Printable View
While I'm hopeful that eventually the AQHA will phase out registration for N/H horses, I can't believe that APHA and ApHC haven't done ANYTHING yet. They need to step up to the plate and at the very least require testing, and stamp papers with results like AQHA does now.
I agree that they should, since both regisitries allow outcrosses to quarter horses. I think APHA is stamping papers now, but I don't think the test is mandatory. I'm not sure what ApHC does, I haven't been involved with appys since I was a kid.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1sock
If AQHA doesn't allow N/H or H/H horses to be registered it will help reduce the number of cases in other registries, since all outcrosses have to be registered to their own breed association. One or both parents with no papers = foal not registerable with APHA or ApHC. The downside is that they would still be eligible for the color registries: pinto, palomino, buckskin, etc., since they allow registration as long as the horse is the right color.
AQHA years and years ago developed a plan to phase out HYPP. Great plan too, by such and such a year you cannot register H/H horses. By 2012 (I think) you would not be able to register N/H horses. And then they changed that to 2020, I think. Not sure about that (I have Morgans. LOL). My take was that the outcry was so huge, they changed the year to implement it to when they (whoever 'they' are) would no longer be in office and therefore wouldn't have to deal with it.
But I'm not bitter that they'd let something like this continue when it could be wiped out in one generation. Not bitter at all.
Somewhat related, why, in the QH journal - do they not list with the stallion if his HYPP status? I guess because if your horse is H/H or H/N that is not good to advertise. But even stallions that are N/N often do not have that in their ads.
I think they do that because in the halter horse industry there is so much hanging on Impressive lines in breeder's eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonomacounty
If someone wants to play in their sandbox they don't want to be seen as making a big issue of that problem.
Advertising N/N stallions would be doing so?
The reason the AQHA can only do so much to stop those that want to keep using other than N/N individuals for breeding is, as stated many times already, because of the lawsuits doing so would bring.
That is why there is a process to achieve that and it means years of bringing the issues to votes and jumping thru many hoops to implement what those votes demand.
As long as there are so many against stopping any HYPP other than N/N from being registered, the AQHA hands are tied to that process.
Remember, registration associations can't do anything they just want to do out of the blue.
There is due process and breeders have rights, as shown in the Malvin Hatley white rule lawsuit, that almost bankrupted the AQHA to fight and they lost.
That is a path no registry wants to try to go down again.
Thanks Bluey.
I get it - The AQHA would get seen as infringing on people's business if they restricted breeding to H/H or H/N's and if you advertise your stallion as N/N, that is, sort of, rubbing it in people's faces and it could piss some off. Did I get that right?
I didn't explain that right.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonomacounty
The breeders are the ones making the decisions about breeding and if they advertise making a point of supposedly standing for only breeding N/N, they may become controversial in the eyes of other breeders.
The AQHA doesn't has anything to do with that.
The AQHA has the best interest of the breed in mind and is trying to get HYPP, once they knew what it was, out of the picture.
BUT, as that one breeder against the AQHA lawsuit did teach all registries, by owning duly registered parents, a registry can't arbitrarily change the rules, even with good reason according to the registry, as with denying registration to HYPP carriers, without following certain other rules.
Breeders have rights too and as long as some still want to breed N/H, if the AQHA would not now permit them to do so and, as threatened, they would sue, they probably, as in the old lawsuit, would prevail, as "it is their legal right do be stupid", as someone commented after the old lawsuit was lost.
That is why that rule is coming, but has to jump thru legal hoops first and that is taking time.
Also the AQHA I am sure is trying to implement new rules so in situations like these they may have a bit more legal ground to stand by what is needed and restrict registrations if necessary.
Now, that is just looking at this from what has happened, pure guess, I don't know.
Ok, got it. I'm glad I rephrased to see if I got it right.
"it is their legal right to be stupid" - some words, eh?
Unfortunately, it's the horses who suffer the most on this, though.
Yes, incomprehensible that someone would breed any other than N/N.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonomacounty
It may be legal, but I think it is definitely unethical to breed for a known, serious disability.
Some day any other than N/N will not be registrable, which may still not stop those that want to use those horses.
They just will cull the positives and sell as good looking grade horses, for a chance to get the N/N ones.:(
HERDA is it's own case, not the same genetic type problem.
You can breed positive to negative, so the gene is not expressed.
Many breeders are already doing that or avoiding those with the gene at all.
Of course is best just not breed any individual with that gene.
Then, we have to recognize that all individuals carry so many similar "bad" recessive genes, you would not have much to breed to if you tried to eliminate all recessives altogether, nice that the thought would be.
OLWS is not a big deal in my opinion because as long as you only breed a OLWS horse to a non OLWS horse the resulting foal will be fine because it is not harmful in its heterzygous form. It is not a recessive gene like HERDA or harmful in its heterzygous form like HYPP. That would be almost like saying you would want to phase out merle colored dogs because it his horrible to the animal in its homozygous form... I know OLWS is lethal when homozygous and merle is not, but we can all agree that breeding two merles typically leads to a terrible blind/deaf life for the puppy. Anyway, my point is that with responsible breeding practices OLWS is not a big deal.
The problem with OLWS is that not everybody tests their horses or they knowingly breed positives to positives and hope they win the genetic lottery. I had a friend who bred her breeding stock mare to an OLWS positive stallion and had a lethal white foal who had to be put down right after birth. Her mare was a carrier and she didn't know because she never had the mare tested since she was solid. It was awful. :cry:
My understanding is that the HYPP breeding continues because folks threatened lawsuits, and the various associations chose not to engage. I do not have any empirical evidence, such as meeting minutes, but find it very believable given the litigous nature of society.
As far as I know, H/H is non-registerable. N/H, as has been said, is being phased out. I have no idea why they've pushed it back. *one* breeding season out is far enough IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonomacounty