's a given :winkgrin:) would be helpful in forming that compromise & are greatly appreciated!

[PineTreeFarm]

When I look at the end of year awards in all the disiplines I see mostly all well bred horses. Mostly in dressage........ all the top horses in each region are well bred. Jumpers and Hunters are not far behind.
Not sure how you can tell that the top hunters are well bred. About 40% of the horse in the top 25 of the 3'6" and above hunter divisions don't have pedigree info listed. Some in this group do list a breed but it is often Warmblood or German Warmblood. In the 3' zone divisions it's a similar situation but there AQHA and TB's in that mix, a lot more so than in the 3'6" divisions.

[STF]

What is your opinion of a horse marketed as "purebred" within it's registry, but a close inspection of the papers shows "unknown" or a breed that is not an acceptable outcross? If it helps, the books are open but limited and there is no inspection process--it's bloodline only.

That is where its important to learn and have knowledged. In most of the regitries I primarly deal with, this type of horse will not be in the higher breed books.


Does it matter if an official "percentage" of any acceptable outcross does not reflect the true nature of the pedigree? Example: one stallion had 25% known lines 75% unknown, but is listed as having a 50/50 status.

Yes, makes a huge difference. Most registires will not take a question in a stallion pedigree. Some do, which does confuse me, but again its important to know your bloodlines.


Does it matter that the papers in question were issued under a now defunct association's rules? Should they, or their offspring, be accepted/grandfathered by a current association with very different rules?

The bigger registires have a list of approved outside registires that they will accept mares/stallions from. Chances are that "defunct" was never in those listings. People need to be aware of that type of scam!

Does it matter how close up those outcross/unknown factors are?

Very!

Would you factor in the performance record or how "true to type" the offspring are?

No, because genetics can sneak up! Keep your breeding stock pure in blood and type as possible to increase your chances of producing the favorable aspects for the disipline.

[STF]

Pinetree -
If you go here - click on names, you have to do some cross searches, but you can find the bloodlines of the horses in some of the top standings.
http://www.usef.org/_IFrames/pointsAwards/points/leadingOwners.aspx?year=2007&section=2000&viewCat=Hunter

[PineTreeFarm]

Pinetree -
If you go here - click on names, you have to do some cross searches, but you can find the bloodlines of the horses in some of the top standings.
http://www.usef.org/_IFrames/pointsAwards/points/leadingOwners.aspx?year=2007&section=2000&viewCat=Hunter

Yes, but that set of data, like the leading stallion list is made up of horses that have pedigree info on file with USEF. It is a valuable tool I certainly agree with that. But if 40% of horses on the performance list don't have pedigree info on file ( and many of those horses are winning ) I think it's a stretch to say that pedigree is entirely the reason they are winning. Also, many of the top hunters are imported horses and failed 'jumper' or 'dressage' in Europe. So while they are well bred they were not a success at the task they were bred for originally.
The leading stallion list has a built in bias as it is done on points. Horses showing in the 3'6" divisions are competing in A or AA shows and receive quadruple points at a minimum. If the horse is a winning Adult Amateur horse they are only getting C points so the 3'6" division sires get as much as 6 times the amount of points for their offspring. Sure , this rewards sires that produce top performers if top performer is defined as a 3'6" or better hunter. However, the zone division hunters ( Adult Amateur, Childrens Hunters ) by count have the same number of horses competing as the higher performance divisions (or more horses depending on the year you use for data). Stallions that are responsible for the user friendly horses are much further down the list. If you weight them in a more even fashion the leading stallion list changes dramatically to include TB, AQHA and a number of non WB breeds.

[M. O'Connor]

Its not hard to look at any given horse and spot quality and good blood. If more people would think in this direction then North America would increase their odds against Europe's competition horses more.

Nearly all keep referring to "unregistered=unknown." My mare's pedigree is NOT unknown (http://www.pedigreequery.com/camille15). I don't think I'm being unrealistic to be excited about what we've seen from her in the show ring, even with very limited exposure (http://www.uppervillephotos.com/shows/preview.asp?id=7&img_id=883). And I'm not relying on my own biased opinion...I have a pretty good trainer in Joe Fargis; he's prone to expressing honest assessments.

We are confident she has a performance career ahead of her, but I've seen so many mares go off to the performance ring, and the better they are, the worse the timing seems to be for breeding them. This is one reason I decided not to wait to breed this one. The last question I'd like to see answered about her is: "can she put something worthwhile on the ground?" and only time will tell us that.

In the meantime, I have to admit that the issues surrounding registrations are very confusing...I'd always been under the mistaken impression that a very nice mare with good qualities and known parentage could be bred to nice stallion whose bloodlines compliment hers, and that these are the types of horses everyone wants the USA to produce...I thought the idea behind the USEF ID numbers was in part to track pedigrees of all sport horses--registered or not, and try to reveal what lines are most successful so these could be repeated...I'm obviously too much of a rookie to advocate for any position here, but it would seem to me that rejecting horses like mine would run counter to what everyone is actually after. I'm having a hard time seeing this as logical. (Though in my case I could pony up the 2K+ fee to the JC, and that won't be an issue, but, gosh--that's alot of hay/horseshoes/vet checks, etc. You can't ride papers, and neither can my horses eat them sort of thing...).

Stallions that are responsible for the user friendly horses
Just had to remark that I LOVE the way you just put that! I'm reminded of all the fancy fancy fancy ponies out there that are the purest of purebreds, but can't be sat on by a genuine KID, who is invariably better off with a Heinz57 mutt pony to get started on...

[STF]

But if 40% of horses on the performance list don't have pedigree info on file

I was just looking at that!!! I mostly watch the dressage stuff, but a lot of the Hunters and some of the Jumpers say unknown! Very sad! It could be a tool to use, but its not utilized! *sigh*

[STF]

O'Conner - 1) I love Buckpasser!! Lovely!!! And I do agree that a lot of the NICE TB's with those older blood (Buckpasser, Aladyer, Icecapde, Vaguely Noble, etc, etc) are super in the ring!!
But based on that mare, that is not unknown pedigree!!!! That is a nice mare who would prob. be well accepted in a lot of the breed books! :)

[HighFlyinBey++]

Thank you so much for your reply!

I apologize if my questions are confusing or cryptic, but I'm trying not to sway opinions in either direction. I'll do my best to explain more if you need it.

Could you humor a non-WB person and explain what "higher books" are :confused: :o? I'm trying to think if our system relates to that in any way and how I need to add the term to my vocabulary. We have 2 parent breed registries to choose from, the existing ones (trying to combine), plus several of "defunct" historic ones (same breed)--thus the issue with old papers that no longer conform to current standards and "grandfathering."

If a "non-conforming" horse is grandfathered or accepted into a current registry, should restrictions be placed on how the foals are bred to meet the existing standards? What kind of restrictions would you prefer to see?

As for outcrossing/unknowns and proximity...at what point does that question become negligible, if ever? Three generations? Five? Off the papers?

Thanks again! I really appreciate input that doesn't have any emotional ties to the issue at hand :)

That is where its important to learn and have knowledged. In most of the regitries I primarly deal with, this type of horse will not be in the higher breed books.

The bigger registires have a list of approved outside registires that they will accept mares/stallions from. Chances are that "defunct" was never in those listings. People need to be aware of that type of scam!

Does it matter how close up those outcross/unknown factors are? Very!

[M. O'Connor]

That is a nice mare who would prob. be well accepted in a lot of the breed books!

Well, I'd have thought so...but not, apparently till I also obtain her JC papers. And that is a very pricey prospect!

What registries will consider her without them? Luckily enough, she's very, very attractive as well...looks very much like "Teddy" (http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/teddy), in fact.

Keeping in mind that her pedigree CAN be proven--I have every last scrap of paper and photos originally filed w/JC, right up until the last bit was supposed to be sent in...the breeder just never followed up on it (note, I think this was due to some family circumstances that distracted her at the time; she didn't realize the significance of not doing so...I'm not faulting her, at this point, it's just the way things are).

[fish]

Well, I'd have thought so...but not, apparently till I also obtain her JC papers. And that is a very pricey prospect!

Keeping in mind that her pedigree CAN be proven--I have every last scrap of paper and photos originally filed w/JC, right up until the last bit was supposed to be sent in...the breeder just never followed up on it (note, I think this was due to some family circumstances that distracted her at the time; she didn't realize the significance of not doing so...I'm not faulting her, at this point, it's just the way things are).

I think this is the sort of situation that the PHR was originally designed to remedy so tracking of all the wonderful horses out there without "official" (for lack of a better word) papers could begin. Unfortunately, I don't think that the kinds of registries most of the people on this board would consider "reputable" would be any more accepting of PHR registered mares than they are of those with no papers at all, or other "wrong" papers. Happily, none of the stallion owners I've dealt with have been any more interested in whether or not my foals are registered than the BNT's have been. I'm obviously with M. O'Connor in thinking it would be much more logical for the registries to be seeking out and encouraging the reproduction of good performance mares instead of turning them away for lack of the "right" papers.

[Dalriada]

Both - pedigree/papers and performance.

Without knowning the pedigree (and being able to prove it with registration papers) it is harder to predict the likely performance of an individuals. That's not to say that you can't keep records but they aren't written in blood on stone like registration papers (especially those that require DNA or the old bloodtyping).

Performance can be a subjective trait - you can end up with an animal that far exceeds the predictions based on pedigree. You can end up with an animal that underwhelms you based on the predictions based on pedigree but the majority will be "average" based on predictions.

Performance is subjective based on the handling as a youngster, environment, feeding, special care, training, more training, rider/driver and the amount of money the owner has to spend on proving the animal.

Thus the 2 do go hand in hand.

Personally I prefer papered/pedigreed animals over grade ones but a unique individual that has conformation, performance and style will catch my eye as well.

[flshgordon]

Just because a mare has the ability to perform at high levels does not mean that she can pass that ability on reliably. The same holds true for stallions which is why I will not breed to one that didn't pass the approvals and performance test but got his license through the sport. There are reasons why stallions don't pass their initial approval....


This confuses me.....whether a stallion is approved through performance or through the 100DT, how does either of those prove that he will pass on any of his performance ability? I would look at a horse approved for breeding either way as equal and I'd much rather see a horse out competing than one who did the 100DT and was then just retired to stud.

[Iron Horse Farm]

Just my $0.02 worth. Pony up the 2k to the JC and get the papers. You can ask that much more for the foal of an approved/registered mare. Besides, if you sell the foal at a profit, you can deduct the 2k on your taxes as a business expense.

Now, I did look at the pedigree of this mare and she has one of my favorite TBs of all time in it..............Hasty Road. He was a Preakness winner out of Toledo, Ohio. When I was a child the land/farm were still there. Today it is an upper upper end subdivision called Hasty Hills with roads named Citation and Secretariat etc. But hasty Road, although not a superbly successful racing sire, can be found in sooooo many pedigrees of horses that can JUMP.

[M. O'Connor]

2K, huh? Seems I have to send $80 just to get the ball rolling again...cha-ching!

[EquusMagnificus]

If it's only $80... even more so, get it done :winkgrin:

[M. O'Connor]

The $80 is to reopen the registration, and to get the DNA kit...THEN, I get to spend the $2000.

[Donella]

I don't know if I totally agree with this. If the mare is actually THAT wonderful, I would think she would be worth more as a competitive mount for ET foals. If two horses were similar, but ones dam was never even broke, and the other was a world class show horse o/o a receipient mare, I'd take the one with the proven dam.

I think it would be nice to at least see some mileage on these broodies, even at lower levels. Or at least start them under saddle so you can see what you've got, and what kind of rideability they have to offer.

It just seems a bit hypocritical to me...the stallion is held to SUCH a high regard and tough performance standards, but I know a lot of people that are breeding mares to these stallions that are not and never will be broke to ride. It's a shame, imho


Well, she is worth more as a competative mount if that is your thing as an owner. I love to ride and train and I do want to bring a horse I have bred up to grand prix competatively one day BUT my passion is breeding and so FOR ME, because I want to produce horses that are very competative, the mare holds more value to me as a broodie. This is the breeder perspective. I didn't really mean it would be a waste to develope her, of course not, but for the true breeder, the best mares should be having babies and passing those traits on.

Secondly, as for starting the mares, seeing the rideability ect. That is where the mare performance test comes in. The horses are well started so that they can do a competant training level test, free jump ect and they are (at least in the hano books) scored on rideability by two different individuals. So a person does get a bit of insight into the abilites , strengths, weakness's ect. This is in addition to the mare studbook inspection.

Then, if you have a very well bred mare..(preferably with a strong damline), you are again increasing your odds of having a horse that will produce. I myself put much more emphasis on the mares in my program. Not only do they pass half their genetics to the foal, they provide the environmental aspect of the foals personality until it is weaned. Yes, you need to use a good stallion, but mares are just more important in my mind and to disregard mare lines ect...ahhhhh I don't think that a knowledgable breeder would do that.

You know what? This all boils down to probabilities. None of us can read the future. We need to have something to go on that will allow us to MOST accurately predict quality and the ability to pass these traits on. I have noticed alot of you cite numerous examples of horses that were successful and were not well bred, or stallions that didn't pass the performance test and were great sires. Yes, this happens, but more often than not, it doesnt. The whole inspection structure, the whole concept of Genetics is to allow breeders to MAXIMIZE their chances of producing greatness. Genetics and inspection/test results TOGETHER give us a good idea about the quality of horse we are dealing with. If it is excellent in both respects, a persons chances are MUCH higher of producing excellence. No guarentee, just a higher chance. Breeding is enough of a crapshoot. To be honest with you, in my mind, a person who places little value on genetics has no buisness breeding horses.

ps. If we were to head over to Germany, I will guarentee you that most of the top broodies in the country are not performance superstars BUT that they are EXCELLENT examples of their breed in terms of potential and genetics. Just because they don't have serious performance records doesn't mean that wouldn't be able to, it simply means that their owner knows that to breed the best, you had better start with the best (and again, this means genetics and potential).

[risingstarfarm]

You know, I find it curious that so many people talk about breeding the "best" broodmares or the "best" horses. However, no one defines the "best". Shouldn't some aspect of performance or rideability be part of this designation???? Bloodlines, while VERY important, are not the only indicator of "best"!

[Touchstone Farm]

These threads are always interesting to me. You read the posters' comments about their wonderful mare that won't be accepted because it doesn't have papers but they say they don't care, she has the nicest babies, etc. Yet, if they REALLY didn't care about papers or think they were important, why are these mare owners complaining that they can't get these mares in the registries?

If they don't care, fine, but then don't worry that the registry won't take the mare! :-)

RE: to point to top riders and say they don't care about bloodlines or registries. Part of the reason could be that they deal with so many horses they can't keep track of every horse's parentage. (I only have six, do a little breeding on the side, and sometimes forget and I'm not a top rider with a ton of clients to please on my mind!) The other reason might be that by the time these top riders get some of these horses, they were selected years prior due to their breeding and started under saddle, and now the top rider is taking it over.

I also find it interesting that people always say papers don't matter because they are breeding for themselves and have no intention of selling. Well, some of us don't have a crystal ball to our financial futures so could no way guarantee that we would never, ever have to sell a horse for financial reasons. I sure wish I was independently wealthy or so confident in my career and my health that I would never have to worry about being laid off, getting hurt or sick and going on short- or long-term disability, going through a divorce, etc. etc. I think even if you don't think you are ever going to sell a horse you breed, you should always plan to breed one that others might want to buy because...you never know!!

[3Ponies]

"Yet, if they REALLY didn't care about papers or think they were important, why are these mare owners complaining that they can't get these mares in the registries?

If they don't care, fine, but then don't worry that the registry won't take the mare! :-)"


First of all, I'm not complaining that the registry won't take my mare. I really DON'T care. Mine won't be for sale, I don't have to maximize my profit, I'm getting what I hope will be a nice enough foal out of a favorite mare who also will never be for sale. I understand that breeders in business of selling horses would want a mare to produce offspring that = $$$ in the bank; there are very few show horses that perform at a level where they are making money for their owners...the prize money just isn't out there, except at the very top levels, and by the time you get a horse there, you've gone into a VERY deep hole.

My point has more to do with the registry and the idea that even if a horse reaches these levels, whether it's the mare herself or an offspring if it is the typical US bred formula of TB mare/warmblood stallion, I hadn't realized that the mares of known pedigree w/out current registrations (so many are sold on from racing w/out papers, and some like mine, who didn't race were never registered to start with) wouldn't ever be eligible for many registries, even though the foundation of many of these registries included at the get-go horses that were evaluated or accepted simply on quality of performance, some of whom DIDN'T have known pedigrees. If you look at the pedigree of Clover Hill, for instance...aren't there some big holes there?

Doesn't it deplete the gene pool and decrease those probabilities if you exclude horses of KNOWN parentage, such as the many US TB mares w/out actual papers, despite their record as performers, and despite obvious quality? THAT'S my point...not complaining, just observing.

[fish]

Suggested (and not uncommon) scenario:

A show rider who, like most, doesn't have much use for papers, buys a horse to develop and compete who happens to be female. This horse turns out to be wonderful, winning everything she pursues in the show ring, so the owner/rider decides it would be a very good thing to breed her to an equally wonderful stallion to see if she can pass her traits on. Also thinking that organizations purporting to have as their goal the production of top quality show horses would be interested in adding such a well proven performer to the pool of those being formally evaluated and (hopefully) tracked, she approaches some WB registries about presenting her mare. Under these circumstances, it makes perfect sense to me that the owner/rider would "complain" that the registries won't take the mare.

IMO, the loss being 'complained about' is much more that of the registries-- and of people who truly DO wish to test and evaluate the genetic potential of top performers-- than it is of good performance mares or their owners. The TB mare I've been breeding was "main mare book approved and premium" 16 years ago and I have yet to discover any benefit in having those papers because, as I've said before, the "good show homes" which comprise my target market have no use for them. As far as I'm concerned, my mare's inspection was just one more show, and not even a very important one given that none of the people who've been interested in her offspring have ever even inquired about it-- or about the registration of said offspring. At the same time, I know plenty of breeders who've been crossing high quality unapproved mares to the same category of stallions and selling the offspring for prices that are just as good and often better than those with registry approvals. As far we are concerned, WB Approvals are just one more show and not even a very relevant one when it comes to the objectives of our own programs. With or without papers, good horses will always sell well unless papers/registrations are made a requirement for competition and/or a feature of the horses judges are asked to consider in their evaluations. Serious competitors are interested in finding competitive horses, period. If they can find and buy them without being charged extra for papers, so much the better.

[STF]

You know, I find it curious that so many people talk about breeding the "best" broodmares or the "best" horses. However, no one defines the "best". Shouldn't some aspect of performance or rideability be part of this designation???? Bloodlines, while VERY important, are not the only indicator of "best"!

For example - our Viktoria (Rubignon x Vivialdi) 3 yr old. She is more valueable to me as a breeding mare than to ride. I need her blood. I have horses to ride.

[STF]

Fish, I do truely understand your scenario..... and understand even more than breeders only make up a very small portion of the total North American sport horse owners, but the best breeders know that the only way to improve their stock is to "bred the best and ride/sell the rest."
We have to keep improving the mare base to OFFER better horses in North America. Simple as that. We cant ride our best broodies, they need to be pregnant!

[carolprudm]

I think part of the issue is that not everyone agrees with another's definition of the "best"

[fish]

For example - our Viktoria (Rubignon x Vivialdi) 3 yr old. She is more valueable to me as a breeding mare than to ride. I need her blood. I have horses to ride.

But if unregistered mares come along and who beat the produce of all this "valueable [sic]... blood" in actual competition, don't they deserve the opportunity to prove they can produce babies able to do the same and thereby prove the value of their "blood," too?

[au_panda]

I have read most of the posts here (so if this is mentioned, sorry as I scanned some) and a couple of issues struck me. I have had 3 foals and 2 TB mares inspected, working with the AHS and the ISR/Old.

I've been thinking lately that the "rules" of the registries are quickly becoming outdated. It seems to me that with genetic testing available, the parentage of many horses can now be scientifically determined. Perhaps the registries need to move toward issuing "registration" or "verified breeding" papers to mature horses of acceptable bloodlines if the parentage can be verified through DNA testing. This would certainly be an avenue for the TB mare population as I've been told that UC Davis has been recording JC DNA for years now. Foals could then be registered.

I agree with Fish that in the hunter/jumper market registration is not a key factor in the buying decision for a lot of people in regards to mature horses; performance is much more of a factor. I think pedigree (not necessarily registration papers) are much more of a factor with buyers in this market who are buying prospects. That said, in the hunter market, movement, jump and a hunter temperament will outweigh "papers" in almost all circumstances.

Also, I'm occasionally amused by the distinction between dressage and jumpers in the WB registries (it seems to me to be a carryover caused by the association with the european registry "parents"). I think there is a significant difference between the hunter jump and the jumper jump. I had this discussion with someone who had been at one of the WB inspections this summer where a mare that jumped in the hunter style was scored higher than another mare that jumped in the jumper style. It's the first time I've encountered an inspection judge differentiating the styles and have some hope that hunters will eventually be "recognized" by at least some of the registries. So for me there are 3 types of horses we are trying to breed in the US: dressage, jumper and hunter (and the last 2 should not be aggregated into one category by either us breeders or the inspection judges).

And to the OP, if the mare is really that nice, I would complete the JC registration process as it increases the value of the mare and her foals. :)

[TKR]

I sure wouldn't want any of the women's rights leaders reading this thread -- "keep the best mare pregnant, forget about performance or riding or any other life", LOL! WOW! A step back for female rights, barefoot and pregnant -- just thought a bit of lightening up would be in order!
PennyG

[Renae]

Also, I'm occasionally amused by the distinction between dressage and jumpers in the WB registries (it seems to me to be a carryover caused by the association with the european registry "parents"). I think there is a significant difference between the hunter jump and the jumper jump. I had this discussion with someone who had been at one of the WB inspections this summer where a mare that jumped in the hunter style was scored higher than another mare that jumped in the jumper style. It's the first time I've encountered an inspection judge differentiating the styles and have some hope that hunters will eventually be "recognized" by at least some of the registries. So for me there are 3 types of horses we are trying to breed in the US: dressage, jumper and hunter (and the last 2 should not be aggregated into one category by either us breeders or the inspection judges).


Barbara, some of the registries already do this. The KWPN-NA actually reckognizes 5 types; the Gelders (the base type, the Gelderlander is the native Dutch breed that the Dutch Warmblood and Dutch Harness Horse are based on), Dressage, Jumper, Hunter (collectively the 3 riding types are knwon as the Dutch Warmblood), and the Harness tpe (the Tuigpaard or Dutch Harness Horse.

If you have an unregistered Throughbred mare and you want to breed her and participate in the inspections processes of one of the registries you will just have to realize that because that mare's breeders made the choice not to register her you options will be limited, and if you do own a registered mare you will hav to consider that when you are breeding her and contemplating registering her foals.

[flshgordon]

You know, I find it curious that so many people talk about breeding the "best" broodmares or the "best" horses. However, no one defines the "best". Shouldn't some aspect of performance or rideability be part of this designation???? Bloodlines, while VERY important, are not the only indicator of "best"!


Couldn't agree more!!!!!! :yes: :yes: :yes: How can you say they are your "best" mares if they've never done anything other than produce 'pretty faces' and that's all their mothers did, and their mothers before them???:confused:

Eventually, some of these mares need to get out and do something other than breed even if you do think they have great bloodlines. As the cliche' goes....I can't ride the papers!

[risingstarfarm]

Couldn't agree more!!!!!! :yes: :yes: :yes: How can you say they are your "best" mares if they've never done anything other than produce 'pretty faces' and that's all their mothers did, and their mothers before them???:confused:

Eventually, some of these mares need to get out and do something other than breed even if you do think they have great bloodlines. As the cliche' goes....I can't ride the papers!


To take it one step further...don't people consider certain bloodlines to be the "best" because of the PERFORMANCE or RIDEABILITY associated with those bloodlines?

[siegi b.]

Some of you guys are not reading for comprehension... :-)

The "best" warmblood mares are those whose damlines have continually produced exellent performance horses. You breed those to the "best" stallion out there - again, a horse whose damlines have continually produced excellent performance horses, and who has been tested for conformation, gaits, temperament, who had to continue to prove his value by participating in competitions, and whose foal crops have been (will be) evaluated for quality of gaits and conformation. These stallions can lose their license if they don't perform in competition or their foals don't live up to expectations.

It's about as good as "quality control" in horse breeding can get.

And that is why I'm a breeder of European warmbloods (Dutch warmbloods, to be exact).

[vineyridge]

In the world of thoroughbred racing, a mare who has performed at the highest level will go for far more at the sales than a mare who hasn't, unless the second mare has a history of personally producing offspring that produce or perform at the highest level.

Example: Round Pond, who won last year's Mare and Filly Breeders' Cup race just sold for over 5 million. A 5 year who was the 2 yo champion in England just sold for over 10 million. Fleet Indian, who was injured in the Breeders Cup race that Round Pond won just sold for several million dollars.

Fact is that the mares who run and win are much more highly valued at the beginning of their breeding careers--at least in the TB racing world. And in the TB racing world there are huge opportunities for mares to perform against other mares at all levels of the sport.

To suggest anything different is just plain ridiculous. With both pedigree and performance, the risk is diminished.

[sm]

I've been thinking lately that the "rules" of the registries are quickly becoming outdated. It seems to me that with genetic testing available, the parentage of many horses can now be scientifically determined. Perhaps the registries need to move toward issuing "registration" or "verified breeding" papers to mature horses of acceptable bloodlines if the parentage can be verified through DNA testing. This would certainly be an avenue for the TB mare population.

This might be okay if you're not concerned about calling the mare a thoroughbred. DNA alone was never enough to make it into the JC registry:

Definition: "A Thoroughbred is a horse which has satisfied the rules and requirements set forth herein and is registered in The American Stud Book or in a Foreign Stud Book recognized by The Jockey Club and the International Stud Book Committee. " http://www.jockeyclub.com/registry.asp?section=3#glossary

[sm]

The "best" warmblood mares are those whose damlines have continually produced exellent performance horses. You breed those to the "best" stallion out there - again, a horse whose damlines have continually produced excellent performance horses.

Well, not really. There's a limit on the amount of TB blood in sire and dam for offspring to be recognized: so the "best" to the "best" makes a good party line but may not be entirely accurate.

[siegi b.]

sm - if you want to, you can just leave out the "warmblood" part of my definition.. :-)

THE BEST MARES ARE THOSE WHOSE DAMLINES HAVE CONTINUALLY PRODUCED EXCELLENT PERFORMANCE HORSES.

[Donella]

Gosh, reading some of these responses , I can see why america is lagging behind in terms of breeding.

First of all, to the individual who said that all the "best" mares do is make pretty faces. Uhm..that is not the goal of the European wb registries that I am familiar with. The goal is to make performance horses of international calibre ( and the one I am associated with does it on a regular basis). If you want to ride your best mare, and breed the ones you don't want to ride, then explain to me how you are going to produce good horses? I would love to know this. To all of you who think the best mares should be show stars, tell me where we will get the great foals?

Most of the mares that are highly rated by the strict euro registries ( ie the ones that have had international success at breeding sport horses..ie the ones most qualified to talk about it) are rated that way because they have all the neccisary components to be competative in the sport they were bred for. A mare performance test will tell me what I need to know about her riding horse qualities without having to waste her reproductive years on a show career. She therefor has a higher chance of giving these qualities to her foal than a mare that is not of the same quality. What is so hard to understand about this logic? I am almost discusted that someone would breed horses without understanding or placing any value on genetics. Breeding and genetics go hand in hand!!

Secondly, to breed by using some unpapered mare that YOU (and often you alone) think is great, to hope for a miracle that she outproduces herself and then to hope madly again for a gelding and then to cross your fingers again that he turns out to be a star all because "some trainers" dont care about bloodlines is RIDICULOUS. I am sorry, maybe I am missing something:confused:

In my experience, the only person who doesn't value the breeding goal of the breed they have chosen to own/breed is someone who doesn't produce up to par or has sour grapes because the breed registry that governs their breed has pointed out a fault or two that is found within their horses. If you disagree with the breeding goal of the breed you are breeding, then tell me how you are "bettering the breed". Bettering the breed is (or damn well should be!) the goal of the true breeder of any animal breed, be it horses, dogs ect. Everyone else out there is just multiplying and in more cases than not, contributing to the problem.

Warmblood breeding in america is a perfect example of this. So many OTTB's and everyone wants a registered wb. They want to breed this but they disregard the importance of the mare and don't wanna shell out the cash for a good wb. If the TB doesnt make the grade, then it is all of a sudden that that breed registry is "just another show" and "screw them, I will take my TB (or paints, or draft cross or whatever) over to someone else who will pat me on the back and tell me I can register the foal as a wb if I use their program". EVERYONE thinks their own mares are awesome. Everyone does. But most mares I know should never reproduce. Don't get me wrong, I like a nice tb, but there are only a handful that should ever be used to make wb babies. And with the exception of the odd arab..no other breeds should even be considered. Note..I love GOOD tb blood , LOVE it. But to qualify as good in my mind, it better be considered so by someone other than the owner who "just loves sally".

And really, are all these unpapered mares that are being used by so many people, really outstanding performance mares with serious show records?. Most of the ones I have seen are not, why would it be any different?. So not only are alot of them broodmares of questionable genetics, but they have also not been evaluated by anyone other than the owner. So griping on people who opt for a breeding career for their mares that live up to the high breed standards of the euro registries is pretty wonk.

I think this REALLY boils down to American breeders having a hard time dealing with constructive criticism from outside parties. Horses are too personal for us here. Then ad to it the whole "melting pot mentality". Ie we can use apples to make oranges philosophy. Sorry, but again, this is exactly why we are where we are on the world scene. Proof is in the pudding.

And to the person who said that unpapered types sell for the same as the really well bred (ie international bloodlined) foals? I don't know where you live but all you have to do is a search on any of the major for sale sites. Look up the price of an elite Hano/ Ster Dutch mare and then check out the price of a mare who has been registered with one of the "wb" registries here in the states..preferably one of questionable pedigree. Do the same with any other age catagory for that matter. Sure there are always exceptions, but the price differences that exist reflect the general public's opinion on what constitutes quality.

[tri]

"So many OTTB's and everyone wants a registered wb. They want to breed this but they disregard the importance of the mare and don't wanna shell out the cash for a good wb."

This is such an ignorant statement. The FACTS are that of all the American bred sporthorses that have made it to international level competition, almost ALL of them have a TB parent and usually it is a TB dam. The FACT is that IN AMERICA, the TB dam is kicking butt against all those wb dams, imported or not. You may not like it and I am sure you will come up with a bunch of your own "sour grapes" reasons why, but it is A FACT.

In addition, if you look at the opening page of the IHF, many many many of those winning horses pictured right there on the opening page of the site are half Tb and, GASP, one of them is a TB / QH .

It is also true that there are a lot of ex-race TB mares that went on to very successful careers in sport don't have papers - those are the GOOD tb mares - while the typical sprint bred TB mare not as suitable for sporthorse breeding but have papers were presented for WB breeding and it is the REGISTRIES that complained about the quality and started discouraging TB mares from being used.

If the registries were more educated about the U.S. sporthorse markets and understood as much about how our system worked here, they wouldn't have made the decision that they did....or if american breeders had started our own system based on what our market needed instead of giving it away to foreign countries, we could have capitalized on what is STILL our biggest strength.

[Donella]

Ok Tri..I am not into doing this with you. Really.

But I will say I am breeding primarily for dressage and some jumping (olympic disciplines). I should maybe make that clear. I am not into the hunters and what I said may not apply at all for the hunters. I don't know what they like.

I will assure you though, that the vast majority of the top international Dressage and Show Jumping horses are not half tb and if there is tb up close in any of those Dressage pedigrees, it is not a tb that was not approved. I will also guarentee that the top dressage horses in this country are by and large, full wb's.

I am just saying it like I see it. I have been on the buyers end before and in my area at aleast, and for every full wb foal, there are 20 wb x tb foals out there.

I KNEW someone was going to flip about the tb thing. But I still stand by my guns when I say that most tb's are not suited to produce high level dressage or jumping horses. Key words here. Most.

[not again]

Donella: do you know what xx means in a pedigree?

[sm]

so where were we: Breed registries: what's more important, paper or performance?

I think to a breed registry, the answer would be PAPERS are more important. The function of a registry is to reproduce itself. And while many do an admirable job of breeding sporthorses, it's absurd to say only that registry, or federation of registries, has the best athletes.

A fact for the US is that homegrown TBs have brought back olympic gold, and to date no american bred warmblood has. Now these TBs may have never won a beauty contest (conformation), they may have looked like he!! according to some registry standards, a euro breeder may have run screaming in horror out of the stadium after looking at the bloodlines, but these horses got the job done.

So for many americans, the answer is PERFORMANCE is more important. To believe anything else would be to admit it's not important to develop pure american bloodlines.

PS: no disrespect intended to the world class american-bred Morgans and QHs by not mentioning them.

[vineyridge]

But I still stand by my guns when I say that most tb's are not suited to produce high level dressage or jumping horses. Key words here. Most.But neither are most WBs. That's why lines die out; why TBs are introduced; why the damline's performers are so important.

Siegi B has stated the most basic rule in all breeding. BUT, it takes more than one foal from a given mare to decide if that is a damline worth preserving. All family trees have some "black sheep" or deadwood. If that branch can't perform, it rightly should be pruned.

Papers *should* be unimportant in the grand scheme. What should be important is family production and performance.

M O'Connor, *I* think you should suck it up and just pay the 2k+$80. If you get a filly from the breeding, you might start something wonderful with the next generation. But be sure dam and sire and offspring are registered with the PHR,m whether you do or not. At least you'd have DNA on file if something happens in the future to make the better registries more open.

Lord, how I wish the PHR had succeeded! We really wouldn't be talking about all this if it had. There would be a single US book containing all the registries and keeping statistics for all performance horses, regardless of registry. And with DNA for verification.

[sm]

Lord, how I wish the PHR had succeeded! .

Well, if you (the universal you, not vineyridge) are interested in supporting fellow american breeding, can't horses be registered with them? And compete in the Silver Stirrup awards while they're at it? I don't understand the past tense....

The best bet to get young stock shown and promoted, with godwilling eventually a top notch training program for olympic quality stock, is probably the PHR. They are the *only* ones with the muscle to get the job done on a national basis, and can promote the heck out of horse sales at usef events.

So patch up what's wrong, and move ahead. Like in that old saying on the road to success, "Fall down seven times, get up eight." Apparantly PHR is still at the table, despite whatever disappointments.

[SueL]

MHO, documented pedigree, including DNA testing plus eligibility into an accepted registry such as the Jockey Club should be okay for the registries. But they get to make their rules.

This mare has some very nice bloodlines; if she is as nice as she is bred, I would pony up the money and complete her registration with the JC. I understand it is a lot of money to just complete a registration, but MHO, the ability to present the mare and her foals for approval to a "mainstream" registry would ultimately be worth the cost.

I would go ahead and go for it. You can easily blow that 2 grand on a horse show and it won't do you or your mare and her future foals as much good as completing her registration. IMO that is.

Sue

[PineTreeFarm]

The PHR is no longer limited to TB's. I think that may be what Vinyridge is referring to.
Another way to go is the IJF. Many nice stallions recorded with them. Breed to one of their recorded stallions and get a foal eligible for all that nice IJF bonus money. They issue their own papers. Mares do not have to WB registry approved or inspected.
Having just succeeded in getting a TB yearling registered with the JC I must say that it's not for the faint of heart. They are nice to deal with but firm. If their rules 'say so' than that's it. Without the cooperation of the breeder it would not have gone so well. If the dam dies before registration is complete then that's a whole other set of JC problems. Be prepared to take lots of pictures of the youngster ( and repeat if the JC doesn't like the shots) and collect blood and/or hair samples.

[Donella]

This is exactly what I mean by americans getting to personal with the horse breeding thing. As soon as anyone mentions the word TB on this board, it instantly lights up and the post gets 600 responses in a day. Tb's are always the best at everything and anyone who says otherwise are asxholes is usually the general consensus. This seems to correspond well with the fact that most people on this board own them.:lol:

I know perfectly well what XX means in a pedigree. Obviously you missed the part where I said that I value some TB blood in a pedigree. My favorite mare is sired by a half tb. One of my other mares is in foal to Londonderry who happens to carry the XX up close. I did not mean to imply that tb blood is of no use. I don't know HOW MANY TIMES I have to say this. But most still have conformation issues that make them unsuitable (ie downhill from stifle to elbow and low necksets). Again, in case you miss it a tenth time, some are invalueable to sport horse breeding.

I agree that few WB's are suited to upper level dressage/jumping BUT more of them are suited for it..WAY more, then any other breed. I am talking of competative dressage. I am sure I will get a bunch of tb owners try and prove me wrong on this one too. Just go look at the world ratings ok.

Lastly, I think alot of us are missing a big thing here. Notice that 99 percent of all the worlds top show jumpers and dressage horses are bred from european wb lines with a tad of tb thrown in? Pedigree predicts performance quite well, I would say because there sure is a super high correlation.

ps..If anyone thinks I am saying that the quality of the mare is secondary to her papers, I am not. A crappy mare or a mare that isn't up to breed standards is not really of alot of value even if the papers are good.

[3Ponies]

"A show rider who, like most, doesn't have much use for papers, buys a horse to develop and compete who happens to be female. This horse turns out to be wonderful, winning everything she pursues in the show ring, so the owner/rider decides it would be a very good thing to breed her to an equally wonderful stallion to see if she can pass her traits on. Also thinking that organizations purporting to have as their goal the production of top quality show horses would be interested in adding such a well proven performer to the pool of those being formally evaluated and (hopefully) tracked, she approaches some WB registries about presenting her mare. Under these circumstances, it makes perfect sense to me that the owner/rider would "complain" that the registries won't take the mare."



You have hit the nail on the head here! It does indeed diminish my opinion of the registries, and the value of registered horses when it is obvious that paper DOES mean more than results (in the performance sense).

[flshgordon]

Gosh, reading some of these responses , I can see why america is lagging behind in terms of breeding.

First of all, to the individual who said that all the "best" mares do is make pretty faces. Uhm..that is not the goal of the European wb registries that I am familiar with. The goal is to make performance horses of international calibre ( and the one I am associated with does it on a regular basis). If you want to ride your best mare, and breed the ones you don't want to ride, then explain to me how you are going to produce good horses? I would love to know this. To all of you who think the best mares should be show stars, tell me where we will get the great foals?
.

You obviously misunderstood what I said.

When I say "The best mares make pretty faces", that is the idea I get from many, not all, breeders here on COTH. The "I keep my best mares to breed and they never see the underside of a saddle" group. Some of these mares have great bloodlines and produce lovely conformed fillies that then go to the breeding shed and again....never see the underside of a saddle and so on and so on. Bloodlines will ONLY get you so far and 3 generations on if you have mares whose grandparents, parents, etc have never been under saddle, sorry but I'm not going to take a chance buying the offspring because someone tells me its got great bloodlines and some relatives 10-15 years ago had a great performance record.

I guess I just can't understand why a mare with good bloodlines can't have the "obligatory" foal at 4yo, then be a performance horse for 2-3 years, then be a broodmare after that. If nothing else to prove that the "pretty face" isn't just that....

[Touchstone Farm]

Previouis poster's quote:
"Suggested (and not uncommon) scenario:

A show rider who, like most, doesn't have much use for papers, buys a horse to develop and compete who happens to be female. This horse turns out to be wonderful, winning everything she pursues in the show ring, so the owner/rider decides it would be a very good thing to breed her to an equally wonderful stallion to see if she can pass her traits on."
.....................

I don't know how "common" this really is, but I doubt that it is the majority, at least of what I define as "breeders." This is more of a "hobbyist" and not someone I would look to for buying a prospect. Breeders to me are those who stand more than one mare, perhaps even a stallion, but not necessary, are meticulous about knowing bloodlines and cull mares that aren't producing up to a standard. So female or not, the above definition of the "female show rider" is really a "hobbyist" not a "breeder" in my book.

Donella, I agree with you. Good posts.

[M. O'Connor]

This is more of a "hobbyist" and not someone I would look to for buying a prospect.

:eek::eek::eek:

I may not know much, but I have to disagree strongly with this statement--

They not mere "hobbyists" they are your MARKET. Otherwise, stop compaining about all the BNT's going off to Europe to buy rather than looking here for prospects. If you don't regard this type of person as your prime customers, why on earth should they?

It's not realistic for breeders to only market to other breeders--obviously breeding stock has to be kept of high quality, but there has to be a purpose to breeding; I would think it is embodied in the term "s-p-o-r-t-h-o-r-s-e."

M O'Connor, *I* think you should suck it up and just pay the 2k+$80. If you get a filly from the breeding, you might start something wonderful with the next generation. But be sure dam and sire and offspring are registered with the PHR,m whether you do or not. At least you'd have DNA on file if something happens in the future to make the better registries more open.

Well, the $80 is in the mail anyway...

Donella, I don't think anyone is advocating for lesser quality TB's, or those of totally unknown pedigree who aren't able to both perform and produce. But it's senseless for the high-quality ones (especially of known parentage) to be passed up, and there ought to be an avenue even for the unknown ones who are able to put good stock on the ground. I have personal knowledge of one ISH line that was started when King of Diamonds was bred to Carun (an aged TB mare who at the time of purchase was thought to be barren). Mill Pearl and Mill Ruby (aka Millstreet Ruby) were full sisters by KOD, they were just the most well known of that line--another mare out of Carun, the Vixen, was injured as a young horse and never competed but produced many more top performers. These is one of the most successful ISH lines-but by your standards, Carun shouldn't have been accepted into a registry. Go figure.

[carolprudm]

This is exactly what I mean by americans getting to personal with the horse breeding thing. As soon as anyone mentions the word TB on this board, it instantly lights up and the post gets 600 responses in a day. Tb's are always the best at everything and anyone who says otherwise are asxholes is usually the general consensus. This seems to correspond well with the fact that most people on this board own them.:lol:



LOL. I think you could substitute WB in there and get the same reaction

[STF]

But if unregistered mares come along and who beat the produce of all this "valueable [sic]... blood" in actual competition, don't they deserve the opportunity to prove they can produce babies able to do the same and thereby prove the value of their "blood," too?

I see what your saying, but in the long run, the bloodlines will be more important. I would have to side with breeding the mare with 4 generations of proven bloodlines than one that has questionable heritage.

[STF]

Gosh, reading some of these responses , I can see why america is lagging behind in terms of breeding.

First of all, to the individual who said that all the "best" mares do is make pretty faces. Uhm..that is not the goal of the European wb registries that I am familiar with. The goal is to make performance horses of international calibre ( and the one I am associated with does it on a regular basis). If you want to ride your best mare, and breed the ones you don't want to ride, then explain to me how you are going to produce good horses? I would love to know this. To all of you who think the best mares should be show stars, tell me where we will get the great foals?

Most of the mares that are highly rated by the strict euro registries ( ie the ones that have had international success at breeding sport horses..ie the ones most qualified to talk about it) are rated that way because they have all the neccisary components to be competative in the sport they were bred for. A mare performance test will tell me what I need to know about her riding horse qualities without having to waste her reproductive years on a show career. She therefor has a higher chance of giving these qualities to her foal than a mare that is not of the same quality. What is so hard to understand about this logic? I am almost discusted that someone would breed horses without understanding or placing any value on genetics. Breeding and genetics go hand in hand!!

Secondly, to breed by using some unpapered mare that YOU (and often you alone) think is great, to hope for a miracle that she outproduces herself and then to hope madly again for a gelding and then to cross your fingers again that he turns out to be a star all because "some trainers" dont care about bloodlines is RIDICULOUS. I am sorry, maybe I am missing something:confused:

In my experience, the only person who doesn't value the breeding goal of the breed they have chosen to own/breed is someone who doesn't produce up to par or has sour grapes because the breed registry that governs their breed has pointed out a fault or two that is found within their horses. If you disagree with the breeding goal of the breed you are breeding, then tell me how you are "bettering the breed". Bettering the breed is (or damn well should be!) the goal of the true breeder of any animal breed, be it horses, dogs ect. Everyone else out there is just multiplying and in more cases than not, contributing to the problem.

Warmblood breeding in america is a perfect example of this. So many OTTB's and everyone wants a registered wb. They want to breed this but they disregard the importance of the mare and don't wanna shell out the cash for a good wb. If the TB doesnt make the grade, then it is all of a sudden that that breed registry is "just another show" and "screw them, I will take my TB (or paints, or draft cross or whatever) over to someone else who will pat me on the back and tell me I can register the foal as a wb if I use their program". EVERYONE thinks their own mares are awesome. Everyone does. But most mares I know should never reproduce. Don't get me wrong, I like a nice tb, but there are only a handful that should ever be used to make wb babies. And with the exception of the odd arab..no other breeds should even be considered. Note..I love GOOD tb blood , LOVE it. But to qualify as good in my mind, it better be considered so by someone other than the owner who "just loves sally".

And really, are all these unpapered mares that are being used by so many people, really outstanding performance mares with serious show records?. Most of the ones I have seen are not, why would it be any different?. So not only are alot of them broodmares of questionable genetics, but they have also not been evaluated by anyone other than the owner. So griping on people who opt for a breeding career for their mares that live up to the high breed standards of the euro registries is pretty wonk.

I think this REALLY boils down to American breeders having a hard time dealing with constructive criticism from outside parties. Horses are too personal for us here. Then ad to it the whole "melting pot mentality". Ie we can use apples to make oranges philosophy. Sorry, but again, this is exactly why we are where we are on the world scene. Proof is in the pudding.

And to the person who said that unpapered types sell for the same as the really well bred (ie international bloodlined) foals? I don't know where you live but all you have to do is a search on any of the major for sale sites. Look up the price of an elite Hano/ Ster Dutch mare and then check out the price of a mare who has been registered with one of the "wb" registries here in the states..preferably one of questionable pedigree. Do the same with any other age catagory for that matter. Sure there are always exceptions, but the price differences that exist reflect the general public's opinion on what constitutes quality.


EXACTALY!!!

[STF]

Bloodlines will ONLY get you so far and 3 generations on if you have mares whose grandparents, parents, etc have never been under saddle, sorry but I'm not going to take a chance buying the offspring because someone tells me its got great bloodlines and some relatives 10-15 years ago had a great performance record.


But it def. will increase your odds of getting something that can do the job correctly, easy. Bloodlines dont lie.

[3Ponies]

<<But if unregistered mares come along and who beat the produce of all this "valueable [sic]... blood" in actual competition, don't they deserve the opportunity to prove they can produce babies able to do the same and thereby prove the value of their "blood," too?>>

<<I see what your saying, but in the long run, the bloodlines will be more important. I would have to side with breeding the mare with 4 generations of proven bloodlines than one that has questionable heritage.">>

The only question I would have about heritage that produces a horse that could beat 4 generations of proven bloodlines, is "is it a fluke?" ie, "will it reproduce?" and I'd have to say I'd be inclined to give it a shot, and keep track of the results. THAT is what selective breeding is all about, isn't it? Otherwise, where did all these bloodlines come from to begin with?

[STF]

The only question I would have about heritage that produces a horse that could beat 4 generations of proven bloodlines, is "is it a fluke?" ie, "will it reproduce?" and I'd have to say I'd be inclined to give it a shot, and keep track of the results. THAT is what selective breeding is all about, isn't it? Otherwise, where did all these bloodlines come from to begin with?

That is always a chance to take. That is why experienced breeders will tell you they cant really see a "trend" until you breed a mare a min of 3 times. Just with young stallion approval, that is why they get provisional (or one of the many reasons).... so they can beed a limited number and evaluate their offspring.

[pinecone]

I would choose performance over paper, if the question were as black and white as that.

[STF]

3Ponies,
I want to add, I have a TB mare I would not trade for the world. She has had 4 babies now and all of way above average quality (I kept one for my own if that says anything and was going to keep another but I lost him on the colic sugery table in 05! :( ).......... but point being, yes, she is "just a track horse TB" but has proven her ability to produce some very, very nice offspring with super gaits, conformation and overall postive traits. So, please dont think Im anti TB. Im not! By far!!! Im just proactive to good bloodlines and proven hertiage.

[STF]

I would choose performance over paper, if the question were as black and white as that.

But when you look at the higher preformers, you see that the best preformance horses are usually the ones with good papers.

[fish]

Previouis poster's quote:
"Suggested (and not uncommon) scenario:

A show rider who, like most, doesn't have much use for papers, buys a horse to develop and compete who happens to be female. This horse turns out to be wonderful, winning everything she pursues in the show ring, so the owner/rider decides it would be a very good thing to breed her to an equally wonderful stallion to see if she can pass her traits on."
.....................

I don't know how "common" this really is, but I doubt that it is the majority, at least of what I define as "breeders." This is more of a "hobbyist" and not someone I would look to for buying a prospect. Breeders to me are those who stand more than one mare, perhaps even a stallion, but not necessary, are meticulous about knowing bloodlines and cull mares that aren't producing up to a standard. So female or not, the above definition of the "female show rider" is really a "hobbyist" not a "breeder" in my book.

Donella, I agree with you. Good posts.

(1) It's not at all uncommon. Everyone I've ever known with a good show mare has visions of breeding so the mare's gifts do not die with her. A "good show mare" is also, by definition, not one "you alone" think is good, but one many judges have "approved" in the course of building her show record. To me, that's a great deal more solid than one (or even 2 or 3) evaluations at official registry "Approvals."
(2) Whether or not a mare owner like this would qualify as a "breeder" in your book, I ask you take note of the fact that s/he's a person who's not only proven the mare, but simultaneously proven to be an owner capable of producing a real show horse. IMO, that makes her/him exactly the sort of person people who actually show like to buy from-- they might even know one another already, and their mutual show experience is bound to provide basis for understanding and respect all too often lacking between "breeder" specialists and their purported markets.
(3) Stams/mare lines have to start somewhere, and it seems to me that a mare who's proven herself in the show ring is a darned good place to start-- especially if she comes from a breed (e.g. TB, Arab, Standardbred, QH, whatever) whose talents for jumping or dressage have never really been tested or tracked. After all, Galoubet, was out of a trotter mare who jumped the moon in phenomenal form. Her bloodlines were a primary reason he was denied approval prior to his brilliant international career, but look at the line his breeder established by crossing this brilliant jumper mare from the "wrong" breed with Alme! Seems to me that cases like this should have made the registries a bit more open to performance mares who've not had the opportunity to prove that their "damlines" could be precious for sport. After all, did anyone pay much attention to the fact that the OTTB mother of Touch of Class was also a jumping fool until after TOC won the Olympics?
(4) I've read that most breeders in Europe are "hobbyists," who only have a couple mares along with the pigs, etc., on their farms anyway.
(5) There also happen to be quite a few successful breeders of show horses (Warioto and Cloud's Harbor immediately come to mind) who operate outside the registry systems, using their own methods of selection to produce beautiful show horses who sell very well. I can't imagine any of them essentially "culling" a performance proven mare without even giving her a chance to show what she could produce.

For reasons like the above, it does seem from this thread that papers, not horses, constitute the registries' true priority.

I well remember a USDF clinic with Hilda Gurney several years ago which included her evaluation of 3 mares as potential breeding stock: a branded WB who happened to be quite coarse and ill-conformed, an unregistered Anglo-Arab, and a JC TB. Hilda declared the last 2 "elegant," and mares of the sort she herself would like to see bred while she would not breed the first no matter how kind and loved she might be. No mention was made of breeds, brands or approvals. Of those 3 mares, the WB was the only one in foal-- after all, she'd been "approved" for breeding so the foal would have the "right" papers. Hopefully whatever "damlines" helped get her branded were enough to protect her foal from looking too much like his/her mother.

[DownYonder]

The FACTS are that of all the American bred sporthorses that have made it to international level competition, almost ALL of them have a TB parent and usually it is a TB dam. The FACT is that IN AMERICA, the TB dam is kicking butt against all those wb dams, imported or not.

Kathy, what disciplines are you referring to? Can you please name some of these horses, and the year(s) they competed in international competition? And in those international competitions, how successful were they?

[STF]

Chris let it go. Dont even go there. Its not worth it.

[Tasker]

Kate Poulin & Brilliant Too at the recent Pan Am Games. BT is by Brilliant out of a TB mare bred by the Poulin family.

[DownYonder]

Hey, I'm just curious. I'm willing to be educated on all these American horses from TB dams that are kicking butt in international competition - in something other than eventing, that is.

Who has that link to the FN standings? Let's see if we can figure how many of the top 10 in each discpline came from a TB dam.

[not again]

Do you mean the FEI standings?

[DownYonder]

Right, I meant the FEI standings. I found them. Here are the rankings for 10/1/06 - 9/30/07.

Data shown:
Rank - Horse name - Total-Points - FEI pass No - Year of Birth - Sex-Color-Breed - Sire - Dam - Dam's Sire

Jumping

1 SHUTTERFLY 1780 GER17231 1993 GELDING DARK BAY HANN SILVIO I FLAMM FORREST XX
2 HICKSTEAD 1703 NED06921 1996 STALLION BAY KWPN HAMLET JOMARA EKSTEIN
3 CÖSTER 1605 GER19770 1993 GELDING GREY HOLST CALATO DISPACHE CONSTANT
4 OKIDOKI 1555 NED06141 1996 GELDING BAY KWPN JODOKUS KENTUCKY TOPAS
5 THE SIXTH SENSE 1480 GER23510 1996 GELDING BAY WESTF ZORRO T GRANADA GRANNUS-GRANIT
6 IDEO DU THOT 1308 FRA10897 1996 GELDING BAY SFA ARIOSO DU THEILLET BATTANTE DU THOT SHALIMAN DU THOT
7 PARADIGM 1203 CAN02794 1994 GELDING CHESTNUT BWP NABAB DE REVE JESSIE PACHAT II
8 BUTTERFLY FLIP 1159 SWE03145 1991 MARE BAY SWB ROBIN I Z BADERNA MODERENE
9 CASADORA 1133 CAN02544 1996 MARE CHESTNUT KWPN INDOCTRO KADORA GRANNUS
10 SUNCAL PORTOFINO 63 1055 NED05536 1994 MARE BAY KWPN HABSBURG BETSTRICHTA ORTHOS

Dressage

1 SATCHMO 78 8 2181 GER21978 1994 GELDING DARK BAY HANN SAO PAULO ST.PR. LEGATA LEGAT
2 KELTEC SALINERO 8 2121 USA07896 1994 GELDING DARK BAY HANN SALIERI ST. PR. LUNA LUNGAU
3 WARUM NICHT FRH 8 2119 GER23022 1996 GELDING CHESTNUT HANN WELTMEYER WINJA WENZEL I
4 SALIERI CH 8 1961 SUI06701 1994 GELDING BAY CH SINCLAIR LYSANDER
5 HUNTER DOUGLAS SUNRISE 8 1941 NED06790 1994 MARE DARK BAY HANN SINGULAR JOTER WAIDWERK
6 BJORSELLS BRIAR 899 8 1896 SWE02910 1991 STALLION CHESTNUT SWB MAGINI CHARIS KROCKET
7 ELVIS VA 8 1824 GER27120 1996 GELDING CHESTNUT HANN ESPRI GEORGIA GARIBALDI II
8 IPS PAINTED BLACK 8 1817 NED06402 1997 STALLION BLACK KWPN GRIBALDI LITCHY FERRO
9 MAX 8 1763 FIN01208 1995 GELDING BAY SWB MASTER 850 APERETIFFA ALPEN FÜRST
10 DONATHA S 8 1726 GER19094 1994 MARE BLACK HANN DONNERHALL PASQUAL PIK BUBE I

Eventing
1 TRULUCK 6 308 USA09178 1997 GELDING BAY TB MAHA BABA GRAYFULLY FULL CHOKE
2 FLINT CURTIS 6 283 GBR12066 1996 GELDING GREY UNKNOWN
3 MCKINLAIGH 4 268 USA07539 1994 GELDING CHESTNUT ISH HIGHLAND KING KILCUMNEY HOSTESS STETCHWORTHLAD
4 GALAN DE SAUVAGÈRE 6 264 FRA08469 1994 GELDING GREY SF JOLY JUMPER DOUCE JULIA JULIUS CAESAR
5 THEODORE O'CONNOR 6 257 USA09663 1995 GELDING CHESTNUT TB THEODORE CHESEAÆS MELODY HONESTTURN
6 NULLABOR 6 252 AUS01037 1997 GELDING BAY ISH CREATIVE PLAN LETHAL LASS REGAL STING
7 BETTER I DO IT 6 247 SWE03674 1993 GELDING BAY SWB BILLION XX CONCITIA CORNELSCOURT
8 EKUS T.W. 5 246 BRA01947 1998 GELDING CHESTNUT UNKNOWN EQUI TW
9 TOTSIE 3 228 BRA02027 MARE CHESTNUT UNKNOWN
10 REMONTA DESIDIA 4 227 ARG00994 1996 MARE BAY UNKNOWN QUALOUBEY III R. RAPOIDNYE

Although the #1 jumper, Shutterfly is out of a HANOVERIAN mare with a TB sire, I don't see a lot of other up close TB blood in the jumping and dressage rankings.

[Tasker]

I had a really interesting (educational) time typing each of the top stallions I could think of last night on this website...many of them had a lot more TB blood than I thought they would. I have to go out and start riding or I would take that list and see who's what for each one. Then again, that is also worthy of a separate topic...if the day winds down quickly, I will make that my project for this evening & link each pedigree so we can all see.

Here's the link (and, yes, it is only in Dutch - sorry)
http://www.paardenfokken.nl/find.php

Here is a link to
Shutterfly http://www.paardenfokken.nl/pedigree.php?horseid=112181

Satchmo http://www.paardenfokken.nl/pedigree.php?horseid=182944

and I can't get the pedigrees of most of the eventers...gotta scoot though. More later on a new thread.

[not again]

But regarding the original question, several of the horses listed have Unknown in their pedigree and are in the top in the world rankings.

[fish]

But when you look at the higher preformers, you see that the best preformance horses are usually the ones with good papers.

When I look at "the higher performers" I see that a great many-- most likely the large majority-- of them do not have US registry papers at all-- or papers that are stuck in some drawer never to be seen again. How many of the trainers/riders campaigning horses they purchased in Europe do you honestly think have bothered to "present" them here? How many do you think even bother to keep track of the papers when you consider their tendency to write "German WB" in spaces earmarked for "breed" when they don't leave them blank? Do you think any serious competitor would be likely to reject, say, the offspring of Rox Dene x Popeye K in the event that the owner/breeder decided not to register? If you do, you live in a horse world very different from mine. Like it or not, there is a huge disconnect between the US-based WB registries and the people at the top levels of horse sports in this country. IMO that gap is not going to be closed by people arguing that papers are necessary at the same time that the competitor's daily experiences at the shows demonstrate that that is not the case. If papers for show horses in this country are ever to be recognized as "necessary" they have to be made necessary by the people running the shows.

[DownYonder]

Do you think any serious competitor would be likely to reject, say, the offspring of Rox Dene x Popeye K in the event that the owner/breeder decided not to register?

How do you KNOW it is an offspring of Rox Dene x Popeye K? Because the seller says it is?

[risingstarfarm]

If papers for show horses in this country are ever to be recognized as "necessary" they have to be made necessary by the people running the shows.

You are absolutely correct.

[PineTreeFarm]

How do you KNOW it is an offspring of Rox Dene x Popeye K? Because the seller says it is?

Just because the horse doesn't have papers there is nothing to stop the buyer from having DNA testing done. For years the TB industry used blood samples.

As far as shows requiring papers? No reason they should. USEF rules for divisions that require papers (ASB, etc.) are because those divisions are restricted to a particular breed or registry. Hunter/Jumper/Eventing/Dressage are not breed restricted although from reading some of these posts you would think that should be true.LOL

[DownYonder]

OK, I have had a chance to look at the FEI rankings again.

For the top 200 jumpers, the #1 horse has a TB damsire, ditto for one of the horses tied for #92, one of the horses tied for #178, and one tied for #191.

For the top 200 dressage horses, the first one to show up with a TB damsire is #76. Then there is #107, with a TB sire. Then #136 and #146, with TB damsires. Then one tied for #149 and one tied for #165, with TB sires. Then #189, with a TB damsire, and #199, with a TB sire.

The only ones in the top 200 on the jumping and dressage lists with TB DAMS are #159 (jumping), and #106 (dressage).

And of course I realize that there are many more horses on the jumping and dressage lists that may have TB blood further back. I was researching this primarily to counter Tri's claim that there are tons of "half-TBs" out there "kicking butt" in international competition. While I do agree with her for eventing, it is pretty obvious from the rankings that this is NOT the case for dressage and jumping.

[DownYonder]

Just because the horse doesn't have papers there is nothing to stop the buyer from having DNA testing done. For years the TB industry used blood samples.

You have to either have DNA samples from sire and dam, or know their case numbers to request DNA testing. Would the seller of this "offspring" have that info, or would the prospective buyer have to chase down the owners of Rox Dene and Popeye to obtain the samples or case numbers? It would be so much simpler for seller and buyer alike if the darned horse holds registration papers from an organization that does parentage verification.

[vineyridge]

Unless I'm remembering wrong, Butterfly Flip is out of a TB mare.
http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/butterfly+flip

The real issue is all the horses who have unknown in their pedigrees or who are unknown themselves. If they are intact and win at the highest levels of their sport, should they be given a chance at reproduction using the best quality available?

I'd say "yes", without a second thought. That seems to have been the British/Irish mindset all along.

[vineyridge]

You have to either have DNA samples from sire and dam, or know their case numbers to request DNA testing. Would the seller of this "offspring" have that info, or would the prospective buyer have to chase down the owners of Rox Dene and Popeye to obtain the samples or case numbers? It would be so much simpler for seller and buyer alike if the darned horse holds registration papers from an organization that does parentage verification.

The PHR now provides DNA identification as an option. If a horse who already has DNA on file with a registry registers with the PHR, there will be cross index on the PHR records.

[DownYonder]

Unless I'm remembering wrong, Butterfly Flip is out of a TB mare.

If that is the case, then neither her dam or damsire are indicated as TB in the WBFSH rankings.

[not again]

Is this the right one?
http://www.paardenfokken.nl/pedigree.php?horseid=203490

[vineyridge]

Yup, that's her.

Wonderful jumping mare.

[fish]

How do you KNOW it is an offspring of Rox Dene x Popeye K? Because the seller says it is?

Pretty much in the same ways anyone ever knows that a given horse actually belongs with a given set of papers anyway.

E.g. There was a QH mare on my farm whose condition made her look so much younger than her papers said she was that the vet checked her teeth thinking that the papers might be fraudulent. These weren't, but plenty of them are.

As has frequently been pointed out on other threads, registry papers provide no more (or less) protection against fraud than other forms of verification. At one point or another people are either going to have to trust one another or run DNA with every transaction. Only alternative I can see is universal microchipping, tatooing or branding so verification could be accomplished with a simple scan.

[tri]

First of all, Down Yonder, I said AMERICAN BRED horses in int'l competition - what is working in AMERICA. But it is wonderful to see all the others also using Tbs dams too! :)

Also, I told you to look at the opening page of the IHF - the breeding is listed under each horses photo to gauge what is working with hunters in this country WHICH IS OUR BIGGEST MARKET.

"This is more of a "hobbyist" and not someone I would look to for buying a prospect."

That rider who owns that special mare that they have brought up through the levels of sport and then decides to breed her is probably one of the biggest segment of our market. And how do you decide that the person who has committed to years in sport, breeds that mare to keep that foal and also bring it along in sport is more of a hobbyest than the many american wb breeders who don't ride, don't compete, couldn't start a young horse to save their life, don't attend shows very often and is fairly removed from the sport world and whose only education is coming from attending a handful of wb inspections, swallowing hookline and sinker what germans say americans should be breeding? Then you wonder why the people who are actually riding and showing these horses feel alienated by the euro breeders & their registries!! The show rider's often well bred sport mare without papers is turned down by that "system" while the crappy, downhill $500 Tb mare with papers & no performance is accepted.

[jparkes]

Papers and pedigress don't make the athlete!

We have seen it for centuries with the racing industry. Bred best to the best, with $$$$ spent to get the offspring to the track and what happens, the youngster doesn't want to get out of the gate. Millions spent, horse ends up in a feed lot somewhere. But, but, but...the pedigree was there for a future Hall of Famer!

Same thing with the H/J/D/E world. Papers and pedigrees are nice, but they're not going to guarantee a top of the world athlete. If it did, then all of these wonderful crosses that everybody glowingly talk about would be dominating every sport out there, but they're not. Only a few make it to the top and I firmly believe placing the right horse with the right trainer and rider makes the athlete. Pedigree and papers may play a role, but personally, I believe it's not as significant as many of you claim it to be.

As one who has been a part of the hunterworld for 40+ years, I have watched the class sizes for the more advanced/talented horses fall to a low that should have our industry scratching it's head in wonderment. All the while, we're talking up some absolute grand stallions with the best pedigrees one could have, produce nothing going into the working and conformation hunters!

If these stallions are so grand with their impressive pedigrees, perfect conformation, and these mare owners importing their grand mares with their impressive pedigrees, then where are those impressive offspring? Showing in 2'-6" to 3' divisions?

The warmbloods have invaded this country long ago to prove to the american breeder that they are the best performers. But why are our class sizes that would prove them to be a better performer continue to drop in size?

[siegi b.]

Tri - just because you say that "wb breeders who don't ride, don't compete, couldn't start a young horse to save their life, don't attend shows very often and is fairly removed from the sport world and whose only education is coming from attending a handful of wb inspections... " doesn't mean that there's any truth to your statements. As a matter of fact, you tend to twist and turn conversations to suit your purpose and most folks on this BB are painfully aware of it.

When you don't win the argument when it comes to TBs in the Olympic competitions, you conveniently switch to the hunter market to save your face. So what market segment are you in? Are you a breeder of hunter horses? How many foals have you sold to hunter clients? How many of them are you competing in hunter competitions (since I assume you are one those rare breeders that rides, competes, attends lots of shows and is closely alligned with the hunter world)? Let's hear your qualifications for making all these high-falluting statements... :-)

[siegi b.]

jparkes - As a warmblood breeder I totally agree with you that you don't look at pedigrees and bloodlines to breed hunters.

[jparkes]

jparkes - As a warmblood breeder I totally agree with you that you don't look at pedigrees and bloodlines to breed hunters.

But many are. Many look at the pedigree of great jumper lines to produce their next hunter!

[DownYonder]

First of all, Down Yonder, I said AMERICAN BRED horses in int'l competition - what is working in AMERICA. But it is wonderful to see all the others also using Tbs dams too! :)

Also, I told you to look at the opening page of the IHF - the breeding is listed under each horses photo to gauge what is working with hunters in this country WHICH IS OUR BIGGEST MARKET.

OK, I get it now. You are talking about HUNTERS. Must be the "International" in the IHF name that makes you think it is an international discipline. Look at their website - the 2007 IHF Regionals were held in Virginia and California, with finals held in Kentucky. How international is that? Looks to me that the only thing that makes it "international" is all the foreign-bred stallions on the roster. :lol:

And btw, I have been riding for most of the past 20 years, and have attended and worked at many, many competitions during that time - including dressage, hunter, and eventing competitions. I don't start young horses - too old now - and I don't personally compete, but my HOMEBRED mare is in a competition dressage barn with a USDF gold-medal trainer, plus I stay in close touch with many other people who do compete on a regular basis. I suspect that most other WB breeders in the U.S. also have close ties to the competition world, even if they themselves don't compete. Your insinuation that WB breeders here don't have a clue about the competition world is totally absurd.

[fish]

jparkes - As a warmblood breeder I totally agree with you that you don't look at pedigrees and bloodlines to breed hunters.

Excuse me, but that's nonsense. Hunter breeders look at the bloodlines/pedigrees that produce good hunter types just as WB breeders look at whatever bloodlines are relevant to whatever it is they're trying to produce.

[not again]

Here's an American bred horse competing in dressage internationally and being very successful. It looks like there is a fair amount of thoroughbred and Holsteiner back there.
http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/brilliant+too

[PineTreeFarm]

jparkes - As a warmblood breeder I totally agree with you that you don't look at pedigrees and bloodlines to breed hunters.

A hunter buyer is probably not interested in papers as all that matters is performance. There is no award for 'best bred horse that can't jump a x rail'.

But a hunter breeder certainly knows what bloodlines have produced talented show hunters. The thing is those bloodlines may not include an approved WB stallion or mare. They are apt to contain Castle Magic, Zarr
or some other non approved horses.

I hope you weren't implying that hunter breeders don't understand what bloodlines work in that discipline.

And for those that laughed about Hunter and International being used in the same breath. Think again, next year there may be a series of classes called International Hunter Derby approved by USEF. The Hunter World Championships already have international riders.

[Iron Horse Farm]

Papers and pedigress don't make the athlete!

We have seen it for centuries with the racing industry. Bred best to the best, with $$$$ spent to get the offspring to the track and what happens, the youngster doesn't want to get out of the gate. Millions spent, horse ends up in a feed lot somewhere. But, but, but...the pedigree was there for a future Hall of Famer!


Try to get a TB without papers or a pedigree into the Kenland sales where all of that racing $$$ is!

[DownYonder]

OK, OK, OK!!! American bred horses out of TB mares are kicking butt in the GINORMOUS international discipline of HUNTERS!!

Are they kicking butt in the international discipline of dressage? How about show jumping? And actually, how many of those at the top of the international rankings for eventing are American bred?

[STF]

just because you say that "wb breeders who don't ride, don't compete, couldn't start a young horse to save their life, don't attend shows very often and is fairly removed from the sport world and whose only education is coming from attending a handful of wb inspections...

Ummmmmm, thats not true!! I know a lot of "us horrible idiot breeders" who breed, ride and even, OMG..... break our own young horses. *gasp*

[STF]

Excuse me, but that's nonsense. Hunter breeders look at the bloodlines/pedigrees that produce good hunter types just as WB breeders look at whatever bloodlines are relevant to whatever it is they're trying to produce.


I agree to this too. Lately I have had a lot of sales calls and more and more people are becoming bloodline smart. It will take more time, but they will educate themself more.

I will take a "chance" on bloodlines anyday on a young horse in comparison to a unknown pedigree.

[STF]

If that is the case, then neither her dam or damsire are indicated as TB in the WBFSH rankings.

Her sire was actually imported to Sweden yrs ago and died there (if I remember right).
He is not "unknown".

[STF]

It seems to me the discussion has went to anti TB........ which I know many are not here. There are super TB's. There are super WB's and there are horrible types of both breeds as well.
Its about a horse with correct movement, good conformation and overall correctness. Papers do control us as breeders due to registry rules, but we NEED those rules for quality control. That is why we have preformance testing, etc, etc or everybody and anybody would stand a stallion and it would not benifit the breeding world as it should. Unfort. there are a lot of "rose colored" glasses in this industry. I have a pair myself and I rely on my friends/registry/judges to slap me out of it and give me honest opinions.

Take a look at the 2007 stallions at Flyinge this year. Several TB's. Its not anti TB, its anti incorrect, bad moving horse that wont/cant/reduce the chances of improving the breed if they reproduce.

SWB stallion link -
http://www.asvh.se/hingstar/bp_hingstar.htm

[fish]

I agree to this too. Lately I have had a lot of sales calls and more and more people are becoming bloodline smart. It will take more time, but they will educate themself more.

I will take a "chance" on bloodlines anyday on a young horse in comparison to a unknown pedigree.

Excuse me, but that strikes me as one of quite a string of "uneducated" remarks about hunter breeders. Many of them go back a long way, and were "bloodline smart" long before the WB registries even had their little franchises in this country. Some of them even exercise a very high level of "quality control" without registries setting rules telling them what horses they should breed and which ones they shouldn't (often, ironically enough, weeding out substandard specimens which have been registry approved). Thank goodness, the Euro-registries have never had a monopoly on the practice of selective breeding, and I hope they never will.

[fish]

Try to get a TB without papers or a pedigree into the Kenland sales where all of that racing $$$ is!

And don't you think the fact that horses are not allowed to race without registration papers matching the numbers tatooed under their lips just might have something to do with that????
If unregistered horses were allowed to compete for "all that racing $$," I doubt they'd be barred from racehorse sales either.

[siegi b.]

You guys are too funny....

On one hand you're saying that papers and pedigree information is useless, and then when somebody agrees with you that that is true with the hunters you get all bent out of shape. You really have to make up your minds on what you want to stand behind..... :-)

I have always said that pedigree and bloodline information is what makes breeding less of a crap shoot in the warmblood business where that kind of information is readily available. It doesn't matter whether you like warmbloods or not - that's just the way it is.

When it comes to hunters, I know that some folks stand warmblood stallions (Popeye K, Zarr, etc.) and that pedigree information should make a difference, but I run into all this opposition that says "a good horse is a good horse regardless of papers" that I've given up trying to convince them. You have to make up your mind on what you want to be... somebody that thinks they know what horses to breed to get hunters regardless of pedigree, or somebody that studies bloodlines, performance records, foal evaluations, etc. and then breeds their registered mare to an approved stallion to perpetuate the bloodline. Notice that there is no value judgement on my part - I'm merely stating the different methods of operation.

Ok tri, have your field day mangling the above to suit your purpose. :-)

[fish]

You guys are too funny....

On one hand you're saying that papers and pedigree information is useless, and then when somebody agrees with you that that is true with the hunters you get all bent out of shape. You really have to make up your minds on what you want to stand behind..... :-)

I have always said that pedigree and bloodline information is what makes breeding less of a crap shoot in the warmblood business where that kind of information is readily available. It doesn't matter whether you like warmbloods or not - that's just the way it is.

When it comes to hunters, I know that some folks stand warmblood stallions (Popeye K, Zarr, etc.) and that pedigree information should make a difference, but I run into all this opposition that says "a good horse is a good horse regardless of papers" that I've given up trying to convince them. . :-)

Seigi-- FYI "papers" and "pedigree information" are not synonymous. Pedigree/bloodline information is always valuable to breeders and the WB registries are far from being the only sources of such information. Not only is a good horse a good horse regardless of papers, but the same horse can have great bloodlines regardless of papers, and if they take the trouble to do so, breeders can and do learn about those bloodlines, too. "When it comes to hunters," not only do some folks stand WB stallions whose pedigree info. "make[s] a difference," but some also stand or use TB's, QH's, Anglo-Arabs -- a vast assortment of the right type of individuals from any number of breeds or combinations of breeds-- whose pedigree info. is also made note of because they, too, "make a difference" in the desired directions. (Kind of like the people who invented the modern WB's in that way, come to think of it!) From our point of view, it's often the WB breeders whose knowledge and appreciation of bloodlines is lacking because it's far too narrow and limited-- e.g. by rules that would exclude even exceptionally good performers from the gene pool for lack of the "right" kind of papers-- even when those "good horses" have excellent pedigrees to boot!!

As I said, papers and bloodlines are not the same thing. Seems to me that the what the registry rules do in cases like the OP's is make clear their preference for papers over either bloodlines or performance.

I did notice, BTW, another interesting and IMO relevant thread on this forum: it's about enforcement of the registry rules in Europe. Apparently those rules are actually just as complicated, confusing and controversial there as they are here, with numerous lawsuits having been filed over them.

[jparkes]

Excuse me, but that strikes me as one of quite a string of "uneducated" remarks about hunter breeders. Many of them go back a long way, and were "bloodline smart" long before the WB registries even had their little franchises in this country. Some of them even exercise a very high level of "quality control" without registries setting rules telling them what horses they should breed and which ones they shouldn't (often, ironically enough, weeding out substandard specimens which have been registry approved). Thank goodness, the Euro-registries have never had a monopoly on the practice of selective breeding, and I hope they never will.

I've had that sense of feeling too. If you don't particiapate in the WB registries, or stand a stallion that hasn't been proven through the 100 day test, then you're considered an uneducated hunter breeder.

The hunter world did very fine long before inspections, approvals and all the other BS that the warmblood registries and breeders toot their horn over. We had unregistered horses who could do the outside courses over uneven terrain, and jump the big solid fences. Then we were sold on the warmblood with it's great pedigree attached with proven performers as jumpers. What happened to the sport? Smaller and perfectally manicured rings, and the classes that seperated the talent from everything else all but disappeared!

Is there something wrong with this picture?

[sid]

My answer to the OP's question (not reading every reply)...BOTH are important. And it's a balancing act.

As they say "beauty is as beauty does". Pedigree (genetics) are supremely important ONLY if performance ability exhibits itself. Performance (ability) is supremely important ONLY if it appears dominantly genetically, that is is "passed on" in a consistent manner in offspring.

This is why it's so important to weigh one against the other an not become "pedigree bound", nor jump for the semen of the latest performance stallion.

Like really great wine...assessing genetic prepotency as it relates to performance over time with many offspring takes time. One seldom finds this out with one generation later...usually 2 or more.

[Touchstone Farm]

(1) It's not at all uncommon. Everyone I've ever known with a good show mare has visions of breeding so the mare's gifts do not die with her. A "good show mare" is also, by definition, not one "you alone" think is good, but one many judges have "approved" in the course of building her show record. To me, that's a great deal more solid than one (or even 2 or 3) evaluations at official registry "Approvals."
(2) Whether or not a mare owner like this would qualify as a "breeder" in your book, I ask you take note of the fact that s/he's a person who's not only proven the mare, but simultaneously proven to be an owner capable of producing a real show horse. IMO, that makes her/him exactly the sort of person people who actually show like to buy from-- they might even know one another already, and their mutual show experience is bound to provide basis for understanding and respect all too often lacking between "breeder" specialists and their purported markets.
(3) Stams/mare lines have to start somewhere, and it seems to me that a mare who's proven herself in the show ring is a darned good place to start-- especially if she comes from a breed (e.g. TB, Arab, Standardbred, QH, whatever) whose talents for jumping or dressage have never really been tested or tracked. After all, Galoubet, was out of a trotter mare who jumped the moon in phenomenal form. Her bloodlines were a primary reason he was denied approval prior to his brilliant international career, but look at the line his breeder established by crossing this brilliant jumper mare from the "wrong" breed with Alme! Seems to me that cases like this should have made the registries a bit more open to performance mares who've not had the opportunity to prove that their "damlines" could be precious for sport. After all, did anyone pay much attention to the fact that the OTTB mother of Touch of Class was also a jumping fool until after TOC won the Olympics?
(4) I've read that most breeders in Europe are "hobbyists," who only have a couple mares along with the pigs, etc., on their farms anyway.
(5) There also happen to be quite a few successful breeders of show horses (Warioto and Cloud's Harbor immediately come to mind) who operate outside the registry systems, using their own methods of selection to produce beautiful show horses who sell very well. I can't imagine any of them essentially "culling" a performance proven mare without even giving her a chance to show what she could produce.

For reasons like the above, it does seem from this thread that papers, not horses, constitute the registries' true priority.

I well remember a USDF clinic with Hilda Gurney several years ago which included her evaluation of 3 mares as potential breeding stock: a branded WB who happened to be quite coarse and ill-conformed, an unregistered Anglo-Arab, and a JC TB. Hilda declared the last 2 "elegant," and mares of the sort she herself would like to see bred while she would not breed the first no matter how kind and loved she might be. No mention was made of breeds, brands or approvals. Of those 3 mares, the WB was the only one in foal-- after all, she'd been "approved" for breeding so the foal would have the "right" papers. Hopefully whatever "damlines" helped get her branded were enough to protect her foal from looking too much like his/her mother.

Okay, fish, show me the numbers then. If you say the "hobbyist" who has a beloved mare that she breeds is the norm, then show me the numbers of horses produced by the hobbyist compared to the Hilltop Farms, the Iron Spring Farms, DGBar Ranch, the German breeding base, etc. etc. and let's see where the numbers are actually for the majority of those people who are buying prospects for regional, national and international competition. I'd like to see how many serious dressage and jumper riders are going to Ms. Female-Show-Rider-Who-Breeds-her-one-Mare" as the primary source of top horses, because I for one, don't believe it for a second. How many of the 8,000 Hanoverian foals born every year in Germany are bred by the Ms. Female-Show-Rider-with-one-beloved-mare? Or in the U.S., how many top riders are buying their prospects from Ms. Female-Show-Rider-Who-Breeds-Her-One-Beloved-Mare? I'll bet it is NOT the norm.

I would put myself on the border between hobbyist and breeder. I've been breeding for about 10 years. I performance test ALL my mares (fortunately all have made the qualifications for "elite" in the Hanoverian Society via the performance test) and all have had their first baby at 4 years or five. One has gone on to another owner to perform at GP. I back them and show them myself. (I have a full-time job in a completely unrelated field to horses.) I only breed mares that have papers and have found they sell for more than those without (when I compare what other people are doing since I don't follow that course). I have people asking me what their bloodlines are when they come to look at a sale horse. I would not think of breeding an unpapered mare because for the same amount of investment in time, stud fees, vet fees, I can get more from the sale than unpapered. And...with breeding being such a roll of the dice even when you breed the "best" to the "best", I'd rather start with the cards in MY favor...not some unknowns in the background that could unexpectedly crop up. I'm not really a gambler!

So whatever...to each his own, but I've found that breeding papered mares that have been performance tested to stallions that have been through a 100-day test and pass my conformation and movement standards works for me and gives me a better chance of having a horse that I like to ride OR will be easy to sell. (Which is important because it's what helps fund my riding hobby.) What I don't get is why people complain if they say papers aren't important to them and my registry of choice doesn't allow their mare in. If they don't care about papers, then don't worry about the registry that won't let it in. OR...in this free enterprise system -- start your own registry! That's the ticket!! Call it: Paperless Horsebloods Association -- and then just take people's fees and don't send them registration papers...since they aren't important anyway. :-)

[PineTreeFarm]

I only breed mares that have papers and have found they sell for more than those without (when I compare what other people are doing since I don't follow that course). I would not think of breeding an unpapered mare because for the same amount of investment in time, stud fees, vet fees, I can get more from the sale than unpapered. And...with breeding being such a roll of the dice even when you breed the "best" to the "best", I'd rather start with the cards in MY favor...not some unknowns in the background that could unexpectedly crop up. I'm not really a gambler!

So whatever...to each his own, but I've found that breeding papered mares that have been performance tested to stallions that have been through a 100-day test and pass my conformation and movement standards works for me and gives me a better chance of having a horse that I like to ride OR will be easy to sell. (Which is important because it's what helps fund my riding hobby.)

You are making quite an assumption when you mention 'unknowns'. Can you not understand that people are breeding horses for the IHF and IJF based on careful consideration of bloodlines. Those bloodlines in some cases just don't happen to be from WB approved stallions. Take a look at the Young Jumper website's database. Look at the Hidden Creek horses, the Tatra Farm horses and the Chapot horses. All leaders but not all in a WB registry. Look at the mares they used. Saying that breeding the 'best to the best' means only horses with WB papers is just absurd.

Try telling a hunter performance horse buyer that you are adding on x$
because the horse has papers ( especially if it's a gelding LOL)

[Hocus Focus]

"Try telling a hunter performance horse buyer that you are adding on x$ because the horse has papers ( especially if it's a gelding LOL"

Very honestly put, but for your own value as a breeder, it probably would not hurt to add that level of professionalism that papers do provide which in truth should not change the actual horse value, it just merits you as a provider and as a supporter of the system as we know it. This in turn should influence selective buyer's decisions, if not today over time with a bigger picture in mind.

[Hocus Focus]

Just because a mare has the ability to perform at high levels does not mean that she can pass that ability on reliably. The same holds true for stallions which is why I will not breed to one that didn't pass the approvals and performance test but got his license through the sport. There are reasons why stallions don't pass their initial approval....

As a long-time breeder I continue to be amazed by folks that absolutely have to breed their mare without doing the research regarding registration possibilities first. Then, when it looks like they will be out of luck and the deed is already done, the complaining about the registries and the "paper vs performance" argument begins.

Fact of the matter is that a foal with papers brings more money than one without, and you don't even want to try to sell a mare without papers and expect to get decent money for her.

One could also argue that just because a mare or stallion has top bloodlines does not mean for certain they as individuals will be able to withstand the test to perform at the highest levels. A small percentage actually do. Plenty of average offspring are born of the most illustrious parents, regardless of how you choose to see that acknowledged.

I will therefore beg to differ and rate higher the merit of the stallion who has fully proven himself in sport than one approved on potential alone. In a short term window, how can you see the true qualities of greatness... carefulness being only one of those traits... Performance is by far the greater test as it provides a far deeper insight to the true capabilities of the individual in the competition arena, for which they are bred.

As you point out, there may well be reasons why stallions do not pass their original approval, but there are far greater hurdles to cross to reach approval through performance. Is this not what they are being bred for?

I believe performance is the final word and all is measured by the standards set there.

[tri]

DownYonder & Siegi, you both are just too funny. I never said hunters was "international" sport. Either you both are just kidding or you both can't read for comprehension. I was speaking about the American markets - both the American bred horses who have made it to int'l competition (mostly of a TB parent) and then the largest segment of the American market which is hunters of which the top horses often times have a TB parent.

"Can you not understand that people are breeding horses for the IHF and IJF based on careful consideration of bloodlines."

No, they can't understand it any more than they can understand what I posted about hunters!!!

"Seigi-- FYI "papers" and "pedigree information" are not synonymous."

They aren't going to understand that either!!!!

And, no I don't think warmblood breeders are "idiots" as a whole. I do think that many of them don't really know much about the actual sport they are supposed to be breeding for however. Then they want to throw stones at people who have been in sport for many years, brought horses up through the levels and criticize them as the ones who aren't "educated".

[fish]

Touchstone Farm, you know as well as I do that the numbers you request don't exist because no one is reliably tracking where show horses are coming from, let alone whether their breeders are big farms or hobbyists. Even in Europe, where their horse show organizations do a much better job of tracking performance horses than we do here, I doubt anyone has counted how many great horses are coming from massive operations like Schockmoele's (sp?) vs. the numerous "hobby" breeders scattered all over the countryside and providing countless WB's for the market.

Meanwhile, it seems that apart from the issue of registry/papers, we are quite similar-- and also not very different from the OP either-- except, again, for the issue of WB registries/papers. All 3 of us are small, trying to breed mares of the sort we like to ride which will also sell well. I've apparently done a good enough job that whenever I go to a show, someone will ask me what I am willing to part with, when, and what kind of money I'm going to be looking for. Like you, I have found that many of these people care about bloodlines. Providing that info. is no problem for me, with or without papers. These people know me and know my mare because they saw us, heard of us-- or even worked with us-- when we were at the shows 10+ years ago, and/or they've seen or heard of the offspring I've brought to the shows since. They also know the stallions to which I breed because they and/or their relations (parents and/or offspring), have also been successful competitors. If they wish, I am happy to show them video of my horses' families, too. None of these people-- not one-- has asked about papers, and most of them think registry approvals and rules are just plain nuts.

As many of us have already tried to explain, "registry papers" and "bloodline/pedigree information" are not the same thing. Blood/genes/bloodlines are in a horse. Papers aren't.

[Fairview Horse Center]

A breeder is looking to minimize the risk of breeding. Yes, you can get lucky breeding World Champion to World Champion, but they may be horses that are not true to their genes. Pedigree is VERY important to minimize the risk, and improve the odds that the foal will be what it was intended to be. To me, some type of paperwork is important to prove who that horse is. I also think that supporting a registry that will do the kind of things for Sporthorse breeders that the AQHA has done to promote Quarter Horses is important. Unfortunately, that does not exist.

[Ravencrest_Camp]

But if unregistered mares come along and who beat the produce of all this "valueable [sic]... blood" in actual competition, don't they deserve the opportunity to prove they can produce babies able to do the same and thereby prove the value of their "blood," too?

Thoroughbred breeders have a saying, that is something along the lines of this

"A horse can out run it's pedigree, but will have a hard time out producing it."

[Iron Horse Farm]

OR...in this free enterprise system -- start your own registry! That's the ticket!! Call it: Paperless Horsebloods Association -- and then just take people's fees and don't send them registration papers...since they aren't important anyway. :-)

ROFLMAO!!!!!

[siegi b.]

Ravencrest - that saying needs to be tacked on some people's foreheads.. :-)

"A horse can out run it's pedigree, but will have a hard time out producing it."

I love it!!

[Iron Horse Farm]

Ravencrest - that saying needs to be tacked on some people's foreheads.. :-)

"A horse can out run it's pedigree, but will have a hard time out producing it."

I love it!!

I'm putting this on my desk!

[fish]

A breeder is looking to minimize the risk of breeding. Yes, you can get lucky breeding World Champion to World Champion, but they may be horses that are not true to their genes. Pedigree is VERY important to minimize the risk, and improve the odds that the foal will be what it was intended to be. To me, some type of paperwork is important to prove who that horse is. I also think that supporting a registry that will do the kind of things for Sporthorse breeders that the AQHA has done to promote Quarter Horses is important. Unfortunately, that does not exist.

True-- it doesn't exist-- and it won't until we have something akin to what the JC and AQHA have: complete integration/cooperation between the people tracking the pedigrees and those i.d.ing and tracking the animals who show. Until that is accomplished, the WB registries are only one of many sources of bloodline information-- and not even the most reliable or relevant to the markets for which many of us breed. E.g. I happen to know that there have been and still are Q.H.'s and Trotters/Standardbreds out there who jump brilliantly. Some of them (e.g. Galway Bay, Sevens and Nines, Galoubet's mom) have competed very successfully at the GP level. Thanks to Galoubet's independent-minded owners, the value of his mother's genes to sport horse breeding has been recognized and preserved. It makes no sense to me to follow the rules of any registry which denies comparably talented individuals and proven producers (of even one great horse) from doing the same. If someone breds 2 paperless OTTB's and gets a marvelous performer, I want that person encouraged, not discouraged from repeating the breeding. After all, without such experimentation, one can never know whether the success was a fluke or the discovery of a genetic gold mine.

As for TB's, there isn't a saying out there regarding papers that holds true often enough for breeders to deny super performers a chance at stud regardless of their breeding just as spectacularly bred individuals will usually be given a chance to produce well despite a lack of performance on the track. In either case, there is no way that either performance without pedigree or pedigree without performance will command the same respect as the total package. One thing for sure, the best bloodlines in the world will not continue to be used without continuing proof through performance. It is after all performance which defines the worth of bloodlines, not the other way around.

[vineyridge]

Well said, Fish.

Please, everybody, no matter what registry or even if your horse is unpapered, register with the PHR. It may be more money, but it's the only hope we have of getting the kind of performance information we need on ALL performance horses.

Can't breeders put in the sales contract that their horses will retain the PHR number for all shows, regardless of name? Surely being eligible for elite awards would be an incentive for buyers of quality horses. Why would they spend the extra bucks for a good horse unless they were also interested in year end awards?

[tuckawayfarm]

I am really dismayed by the snarkiness this thread seems to have brought out.

As a newbie to breeding (only six years of experience), I have found this board to be a great source of information and insight. I don't understand how anyone who admits to very little knowledge about hunters or the hunter market, has no qualms about insulting those who successfully breed and market for that niche. Like it or not hunters are popular in the US and a viable market for sporthorse breeders. Hunter riders are going to Europe to buy prospects that were actually bred for dressage and jumping. Why aren't the US dressage breeders looking at these buyers for their offspring that turn out more suited for the hunter ring? Why not learn what is important to these buyers?

The hunter buyers I know are interested in pedigree. Papers would be preferred, but do not carry the same weight as in dressage IME. These buyers tend to buy older prospects, so they have much less risk in knowing what the finished product will be than someone who is purchasing a weanling. Very few are interested in breeding, so papers often are stuck in a drawer or misplaced.

Feel free to educate me as an example.

As I posted early in this thread, I have six mares. Five are registered and approved KWPN-NA or AHS. They are nice mares and although one is a maiden the others have produced nice foals. The sixth was originally purchased as a showjumper and I had no plans for breeding her and did not mind that she came without papers. Her USEF certificate calls her a Hanoverian cross. I love this mare and after she retired from showing decided to see if I could get a foal from her to replace her. She had a lovely colt, so I rebred her. She has had four nice foals and is now in foal with her fifth. The four on the ground are as nice or nicer than their dam. The sale of the only one I have been willing to part with so far has funded much of my breeding program. Why would it be in my interest to not rebreed this mare?

I want to learn, but try to keep the insults and name calling to a minimum!

TIA

[siegi b.]

Tuckawayfarm - you learn to ignore those that don't contribute and just frequent the board to stir the proverbial pot. :-)

I understand your situation and certainly don't blame you for continuing to breed a mare whose foal has brought you financial gain. I think I can speak for all breeders when I say that making money is certainly one of our goals! Most breeders will also agree with your statement that the hunter market in the US is a lucrative one and you will find quite a few of us have successfully sold our horses to that market.

In my opinion there is a difference between strictly breeding for your marketplace versus trying to improve your breeding program with an eye towards the future. When you address your marketplace then you try to conform to the requirements issued by such, and that includes things like lack of need for papers, conformation and gaits suitable to said market, etc. etc. In other words, you try to have what your clients want.

When you breed to improve you need a good way to track your efforts, something a lot of the registries will provide for you. It's also a good idea to have unbiased judges evaluate your efforts from foal to mature horse in order to give you the feedback you need to continue with your breeding. The goal is to initially improve your broodmare band to a point where every mare you have will reliably produce offspring that excell in their sport. There are many ways of getting to that point but it always goes back to record keeping - tracking of bloodlines and what they produce.

And just because you're a breeder that tries to improve your program does not mean that you can't also engage in pursuing a particular market segment that may or may not place much importance on your need to keep records. One really doesn't have anything to do with the other....

As you can imagine there are many more iterations on the subject, but I didn't want to go into all that for the sake of keeping this under three pages. :-)

Hope this helps you understand my take on this subject.

[tri]

"track your efforts, something a lot of the registries will provide for you. "

How? To clarify further. How, in the U.S.?

[tuckawayfarm]

Siegi,

I agree with you about the importance of keeping track of pedigree and I have a great deal of respect for the registries I've dealt with. They have always been helpful and informative. I am always looking to improve my foals and especially my mare herd. I think it's worth every effort to get papers on my breeding stock if possible. That is why I took the time and expense of getting my maiden approved ( even though she is one of those dreaded OTTBs :winkgrin: )

What I wanted to say to the OP was that although I think papers are very important, IMHO there are mares who are worth taking a gamble on inspite of lacking them. And IMHO, should a well conformed, athletic mare consistently out produce herself, it does not indicate a lack of responsibility or intelligence to continue to breed her.

I breed more for jumpers rather than hunters, but I am very happy that market exists for my foals who are more suited to that ring. I knew it was an American sport, but I was surprised by the derogatory comments expressed by breeders to a potentially lucrative market.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. That's why I enjoy reading this BB. :)

[Donella]

Ok, there is some logic missing here. Some of you say "so and so do not care about papers, they just care about having a horse that is suited to the job". Ok, and I think that is the case in all disciplines. It really doesn't matter how good the papers are IF (and only if) the ability is NOT there. BUT, and this is the real catch here that alot of you are missing : the quality doesn't appear out of nowhere. You need to first breed that horse that has the ability before the trainer can ever say "well, he has the ability , who cares about his papers".
So how do you go about doing that? By giving no regard to bloodlines or outside evaluations? By just breeding two horses together that you personally happen to like and hoping for the best? The chances of breeding something with the ability are GREATLY increased when bloodlines are heavily considered and you start with two well bred, well suited individuals. In short, the bloodlines are valueable not just so we can say "oh his dad is so and so" but because they are good predictors of the phenotype that will be passed to the foal..in fact, they are the best predictors and they greatly increase our chances of producing quality ie of producing a horse that will inspire the trainer to say " he's awesome, I dont care how he is bred".

I am not sure I am explaining this well, but to use an analogy. You are a chef in a gourmet resteraunt. You are making chocolate cake. You have never tried to make this chocolate cake before. You have two choices for the chocolate..you can use the Godiva chocolate, or the walmart special that is not , by most peoples standards, the best chocolate that will give a gourmet flavor. You know the customer really doesnt care what you use, as long as it tastes awesome. Which would you chose, even if you know that the customer will not know wether it is Godiva chocolate or walmart "filler" chocolate? You would use Godiva because you know it is the best quality chocolate and it would highly increase the odds of giving the cake a true gourmet chocolate flavor. In the end, if the customer thinks the filler one tastes better and totally hits the spot, then you are in luck. But the REALITY is, that most people who like chocolate will like the Godiva one better, because it tastes more authentic. So as a chef, you are increasing your odds of customer satistfaction by using the Godiva, even if, on the odd occassion, someone will like the walmart filler cake. Same with breeding. That could be a really dumb example too lol. I am not the best at explaining.

As for the tb blood. Again, they aren't dominating the international arena, and when they are I will bet my life that the vast majority of them are in the feilds of eventing. If they are found in the dressage and jumping pedigrees, I will guarentee again the vast majority of them are approved by one of the top euro registries, which automatically makes them a rarity within the breed. And again, I love THOSE kind of tb's in wb breeding programs. Never once disputed the use of tb blood in that way. It is the tb that isnt good enough to meet the standards of the world leading wb registries that I don't think really have a place in the competative dressage/jumper breeding program.

[Fairview Horse Center]

You have two choices for the chocolate..you can use the Godiva chocolate, or the walmart special that is not

There is another choice. ;) I would make the cake using quality ingredients to make chocolate myself. :D If you are a Chef, you shouldn't need to use someone else's chocolate. You should be trained to develop your own recipe before becoming a Chef. To make MY chocolate, I use cocoa, powdered sugar, butter, vanilla, & cream.

[fish]

There is another choice. ;) I would make the cake using quality ingredients to make chocolate myself. :D If you are a Chef, you shouldn't need to use someone else's chocolate. You should be trained to develop your own recipe before becoming a Chef. To make MY chocolate, I use cocoa, powdered sugar, butter, vanilla, & cream.

Yep-- I agree-- although I prefer organic cane sugar and a little honey. My guess is that neither of us thinks that we should have to run our ingredients over to the Godiva factory for inspection either :)

As for: this is the real catch here that alot of you are missing : the quality doesn't appear out of nowhere. You need to first breed that horse that has the ability before the trainer can ever say "well, he has the ability , who cares about his papers".
So how do you go about doing that? By giving no regard to bloodlines or outside evaluations?

What you seem to be missing is (a) that quality can appear out of a lot of places, and you'll miss a great deal of it if you only allow yourself to look in a few, and (b) that knowledge of bloodlines and outside evaluations can be had from many excellent sources aside from the WB registries.

Take, for example, the wonder pony, Teddy. He's a "grade" crossbred. He's also an internationally successful competitor produced from an extremely careful breeding program run by a woman (our own pwynnorman) whose knowledge of bloodlines is pretty darned extensive and evaluations of her own animals quite the opposite of rosey-colored barn-blind. One sure way to get Wynn's dander up is to congratulate her with her "luck" in producing Teddy-- what you'll hear is that he's "no fluke" and she's out to prove that her program is producing a bunch of sportponies who are every bit as good. I can't understand why the WB registries aren't as happy as I am to sit back and hope that she can do just that. Why do they seem so he11 bent on convincing people that they're the only act in town/only source of good recipes for chocolate?

[SueL]

Siegi,

I agree with you about the importance of keeping track of pedigree and I have a great deal of respect for the registries I've dealt with. They have always been helpful and informative. I am always looking to improve my foals and especially my mare herd. I think it's worth every effort to get papers on my breeding stock if possible. That is why I took the time and expense of getting my maiden approved ( even though she is one of those dreaded OTTBs :winkgrin: )

What I wanted to say to the OP was that although I think papers are very important, IMHO there are mares who are worth taking a gamble on inspite of lacking them. And IMHO, should a well conformed, athletic mare consistently out produce herself, it does not indicate a lack of responsibility or intelligence to continue to breed her.

Absolutely. I would not exclude an exceptional performer from a breeding program for a lack of papers. Fish's analogy of Galoubet is dead on. That horse with the unfashinable French Trotter dam has become a dominant sire - and dam sire too.

What I would do is move heaven and earth to try to document her bloodlines as much as possible. Maybe it's impossible - our record-keeping in this country stinks - but I would try.


I breed more for jumpers rather than hunters, but I am very happy that market exists for my foals who are more suited to that ring. I knew it was an American sport, but I was surprised by the derogatory comments expressed by breeders to a potentially lucrative market.

The difference between breeding jumpers and dressage horses (and I am gonna get flambed for this, have asbestos suit ready) is that show jumping is an entirely objective sport. Dressage, uh not so. It is subjective. And subject to "fashion." MHO, it is easier to breed for and develop horses for an objective discipline. It is amusing that the "dressagistas" on this board are bashing hunters. The disciplines are more similar than they are not.

And one further note - jumping is highly heritable. That is one reason it is okay to take a chance on a good jumper performing mare.

Bottom line is - I think your breeding directives are dead on. You are evaluating your young 'uns in a strictly objective discipline. Now the question is, how to you start your babies? Because the best-bred, most athletic baby in the world ain't getting nowhere without a good start riding.

Su

[eurofoal]

Well, I'd have thought so...but not, apparently till I also obtain her JC papers. And that is a very pricey prospect!

What registries will consider her without them? Luckily enough, she's very, very attractive as well...looks very much like "Teddy" (http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/teddy), in fact.

Keeping in mind that her pedigree CAN be proven--I have every last scrap of paper and photos originally filed w/JC, right up until the last bit was supposed to be sent in...the breeder just never followed up on it (note, I think this was due to some family circumstances that distracted her at the time; she didn't realize the significance of not doing so...I'm not faulting her, at this point, it's just the way things are).

Interestingly enough, the JC itself does not require the stallion owner to send in original papers, just write down the mare's number on the breeding certificate.

What paperwork exactly do you have? The foal print-out that needed to be sent in with the check for actual papers? Just a breeding certificate that says her daddy was up close and personal with her mommy? It's been a while, but, there was a limit of time for registration, if I remember correctly. 3 yrs, maybe? Have you called the JC?

In answer to the orginal topic, though, registries are just that... they want to REGISTER horses. So, yes, performance is important, but you can't register a pug with the grayhound association, no matter how perfect the pug might be. Most wb breed registries offer choices, or "books", as has been explained above, so you do still have options. Quite frankly, if she has a colt and you geld it, the "book" won't matter much anyway.

[Donella]

What you seem to be missing is (a) that quality can appear out of a lot of places, and you'll miss a great deal of it if you only allow yourself to look in a few, and (b) that knowledge of bloodlines and outside evaluations can be had from many excellent sources aside from the WB registries

Oh no, I am not missing this. I am well aware of this fact. But it isn't the NORM. Ie I have a draft cross mare ..belgian QH. She is built uphill, she has a lovely topline, fantastic hip, moves really nice, wonderful temperment. Would I breed her? No. Why? Because I fully understand that she is not the norm. Her "type" has not been bred true for any amount of time and there is a VERY high likelyhood she will throwback to the true type of either her belgian mom or her qh dad, neither of which I would want in my WB program. Again, this is pedigree. I personally wouldn't risk the chance of a throwback.

This is what is refered to as a "genetic fluke". It is not the norm. You do not want to breed genetic flukes. Ie, in the Dutch friesian selection process for stallions, they take this notion to the extreme. A stallion candidate must have a "full paper", that is three generations in a row of "Ster" or "model" mares. If a stallion candidate is out of a main studbook mare, then he is a "genetic fluke" and they don't want to risk the throwback to the rather plain and average dam. This phenomenon is magnified a thousand times when we are dealing with horses that don't even have the same breed of parents, or parents that we have no idea about!

The chance of a genetic fluke occuring is very rare. Do you want to base your breeding program around a rare breeding occurance...or do you want to breed generations of type? Breeding for me is all about maximizing possibilities. To start with a fluke is giving me a very, very low chance of producing what I want. Yes, like anything, it can happen. But again, it's all about the probabilities. Why would you look at the WFSHB results in say, dressage and then think : "ohhh, I see that 97 percent of the horses are by so and so a line and out of so and so bred mares and I also see that one horse in there was out of an unknown or unapproved mare, therefor I will base my program on unknowns or unapproved mares"??

b) that knowledge of bloodlines and outside evaluations can be had from many excellent sources aside from the WB registries

But if you are breeding for that market, that is the first place you should look for an objective opinion . If you don't find value in the breeding goal of the breed you are breeding, then why are you even breeding that breed? (lol that sounds funny ) . Because most people who are buying your breed WILL care about the breeding goal ie opinion of the Verband that they are interested in. Most.

[fish]

[B]But if you are breeding for that market, that is the first place you should look for an objective opinion . If you don't find value in the breeding goal of the breed you are breeding, then why are you even breeding that breed? (lol that sounds funny ) . Because most people who are buying your breed WILL care about the breeding goal ie opinion of the Verband that they are interested in. Most.

And so I do-- starting with the fact that I (like the original European WB breeders) am not trying to breed a "breed" at all, but performance horses-- which is also what my market wants to buy, which is also why neither of us gives a hoot about WB inspections or papers, while we do care about bloodlines which have demonstrated performance. I am not, IOW, breeding for a WB market, but rather for the sporthorse/performance horse market, and while many members of the registries seem to have a hard time recognizing the fact, there is a huge difference between them.

Keep in mind, too, that risks that you, "personally," might find unacceptable might be perfectly acceptable to others. I'm very glad that we live in a place that allows us to make those decisions for ourselves and hope that never changes.

[tuckawayfarm]

Now the question is, how do you start your babies? Because the best-bred, most athletic baby in the world ain't getting nowhere without a good start riding.

I think this is the biggest hurdle we face when it comes to producing top quality performers. I believe our best foals are right up there with the young stock we are importing from Europe. With the availability of frozen semen and so many imported mares, why would we not have the same quality of offspring?

This topic really deserves it's own thread!

In my circumstance, I'm breeding in partnership with my daughter who is a young professional. I honestly don't know how the rest of you manage to send your babies off for training. Control freak that I am, I can barely let mine go to someone I know and trust completely! I'm hoping the IJF and young jumper championships will provide an appropriate venue for us. The oldest homebred I have right now is only three, so we shall see.....

[Sakura Hill Farm]

You have a PM.

[~Freedom~]

Tell me what BNT in the hunter world would pass up an Alla Czar or Rio Grande or Voltaire or Popeye K offspring in favor of one from a no name sire, given that everything else about the two prospects is equal?

I read on another forum that one trainer/breeder that is well known on this site would not breed to Rio Grande. Didn't like his conformation at all.

[CBoylen]

Or in the U.S., how many top riders are buying their prospects from Ms. Female-Show-Rider-Who-Breeds-Her-One-Beloved-Mare? I'll bet it is NOT the norm.

Actually, I think quite a few. The H/J barns that I'm familiar with shop mainly for already going animals, and many of them shop primarily in Europe. However, when they're buying young prospects, the ones they tend to see and buy in the U.S. and/or Canada are the ones that have been raised by h/j clients and colleagues, people much more involved in the show industry than in the breeding industry.
You can say it's because of the connections, but it's also because that sort of "hobby" breeder knows exactly what the industry is looking for, and the buyer is often familiar with the dam or siblings from seeing them at shows. The resulting offspring also tend to go directly into programs with people actively competing, and that furthers their chances of being seen and sold, as well as of developing into top horses.

[M. O'Connor]

C. Boylen, your point must be irrefutable...things have gotten very quiet here since you made it!;)

Because most people who are buying your breed WILL care about the breeding goal ie opinion of the Verband that they are interested in. Most.

Thing is that performance-oriented buyers (which I have to think are more numerous than strictly "breed" buyers) don't typically limit their selection by only shopping one breed...

So doesn't the breed lose out when papers trump even extensive performance achievements (which is what the performance buyers want) to the point that proven performers (whose KNOWN pedigree can't be accepted due to a technicality, such as incomplete registration or in the case of a TB/WB grade horse) can't even be considered for inclusion?

[Donella]

So doesn't the breed lose out when papers trump even extensive performance achievements (which is what the performance buyers want) to the point that proven performers (whose KNOWN pedigree can't be accepted due to a technicality, such as incomplete registration or in the case of a TB/WB grade horse) can't even be considered for inclusion?

I don't think so. The Hanoverian Verband, one of the least inclusive registries, have gotten ahead instead of behind. They have been number one on the WFSHB more often then any other wb breed, often in both catagories of jumping and dressage. There is a HUGE demand for their horses worldwide, as is evidenced by their auctions. There is a big demand for their stallions which are almost always accepted by every other breed registry. Hanoverians are always a major presence in any international dressage or show jumping event.

So no, I don't think they have lost out, nor do I think they are in need of someones grade horse that happens to have a good performance record. You can come up with all sorts of theories as to why they are successful but the fact that cannot be denied is that they are not inclusive, they do not value mares with no know pedigrees and they are at the top, consistantly.

And it isn't a matter of snobbery or whatever, they simply understand the value of genetics and will not ignore that no matter how good a grade horse may be. Again, proof is in the pudding.

[tri]

Cboylen! Yeah! That is exactly what I have been posting. Thank you for weighing in on it as well. I feel like the lone sport person here sometimes.

Donella, why do you always go to the horse with the "unknown" has to be some kind of genetic fluke out of a draft or some kind of different blood. You guys just can't seem to wrap your heads around the fact that in America, before all the wb registries came to town, there were many sport/show people who had wonderful quality performance mares of known parentage, often times purebred TBs but just weren't registered with the Jockey Club BECAUSE they were breeding to TOP often PUREBRED TB stallions WHO WERE HUNTERS/JUMPERS via AI. These people know their bloodlines, track the bloodlines, know the marelines, carefully choose the stallions and had/having tremendous success with the offspring. For many years, IN AMERICA, there wasn't much of an option to register these horses but these horses were the best of what we were breeding.

Those horses should have/could have been the foundation of warmblood/sporthorse breeding but because the warmblood registries were mostly ignorant of how successful sporthorse breeding was being done in this country, those horses were excluded.

The wb registries, I guess, expected to come to America and find a bunch of crossbred mares (like in europe) who were tracked with some kind of "papers". It doesn't work that way here.

[Fairview Horse Center]

Actually, I think quite a few. The H/J barns that I'm familiar with shop mainly for already going animals, and many of them shop primarily in Europe. However, when they're buying young prospects, the ones they tend to see and buy in the U.S. and/or Canada are the ones that have been raised by h/j clients and colleagues, people much more involved in the show industry than in the breeding industry.
You can say it's because of the connections, but it's also because that sort of "hobby" breeder knows exactly what the industry is looking for, and the buyer is often familiar with the dam or siblings from seeing them at shows. The resulting offspring also tend to go directly into programs with people actively competing, and that furthers their chances of being seen and sold, as well as of developing into top horses.

I agree that this IS what happens, but IMO it is EXACTLY the reason why many show people think they can't buy a youngster as they grow up so unpredicatable.

Show people DO tend to buy from the buddies hanging out at the rail of the show ring that bred their fancy show mare to a popular stallion. Yes, that is VERY much a crap shoot. However, if they bought from an experienced breeder, they would be MUCH more likely to get the end product - about 100% of the time.

Ideally, you would have an experienced breeder that HAS been a show person, but is VERY committed to their breeding and bloodlines for generations.

[PineTreeFarm]

[quote=Fairview Horse Center;2797960
Show people DO tend to buy from the buddies hanging out at the rail of the show ring that bred their fancy show mare to a popular stallion. Yes, that is VERY much a crap shoot. However, if they bought from an experienced breeder, they would be MUCH more likely to get the end product - about 100% of the time.[/quote]

Many of these breeders are experienced, they just aren't breeders who use exclusively WB approved stock.
Same point as mentioned before. Just because a breeder isn't using a WB approved stallion doesn't mean they are breeding 'unknown bloodlines'.

What's up with a 100% success rate? You are kidding right? If that was true I'm sure the TB race breeders would like to know the secret.LOL

[Fairview Horse Center]

Nope, not kidding. I don't know about race breeding, but for talent for sporthorse disciplines, using bloodlines & conformation that are proven to cross well with each other, you can definitely get almost a 100% success rate. I positively know what I am getting before a foal is born. Some will have a bit better trot, canter, etc than others. Some will be a bit more sensitive than others, but all will be suitable to be at least Regionally competitive in the discipline intended.

[sm]

...why do you always go to the horse with the "unknown" has to be some kind of genetic fluke out of a draft or some kind of different blood. You guys just can't seem to wrap your heads around the fact that in America, before all the wb registries came to town, there were many sport/show people who had wonderful quality performance mares of known parentage, often times purebred TBs but just weren't registered with the Jockey Club BECAUSE they were breeding to TOP often PUREBRED TB stallions WHO WERE HUNTERS/JUMPERS via AI. These people know their bloodlines, track the bloodlines, know the marelines, carefully choose the stallions and had/having tremendous success with the offspring. For many years, IN AMERICA, there wasn't much of an option to register these horses but these horses were the best of what we were breeding.

Those horses should have/could have been the foundation of warmblood/sporthorse breeding but because the warmblood registries were mostly ignorant of how successful sporthorse breeding was being done in this country, those horses were excluded.



Exactly.

Atleast the JC knows every horse on the field of competition: complete data on EVERY HORSE that shows up regardless of it being an international or local thoroughbred event.


It’s absurd that the WBs registries believe they have anywhere near that quality of database to make this statement accurate and apply for them:

Thoroughbred breeders have a saying, that is something along the lines of this

"A horse can out run it's pedigree, but will have a hard time out producing it."

[Drvmb1ggl3]

The various TB studbooks around the world discriminate againt horses without the proper bloodlines, irregardless of their exemplary performance, including winners of the biggest races out there.
Seems a bit hypocritical that a lot of the people holding the various WBs to that standard give TB studbooks a pass.

[sm]

my point was the quality of the american bloodlines cannot be determined by WB registries because so many are unknown -- incomplete data, therefore cannot make the same conclusion.

The JC will fully support the winning TB to reproduce, they are not disqualified because they are not of the *correct* bloodline or not good enough conformation. Stud fees reflect the quality of their get, that's fair enough. Broodmares either pass along correct traits or they don't. Life goes on.

[Drvmb1ggl3]

McDynamo? LOL... how about a real racehorse that doesn't need to run on the crutch of lasix, like The Fellow, Hors La Loi, Al Capone, etc etc, all of whom would run his juiced-up converted flat racing butt into a mudhole, and none of whom were eligible for the GSB, or it's latter day NA cousin maintained by the JC (American version).

[vineyridge]

I'm with Drum on this one. The American JC ought to have the same sort of part Blood book that the French and Brits do, and those horses ought to be allowed to race and work their way into the main stud book. With Weatherbys (British studbook) it's possible for a 7/8ths TB racer to be moved up if it's a special horse.

Doesn't happen very often, but when it does, and I'm thinking of the Lavande line, the whole breed benefits.

[sm]

Well, that's why God made PHR. GO FOR IT, let PHR do steeplechasing open to all registries. Right now the JC, as a breed group, does not run under the auspices of the USEF or FEI.

PHR and the FEI should love the extra revenue---probably. I don't know, but why wouldn't they...

The JC is a closed book -- a breed book. Not an open registry. As a breed they do not run events under the auspices of FEI, and I love it that way. An open registry international sport is under FEI.

Drummie should be delighted, as A.I. would be allowed -- no need to stand stallions in the USA.

I for one would love the competition, I would look forward to it immensely.

[Drvmb1ggl3]

I'm with Drum on this one. The American JC ought to have the same sort of part Blood book that the French and Brits do, and those horses ought to be allowed to race and work their way into the main stud book. With Weatherbys (British studbook) it's possible for a 7/8ths TB racer to be moved up if it's a special horse.

Doesn't happen very often, but when it does, and I'm thinking of the Lavande line, the whole breed benefits.

Actually it's 8 generations of non-TB crosses, which translates as 127/128's TB.

I have no problem personally with the way Weatherbys to the biz presently, nor do i have any problems with the way the various WB books structure themselves (it's their book, their rules, and a lot of it makes sense to me, even if I may disagree with some of them, I can at least see their point or where they are coming from). I just find it more than ironic that the same people that point to performance over "approved" bloodlines as a modus operandi for breeding are often the same people that hold the various TB studbooks (and esp the American JC, which is perhaps the most restrictive... impractical even) as sacroscant. Esp when a horse that wins the Gold Cup, the Grand National, or the Champion Hurdle, or even the big flat prizes (how much more performance based can you get?) wouldn't be allowed to line up on an American racetrack because of their "improper" bloodlines.

[Drvmb1ggl3]

I for one would love the competition, I would look forward to it immensely.

They already do. Have you been living in a cave? "Half-bred" horses have won everything from the biggest sprint races in Europe to the toughest tests of stamina and jumping.

[sm]

Drummie, read my post #170 on closed breed vs open registry and international sport.

Get back to me, because I would welcome the competition in the USA. Set it up with open registry PHR, not the closed book JC. Stop using the JC as a crutch... it's not worthy of you. And to ease your mind, there's plenty of JC/TBs registered with the PHR, with plenty more on the way, you'll have your shot at the american bred TB. Just need to do it within the governing bodies rulebooks.

Here's the french Grand Steeple-Chase de Paris results: http://www.tbheritage.com/TurfHallmarks/racecharts/GrSCdeParis.html

Are you happy now, Drummie?

[CBoylen]

Show people DO tend to buy from the buddies hanging out at the rail of the show ring that bred their fancy show mare to a popular stallion. Yes, that is VERY much a crap shoot. However, if they bought from an experienced breeder, they would be MUCH more likely to get the end product - about 100% of the time.

I positively know what I am getting before a foal is born. Some will have a bit better trot, canter, etc than others. Some will be a bit more sensitive than others, but all will be suitable to be at least Regionally competitive in the discipline intended.
I feel like "regionally competitive" applies to at least 80% of horses, period, but I might be mistaking your definition.
For people breeding for a top show horse, "regionally competitive" is definitely a program failure, by my definition.
I don't think any breeder, though, can claim a 100% success rate. There are just too many factors that go into a top show horse, whatever discipline. Everyone is calling the europeans the most successful breeders, but they breed for the jumpers and dressage, and we buy their "failures" all the time, as hunters and eq horses and lower level jumpers.
However, if you do know breeders that have 100% success rate in producing top hunters, or even jumpers, please point me in their direction. I haven't been able to find them and could use the help. ;)

[Fairview Horse Center]

Regionally competitive to me means that the horse can be shown in Recognized shows and get decent ribbons, sometimes winning, and occasionally Champion (Hunters)/High Score (Dressage), but may not be Nationally competitive - ex. placing highly in the USEF year end standings.

I don't believe 80% of all horses can do that.

Some horses that I breed absolutely will be Nationally competitive, but I don't consider a horse that is Regionally competitive as described above to not be a success.

[Touchstone Farm]

Donella, very good posts. I agree 100%.

[Drvmb1ggl3]

Drummie, read my post #170 on closed breed vs open registry and international sport.

Get back to me, because I would welcome the competition in the USA. Set it up with open registry PHR, not the closed book JC. Stop using the JC as a crutch... it's not worthy of you. And to ease your mind, there's plenty of JC/TBs registered with the PHR, with plenty more on the way, you'll have your shot at the american bred TB. Just need to do it within the governing bodies rulebooks.

Here's the french Grand Steeple-Chase de Paris results: http://www.tbheritage.com/TurfHallmarks/racecharts/GrSCdeParis.html

Are you happy now, Drummie?


I'm ecstatic !! Haven't seen this much gibberish in a long time, great for laugh. I'm sure you had a point in there somewhere, damned if I know what it was though. Glad to see you could google the GSdeP results, one of my fav races, on one of my all time fav racecourses, beautiful Auteuil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqK0V2ZLtqI).

Btw, the horse that came 2nd in that video, Lord Carmont, couldn't run in the US, his bloodlines are not worthy. They're good enough to almost win a $1.2m race in Europe though.

[fish]

All this discussion of TB registration/competition has led me to the important realization of the difficulties attending efforts reliably to id and track the bloodlines of competing horses. As I have previously said, the primary reason why the JC, AQHA and, apparently, Europe, are able to track bloodlines is that the same (or at least highly cooperative) people who id/register the horses also id and track the horses' performance at the shows. While I greatly admire (and envy) their record keeping, it does raise the question of the point at which writing "unknown" in parentage spaces would no longer be allowed: IOW, a balance needs to be found between the advantages of being able to keep meticulous records and those of keeping books open to performers whose parentage actually is not known.

My own preference would be for a perpetually open book, hoping that increasing #'s of people will resist the temptation to take the easy way out by writing "unknown" or leaving spaces blank (especially with geldings) as they come to recognize the advantages of having continual access to good records. Personally, I'd love to see the performance of supposed"mutts"/"grade" horses consistently tracked right along with bonafide "breeds." For a long time, that's pretty much what the Europeans were doing, and the results were pretty good.

I hate to see registries move away from the role of tracking bloodlines toward that of dictating them.

[tri]

Fairview, there is a whole world missing between going to a "recognized" show and getting good ribbons and being a "national" champion. It just isn't that black and white in regards to hunters or even jumpers. You have to know which "recognized" show and who is recognizing it - "A" , "AA", "B", or state level. Then you have to know what division. Some divisions are intensely more competitive than others with a huge difference in quality of both horses/ponies & the riders. Then, even among top rated shows, some series are just more competitive than others and attract more competition.

Also, not all 10/15K GP jumper classes are created equal and definitely don't always have the same level of competition.

But please, don't disparage all those that have been breeding for these markets, some of which have been doing so for decades, by saying they are "crapshooting" and some breeder not connected with the markets isn't.

[sm]

Lord Carmont, couldn't run in the US, his bloodlines are not worthy. They're good enough to almost win a $1.2m race in Europe though.

you're half right: Lord Carmont "bloodlines are not worthy" to run in a JC event. However, I'm sure the bloodlines could run SOMEWHERE in the USA if the event was open to all registries.

We have governing bodies for international and national sport in the US: the JC is not allowed to run open-to-all-registries international events even if they wanted to. Their entire corporate charter is set up for ONE BREED only, and it always was. I did ramble earlier trying to make this point, I hope this is more concise.

[sm]

I hate to see registries move away from the role of tracking bloodlines toward that of dictating them.

Well, there's not that problem with the PHR. They are also the ones most likely to also get to a point where they can get talented youngsters -- of any and all parentage -- into good national hands for training. The PHR is probably the best bet USA breeders have, even though there's tons of work to be done on the training and sales end.

[Drvmb1ggl3]

you're half right: Lord Carmont "bloodlines are not worthy" to run in a JC event. However, I'm sure the bloodlines could run SOMEWHERE in the USA if the event was open to all registries.

We have governing bodies for international and national sport in the US: the JC is not allowed to run open-to-all-registries international events even if they wanted to.

The JC doesn't run US racing per se, they keep a studbook. The races can be run as open to non-TBs, they are in many parts of the world. That the races are confined to TBs only in the US and Can is all a bit silly, if you can run a non-TB (like Lord Carmont, The Fellow, Amberleigh House etc) in races in Europe, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to run in NA.
And I'm not picking on the JC as a studbook, as those horses are alse barred from the GSB (the original TB studbook kepy by Weatherbys) or any TB studbook that's a member of the International Studbook Committee.

Now, I have no problem with the rules of any of the ISC members, it's their party, they get to make the rules. Likewise I feel the same way with any WB registry... their rules, they have their own logic behind them.
The point I'm making is that it seems a bit rich to me for people to beat WB studbooks over the head with the "you should allow horses of indiscriminate pedigree if they show exemplary performance" line, and then turn around and hold Weatherby's, the American JC, the Australian JC etc etc up as paragons of how things should be done when they will most definitely not allow a non-TB into their studbooks , even if they win the biggest races in the world. And no, I don't buy the line that one studbook is "closed" and the other "open". Just because a studbook is "open", it still has rules, it doesn't mean they should have to accept horses willy-nilly just because you think they should be in there. If that were the case then you should be advocating that all the big race winners I've listed in this thread who are non-TBs should be allowed into the various TB studbooks.

I have no problem with the way things are at present with any studbook, be it TB or WB, I'm just pointing out some inconsistencies in people's arguments.

[fish]

The JC doesn't run US racing per se, they keep a studbook. The races can be run as open to non-TBs, they are in many parts of the world. That the races are confined to TBs only in the US and Can is all a bit silly, if you can run a non-TB (like Lord Carmont, The Fellow, Amberleigh House etc) in races in Europe, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to run in NA.
And I'm not picking on the JC as a studbook, as those horses are alse barred from the GSB (the original TB studbook kepy by Weatherbys) or any TB studbook that's a member of the International Studbook Committee.

Now, I have no problem with the rules of any of the ISC members, it's their party, they get to make the rules. Likewise I feel the same way with any WB registry... their rules, they have their own logic behind them.
The point I'm making is that it seems a bit rich to me for people to beat WB studbooks over the head with the "you should allow horses of indiscriminate pedigree if they show exemplary performance" line, and then turn around and hold Weatherby's, the American JC, the Australian JC etc etc up as paragons of how things should be done when they will most definitely not allow a non-TB into their studbooks , even if they win the biggest races in the world. And no, I don't buy the line that one studbook is "closed" and the other "open". Just because a studbook is "open", it still has rules, it doesn't mean they should have to accept horses willy-nilly just because you think they should be in there. If that were the case then you should be advocating that all the big race winners I've listed in this thread who are non-TBs should be allowed into the various TB studbooks.

I have no problem with the way things are at present with any studbook, be it TB or WB, I'm just pointing out some inconsistencies in people's arguments.

I honestly don't think there's any inconsistency in what I want: i.e. a completely "open" registry (for lack of a better term) which reliably identifies and tracks every horse showing in this country so people can make their own decisions (and studies, etc.) based upon the data it provides. Of course, it would be nice if this "registry" were world-wide, but I see no harm in starting small ;)

[sm]

The JC doesn't run US racing per se, they keep a studbook. The races can be run as open to non-TBs, they are in many parts of the world. That the races are confined to TBs only in the US and Can is all a bit silly... I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to run in NA.

Upon reviewing the governing Horseracing Authorites for each country http://www.horseracingintfed.com/linksDisplay.asp?section=1 it makes sense to me that those restricted by a breed org are locked into that breed (ex., JCs worldwide may only run TBs. By doing business as the JC, they are legally mandated to conduct business with TBs only).

Conversely, there is considerable leeway in the countries whose governing Horseracing Authorites are not organized or locked into any specific breed but by the job of racing:

France - FRANCE GALOP
Great Britain - THE BRITISH HORSERACING AUTHORITY
Ireland - REGISTRY OFFICE OF THE TURF CLUB
Ireland - HORSE RACING IRELAND

[Drvmb1ggl3]

Upon reviewing the Horseracing Authorites for each country http://www.horseracingintfed.com/linksDisplay.asp?section=1 it makes sense to me that those restricted by a breed org are locked into that breed (ex., JCs worldwide may only run TBs. By doing business as the JC, they are allowed TBs only, they are not allowed multiple registries).

Conversely, there is considerable leeway in the countries whose Horseracing Authorites are not organized or locked into any specific breed/registry but by the job of racing:

France - FRANCE GALOP
Great Britain - THE BRITISH HORSERACING AUTHORITY
Ireland - REGISTRY OFFICE OF THE TURF CLUB

The American JC is not a Horse Racing Authority, it keeps a studbook. Racing in the US is governed by State Racing Commissions, they oversee and implement the "rules of racing", which can, and do, vary from state to state. There is no national organisation that oversees US racing. The NTRA is the closest thing, but is not a governing body and acts mainly to promote racing (more akin to a trade association). Chalk it up to the American aversion to centralised authority.

[CBoylen]

Regionally competitive to me means that the horse can be shown in Recognized shows and get decent ribbons, sometimes winning, and occasionally Champion (Hunters)/High Score (Dressage), but may not be Nationally competitive - ex. placing highly in the USEF year end standings.

You've got it a bit backward. Nationally competitive by your standards doesn't say much about the quality of the horse. One can go to a low-level show every week and show against 3 horses, and end up pretty high in the USEF year end standings. Year end standings say more about who has the fastest van than who has the nicest horse. To get a value from the year end standings you have to look at the particular horse's record and see where it was showing and against whom.

Nationally competitive, to me, means that the horse is capable of winning and/or consistently placing at AA shows. Even then, there are different levels of AA shows, competition-wise. The horse that is truly nationally competitive is capable of winning over the best of its division from all over, at the shows where all these horses come together.

Regionally competitive, to me, means that the horse is capable of winning and/or consistently placing at the more locally-attended A shows, or lower-rated shows, but not at the AA level. Most of those shows, in the majority of divisions, a horse that is basically average can place consistently as long as the rider is accurate.

[Fairview Horse Center]

I was thinking more of the way you qualify for National HOY awards in Dressage, which is not lots of shows, but a median score.

To me, a Nationally competitive Dressage horse, should be capable of scoring mid 70s at their Level. My horses should be able to score upper 60s. Some will be able to score mid 70s.

For the Hunters, a "Nationally" competitive horse should be able to win in pretty much any company with a talented rider, and their best trips. A regionally competitive horse to be should be able to get ribbons at Upperville, and wins/Championships at Commonwealth, etc.

[seal]

I think both are important.

It's the pedigree that grabs your eye, but ultimately its the performance that gets you to open up your check book.

For example, recently a friend told me of a yearling for sale. No picture, just a description of the pedigree and markings. From that information alone I wanted to go see him.

And guess what? Now that he is at her barn as a sale horse, everyone is in love with him. :)

[fish]

I think both are important.

It's the pedigree that grabs your eye, but ultimately its the performance that gets you to open up your check book.

For example, recently a friend told me of a yearling for sale. No picture, just a description of the pedigree and markings. From that information alone I wanted to go see him.

And guess what? Now that he is at her barn as a sale horse, everyone is in love with him. :)

And then there's that other thing that happens sometimes-- you go look at the horse with the super pedigree, and wonder how those bloodlines produced THAT :(! I used to scan the results of TB auctions sometimes and wonder why so many horses from great bloodlines sold so cheap-- then I went to a few sales and saw why for myself.

[tri]

"t's the pedigree that grabs your eye, but ultimately its the performance that gets you to open up your check book."

I think for most riders and trainers - at least with hunters and jumpers, it is the other way around.

[Renae]

You've got it a bit backward. Nationally competitive by your standards doesn't say much about the quality of the horse. One can go to a low-level show every week and show against 3 horses, and end up pretty high in the USEF year end standings. Year end standings say more about who has the fastest van than who has the nicest horse. To get a value from the year end standings you have to look at the particular horse's record and see where it was showing and against whom.


I think you are discounting year end high point awards a bit too much. Sure the high point award winners might not be the horses that could win in the deepest competition, but they are usually the horses that are the hard nockers, the sound, sane horses that can be hauled to show after show and do multiple calsses without going lame or blwoing their top!

[CBoylen]

I'm all for a year end award when it's won by a horse that really competes with the best of its division. You can see some horses at the top of the standings that really deserve to be there; the ones that show less often but win more, and do it at the top shows.
I just can't place much importance on it when you also see the horses high in the standings that show a lot, but win less, and/or show places with low numbers and less quality competition. Often you see these same horses completely outclassed when they attempt bigger shows. I don't think they're necessarily sounder and saner, either.
But my point was not to discount the national standings entirely, but to look at the whole picture when determining their value.

[PineTreeFarm]

I think you are discounting year end high point awards a bit too much. Sure the high point award winners might not be the horses that could win in the deepest competition, but they are usually the horses that are the hard nockers, the sound, sane horses that can be hauled to show after show and do multiple calsses without going lame or blwoing their top!
Sorry but if a horse goes to 40 shows and gets a zillion points and another horse goes to 10 shows and gets the same points I'd say the ten show horse is better. The idea is NOT to haul the horse to show after show to prove how sound it is. You do that long enough and oops you've got a lame horse.

[tri]

There is a definite strategy to set out deliberately get points. Top trainers know "who" is showing where at what time and can skirt around the competition to get a horse qualified if that is what needs to happen.

[GonetotheParty]

You've got it a bit backward. Nationally competitive by your standards doesn't say much about the quality of the horse. One can go to a low-level show every week and show against 3 horses, and end up pretty high in the USEF year end standings. Year end standings say more about who has the fastest van than who has the nicest horse. To get a value from the year end standings you have to look at the particular horse's record and see where it was showing and against whom.

Nationally competitive, to me, means that the horse is capable of winning and/or consistently placing at AA shows. Even then, there are different levels of AA shows, competition-wise. The horse that is truly nationally competitive is capable of winning over the best of its division from all over, at the shows where all these horses come together.

Regionally competitive, to me, means that the horse is capable of winning and/or consistently placing at the more locally-attended A shows, or lower-rated shows, but not at the AA level. Most of those shows, in the majority of divisions, a horse that is basically average can place consistently as long as the rider is accurate.

I couldn't agree more! Point chasers drive me crazy, and they could care less about the animals

[seal]

"t's the pedigree that grabs your eye, but ultimately its the performance that gets you to open up your check book."

I think for most riders and trainers - at least with hunters and jumpers, it is the other way around.

Very true, however, it is due to ignorance of bloodlines IMO.

And if you understand pedigrees you have much more potentially important information available; ie which lines are hot, difficult, scopy, etc.

I think it's an American thing, because the jumper riders and not just the dressage people in Europe understand bloodlines. I have found when horse shopping, that youngsters are known almost exclusively by the sire and dam's sire to the point that the name of the horse is hard to find. :)

[horsepix76]

This confuses me.....whether a stallion is approved through performance or through the 100DT, how does either of those prove that he will pass on any of his performance ability?

Some registries will change the status of the stallion based on the performance of his offspring. We have bred to the swedish stallion Baryon who intially scored a Premium AB status, but was improved to a Premium A status based on the quality and performance of his offspring.