[Flying Hearts]

Now, before anyone flips out, I'm just curious if anyone does this. Say, hunter breeders for example. I have met only a few hunter riders who know what their horses breeding is, and I have met more than a few who have bred horses (and they were nice hunters, not junk) who were of unknown breeding. They really seem to only care about the horse in front of them, whereas I am obsessed with bloodlines, pedigrees, etc... I have never, ever considered breeding a non papered horse before.

I'm asking partially because I have a mare who is in her mid-late teens who is retired due to arthritis. Still sound for easy riding, just can't jump anymore. She is a very cute hunter pony type mare who has an excellent personality. I've always thought in the back of my mind that she would be a nice cross for a Welsh-ey pony hunter stallion. Her old owners bred her a couple times before I bought her 9 years ago, and then she had one foal with me (accidentally bred, loooong story) who is now a VERY cute hunter type four year old who has an excellent personality. Mama stamped her well, and daddy improved things a little bit. A planned breeding couldn't have gone better lol!

Sooo... my questions is this: Is it wrong to give her away as a broodmare to someone who would breed quality hunters and who doesn't care about registration or pedigree? Or do I have to keep her and let her be useless (to me) for the rest of her life? I've tried to give her away or free lease her out as a light riding horse to no avail as of yet.

I'm truly not looking for any nasty arguments. And like I said, I would personally not breed an unregistered horse myself. But is it really wrong to do so? You don't ride a piece of paper...

[crosscreeksh]

Not everyone is hung up about registration papers. If she has value to a pony breeder and has produced nice babies...I would go that route with her. The risk is on the pony breeder and if they are willing...and it is a very good home, I would give it a try. Much as some people don't want to believe it...a pasture ornament still costs money to feed and maintain if done properly! Good Luck.

[springer]

I own a purebred andalusian mare who does not have papers; though I do know her breeding. She is the nicest horse I have ever owned. Probably the nicest horse I ever WILL own . Temperament, movement, conformation... she has it all. I couldn't care less about her lack of papers. I would only hesitate to breed her because I don't think I could handle it if something happened to her. I could never replace her. Her half brother, who I have since sold, also did not have papers and is now leading in the NW in points at 1st and 2nd level. So yes, I would breed an unregistered mare. But she would have to be of exceptional quality.

[Kinsella]

If the mare is one I would not mind an exact replica of, I have no problems breeding it, papers or not. It does make decisions on stallions a little tougher if it's an unknown pedigree, but that's not an insurmountable problem. I currently have an unregistered mare in foal to Carracci. Though I've known her all of her life, knew her sire & dam and have actually seen both of their papers - not her fault her breeders didn't care about registering their foals. And I hope & pray the foal she is carrying is an exact replica of her.

[exvet]

My best baby this year is out of a unregistered mare and by my stallion (purebred). The filly's papers are half-Welsh which they would be regardless whether her mother was registered hyena or blue papered flying purple people eater or a grade mare. I do know my mare's breeding (not purebred) and she is registered in Canada; but, to the US registry, she is a grade mare. If the mare is nice, likely to produce what my goal is for breeding, and has a performance record, I really don't stress over whether mom is registered or not. I should mention, though, I am not a hunter breeder.

[gabby.gator]

I really think the hunter "world" is not as concerned. I'm by no means an expert, however, I've bred a couple hunter foals, and not until I started spending lots of time here on COTH did I learn that "it matters" to have papers and such

[RiverOaksFarm]

I think it's one thing to have an unregistered mare with known breeding/pedigree, versus an unregistered mare of unknown breeding/pedigree.

Breeding a mare of unknown breeding/pedigree is risky because you have no idea what traits and characteristics may pop up from her ancestors. That's why it's important to understand phenotype and genotype, throwbacks, and so forth. If you don't know anything about the mare's breeding, you're going into it blind as far as genotype and you're gambling as far as throwbacks. The mare herself may be nice enough, but you're gambling a little bit on what you may be throwing into the genetic soup which will become your foal. Breeding is tricky enough when you're dealing with known entities....

(In the OP's case, the gamble is mitigated somewhat because it sounds like this mare has already had foals. My answer is more general, in response to the idea of breeding grade mares.)

[carolprudm]

I just put Beeza down, she was supposedly by the Trak Falke out of a Connemara mare. She had at least 5 foals, one of whom is an approved Irish Draught Sport Horse, one successfully eventing owned by COTH poster SLR, another youngster just starting her eventing career and 2 younger foals.
So yes, you breed the mare, not the papers.


Like Exvet I don't breed hunters though

[fish]

Although I, too, love knowing families/bloodlines, I see nothing wrong with breeding a good horse, registered or not. There are many ways to keep records-- and record keeping on any line has to start somewhere. Look back in any WB pedigree (and even TB's if you go far enough), and you'll find plenty of unregistered horses, especially mares, of unknown breeding, and even unknown names. As for not knowing what might pop up, throwbacks, etc., that's a risk in breeding regardless-- esp. with WB's, which are recent developments, largely Heinz 57 in character, with plenty of flaws to "throw back" to anyway. Even with the admirable records which have been kept recently, no horse is perfect, so risks remain, regardless-- all the records do is increase awareness of what the specific risks are. IMO, people who breed good but unregistered horses -- and then keep records of the results-- are doing all of us a service by adding both to the gene pool and to our knowledge of what goes into the making of good vs not so good sport horses.

If a person wants to avoid gambling, s/he should probably avoid breeding (and maybe horses in general) entirely. It's a nail-biting gamble just getting a foal on the ground.

[Alpha App]

I find that you can get away with breeding a grade sporthorse better than say, a grade QH since alot of credentials for QHs come from congress, world show, breed shows, etc.

Would you breed her if she WAS registered? Well, of course. If there's a market for what she's produced already, and you like what you see, I would say that you would take into consideration the same qualities you'd look at with a "normal" registered horse.

[Flying Hearts]

Here is a photo of her, and if you go to the album there are some more pics of her from the last 10 years I've had her. They should give you at least an idea of what she's like, unfortunately I don't have any video on the computer right now but I will be getting some soon.

This photo does make her look more downhill than reality, and she has a baby belly:

http://s77.beta.photobucket.com/user...tml?sort=3&o=3

Here's a link to the whole album with jumping shots: http://s77.beta.photobucket.com/user.../library/Sadie

To me, I think she's worth breeding... Besides her outward appearance, she also has an excellent personality and is super kind and willing and she has passed on those traits to her now 4 year old daughter. But I'd really like some outside, honest opinions on her because I don't want to be blind because I love her haha! So please, tear her apart and let me know if I'm being intelligent or crazy in considering breeding her.

[tuckawayfarm]

To me, I think she's worth breeding... Besides her outward appearance, she also has an excellent personality and is super kind and willing and she has passed on those traits to her now 4 year old daughter. But I'd really like some outside, honest opinions on her because I don't want to be blind because I love her haha! So please, tear her apart and let me know if I'm being intelligent or crazy in considering breeding her.

I'm a little confused

Are you asking for opinions about breeding her yourself or free-leasing her to a pony breeder?

Unless you want a longer term project, I wouldn't really be tempted to breed her myself. While she looks like a nice mare, her jumping style doesn't scream division pony to me. Ponies are tough in that they usually need to be quite well trained to be suitable for a child, so plan on keeping baby for a while.

If you find a good home with a successful pony breeder, I'd say go for it. An experienced pony breeder probably has a excellent idea of what the stallion will contribute as well as a market for the offspring.

As far as breeding an unregistered mare for the hunter market, I've done it several times and have had no difficulty selling the offspring to show homes for good prices. It helps if the mare has a good show record herself.

Good luck with her. She looks like a sweetheart.

[pinecone]

I'm truly not looking for any nasty arguments. And like I said, I would personally not breed an unregistered horse myself. But is it really wrong to do so? You don't ride a piece of paper...

To me, I think she's worth breeding... So please, tear her apart and let me know if I'm being intelligent or crazy in considering breeding her.

You said you wouldn't breed an unregistered horse and you seem to know it's a bad idea, but you also sound like you're looking for encouragement to go ahead and do it even though you know better. and if you know better than to breed her, why encourage someone else to do it just so you can give her away?

But I'd really like some outside, honest opinions

I think her croup looks short and too steep, and her neck is set a bit low (and paired with shark fin withers.) She may also be downhill (look at the elbow and stifle.) Honestly nothing about this mare screams "breed me!" Add the fact you don't know anything about her breeding and you've got one more reason not to breed her. I wouldn't do it. People are giving away nicer registered broodmares for free.

You already got some really good advice about why most responsible breeders won't breed grade mares. (It's more than just the papers.)

Breeding a mare of unknown breeding/pedigree is risky because you have no idea what traits and characteristics may pop up from her ancestors. That's why it's important to understand phenotype and genotype, throwbacks, and so forth. If you don't know anything about the mare's breeding, you're going into it blind as far as genotype and you're gambling as far as throwbacks. The mare herself may be nice enough, but you're gambling a little bit on what you may be throwing into the genetic soup which will become your foal. Breeding is tricky enough when you're dealing with known entities....

^ I recommend re-reading this

Enjoy your mare, but I wouldn't breed her.

[pinecone]

Although I, too, love knowing families/bloodlines, I see nothing wrong with breeding a good horse, registered or not. There are many ways to keep records-- and record keeping on any line has to start somewhere. Look back in any WB pedigree (and even TB's if you go far enough), and you'll find plenty of unregistered horses, especially mares, of unknown breeding, and even unknown names. As for not knowing what might pop up, throwbacks, etc., that's a risk in breeding regardless-- esp. with WB's, which are recent developments, largely Heinz 57 in character, with plenty of flaws to "throw back" to anyway. Even with the admirable records which have been kept recently, no horse is perfect, so risks remain, regardless-- all the records do is increase awareness of what the specific risks are. IMO, people who breed good but unregistered horses -- and then keep records of the results-- are doing all of us a service by adding both to the gene pool and to our knowledge of what goes into the making of good vs not so good sport horses.

If a person wants to avoid gambling, s/he should probably avoid breeding (and maybe horses in general) entirely. It's a nail-biting gamble just getting a foal on the ground.

I'm aghasted to read a post like this on a forum like this one, I can't even begin to imagine where to start debunking this. I'm sure it was meant to be helpful, but?

[Kinsella]

If the mare is one I would not mind an exact replica of, I have no problems breeding it, papers or not. It does make decisions on stallions a little tougher if it's an unknown pedigree, but that's not an insurmountable problem. I currently have an unregistered mare in foal to Carracci. Though I've known her all of her life, knew her sire & dam and have actually seen both of their papers - not her fault her breeders didn't care about registering their foals. And I hope & pray the foal she is carrying is an exact replica of her.

While I have no problem with someone giving me the thumbs down on this post, what I hate about that feature is that it doesn't allow for an explanation. I'm a little sad that whomever didn't like my post didn't have the guts to say why. Heck, you might've even changed my mind on the subject!

[Pennywell Bay]

Not being mean, but to be blunt: I would not breed her, with or without papers. The stallion may have improved the foal, this time. Genetics does not guarentee this every time. She is cute, but not a top quality pony mare, based on the pictures. I'm sure this will get "thumbs down", it's just my opinion.

[fish]

I'm aghasted to read a post like this on a forum like this one, I can't even begin to imagine where to start debunking this. I'm sure it was meant to be helpful, but?

FYI, there is no such word as "aghasted"-- and there have been numerous posts like mine on this forum over the years. The "gotta have papers" vs. "we don't ride the papers" debate has been going on since day one. I don't expect a bunch of little red thumbs or you (or anyone) being aghast (which is a word) to stop it.

[foxhavenfarm]

I'm aghasted to read a post like this on a forum like this one, I can't even begin to imagine where to start debunking this. I'm sure it was meant to be helpful, but?

Actually fish is correct. For example, the Thoroughbred breed started out from Arabian, Barb and Turkoman stallions being bred to native British mares.

[RyTimMick]

Wow...fish. Unless you are going to purchase this foal your recommendation is unfounded. Breeding is not gambling, or at least it isn't supposed to be. What you are suggesting is gambling, and not sound advice. She is already prepared to give her away to someone else, why would you make another unwanted horse.

Tim

[pinecone]

fish, "aghasted" is one of those trendy hybrid words like chillax and spendy.

The flaws in your argument go far beyond ""gotta have papers" vs. "we don't ride the papers"".

Actually fish is correct. For example, the Thoroughbred breed started out from Arabian, Barb and Turkoman stallions being bred to native British mares.

A lonnnnnng time ago, yes. You don't see anyone NOW starting from scratch trying to reinvent the Thoroughbred using grade mares. That's the major flaw in fish's argument. Sure, grade and unregistered stock may have been used in the development of warmbloods, but that was many years and generations ago, it's not a modern accepted breeding practice. Again, why reinvent the wheel or go all the way back to the beginning? And the cavalier disregard for genetics and throwbacks etc is simply, wow.