Blue Hors drops Doolittle for poor foals

[fannie_mae]

i don’t get it.
the statement says clearly: conformation issues.
if exterieur in a majority of foals is suboptimal, doesn’t that justify the matter completely?
i don’t see any room for speculation.

suboptimal exterieur in a majority of foals is enough to withdraw the stallion from breeding. that doesn’t mean these foals won’t turn into good riding horses, as many other foals do - suboptimal exterieur is widely spread but can’t be excluded in any given cross.
but horses of suboptimal exterieur shouldn’t be acceptable for breeding since the breeding goal is missed - as it does include theoretically “ideal” exterieur.

since noone can prevent breeders from using suboptimal built mares from breeding it should after all lie within the responsibility of stallion owners to withdraw a stallion from breeding once it becomes obvious that they do produce that way in higher numbers.
a single crop of foals is enough to prove issues of exterieur as sceletton won’t change once matured.

damage control, as early as possible.
very reasonable thing to do.
if omly mare owners did the same thing consequently.

[YankeeLawyer]

[QUOTE=Hillside H Ranch;4618619]
Of course, we are all speculating at this point, but what if the problem is something serious that is apparent at birth? What if they were getting a high percentage of cleft palates, or parrot mouths, or some other serious congenital deformity?[/QUOTE]

I think the answer to that is obvious. That is not my point.

[Hillside_H_Ranch]

Excuse me, I must have missed the point then. I guess I didn’t see that you made the exception for issues like those…

[rodawn]

[QUOTE=fannie mae;4618759]
i don’t get it.
the statement says clearly: conformation issues.
if exterieur in a majority of foals is suboptimal, doesn’t that justify the matter completely?
i don’t see any room for speculation.

suboptimal exterieur in a majority of foals is enough to withdraw the stallion from breeding. that doesn’t mean these foals won’t turn into good riding horses, as many other foals do - suboptimal exterieur is widely spread but can’t be excluded in any given cross.
but horses of suboptimal exterieur shouldn’t be acceptable for breeding since the breeding goal is missed - as it does include theoretically “ideal” exterieur.

since noone can prevent breeders from using suboptimal built mares from breeding it should after all lie within the responsibility of stallion owners to withdraw a stallion from breeding once it becomes obvious that they do produce that way in higher numbers.
a single crop of foals is enough to prove issues of exterieur as sceletton won’t change once matured.

damage control, as early as possible.
very reasonable thing to do.
if omly mare owners did the same thing consequently.[/QUOTE]

YES!!!

[ahf]

There are ways to cull a stallion from the breeding pool that do not have the fallout this way will. Lots of ways.

THe Dutch - from the way I understand it (and I may be wrong) have a “watch list” which puts the stallion station on notice that there is a concern, without completely aliantating the station’s client base.

Having thought this over, the only reasonable explanation is that Blu Hors decided they didn’t like him, and wanted to make damn sure no one else did either. If I was their client, I would think long and hard about ever using a young stallion of theirs again. I am not comfortable doing business with anyone that happily takes my money, and then does their level best to ensure my investment evaporates. I’ll bet the backstory would confirm there is no “high road” being taken here.

Hell, I got raked over the coals on this very board by a mareowner that was upset I sold my stallion, who was then gelded. It’s hard enough in this country to get mareowners to breed to a freshman stallion without the possibility of breached trust before the second foal crop ever hit the ground. ANd that’s essentially what we are talking about here. Breach of trust.

And that’s another thing. Of his first foal crop…did those 133 just hit the ground in the last 2 weeks? Why make the announcement now? Other than to make sure that since he’s not on Blu Hors roster he wouldn’t be on anyone elses.

Those of you who are saying “too bad, so sad… that’s what breeding to a freshman stallion is all about”…need to work on their strengthening their empathy muscle. I hope what Blu Hors did never happens to you.

[Indy-lou]

All things considered, including the right and desirability of culling sub par stallion producers, I think Blu Hors owes the mare owners who used Doolittle more of an explanation.

It’s kind of like buying a car that has a recall. After you paid all the money, you should be entitled to know if your purchase is going to explode or burst into flames at some point. Maybe the recall is only for a light bulb, but in any case, you as owner of said car has made a substantial investment in the car, and has a right to know its defects.

[back_in_the_saddle]

This has opened my eyes a little. Be super cautious if using a young stallion.

It’s one thing to knowingly breed a “test foal” but to pay money and then find out your foal was THE experiment is another story. :eek::eek:

[Oakstable]

Ditto to what AHF said.

The KWPN does use a watch list and that gives notice to the SO to make sure the stallion is bred to better mares.

With the KWPN emphasis on quality, I would think their average mares are not too shabby.

[YankeeLawyer]

[QUOTE=ahf;4618976]
There are ways to cull a stallion from the breeding pool that do not have the fallout this way will. Lots of ways.

THe Dutch - from the way I understand it (and I may be wrong) have a “watch list” which puts the stallion station on notice that there is a concern, without completely aliantating the station’s client base.

Having thought this over, the only reasonable explanation is that Blu Hors decided they didn’t like him, and wanted to make damn sure no one else did either. If I was their client, I would think long and hard about ever using a young stallion of theirs again. I am not comfortable doing business with anyone that happily takes my money, and then does their level best to ensure my investment evaporates. I’ll bet the backstory would confirm there is no “high road” being taken here.

Hell, I got raked over the coals on this very board by a mareowner that was upset I sold my stallion, who was then gelded. It’s hard enough in this country to get mareowners to breed to a freshman stallion without the possibility of breached trust before the second foal crop ever hit the ground. ANd that’s essentially what we are talking about here. Breach of trust.

And that’s another thing. Of his first foal crop…did those 133 just hit the ground in the last 2 weeks? Why make the announcement now? Other than to make sure that since he’s not on Blu Hors roster he wouldn’t be on anyone elses.

Those of you who are saying “too bad, so sad… that’s what breeding to a freshman stallion is all about”…need to work on their strengthening their empathy muscle. I hope what Blu Hors did never happens to you.[/QUOTE]

This is in part what I was getting at. I would want more information before jumping onto an all hail Blu Hors bandwagon.

And as I said, I have trouble with the notion that absent some kind of heritable defect, a single foal crop would be dispositive as to a stallion’s worth while the foals are just weanlings.

[Kinsella]

I have no problem with breeders culling stock that produces conformational issues. I would never ever consider using any stallion from a breeder that cuts me off at the ankles. The simple solution, if they were so concerned about him producing conformational issues, would be to GELD HIM. The foals, if they had problems, will get culled by the registries at inspections. What Blu Hors has done is screw their clients, no please or thank you included.

[YankeeLawyer]

I will point out also that Blu Hors not only has Don Schufro, that produces some homely foals that grow into spectacular riding horses, but also Hotline, whose foals are not always the most attractive but likewise seem to be more promising as they mature. But maybe they should have yanked Hotline also. I don’t think anyone would say that. I think most breeders said to wait and see how his offspring mature, that they may be late bloomers.

[Coppers_mom]

I too, would like to know why they didn’t do a test crop. I can’t find his stud fee, but they earned 100-200K off of him in his first breeding season, and are now saying the foals aren’t good enough to keep him on the roster. I think it’s great that they’re trying to maintain a high quality, but it’s also all kinds of screwed up to take in all that money then essentially ruin the stallion’s reputation.

[Oakstable]

What does their web site say?

Too odd to throw a stallion over the cliff based on one foal crop.

Makes me wonder if Eurodressage got the story right.

[paintjumper]

I’m of the opinion

and have been yelled at for it, that the mare is more important than the stallion in the breeding equation. Is it Blu Hors’ statement that EVERY mare bred to this young stallion took a back seat in her part of this mating and produced a foal worthy of knocking in the head before it stands and sucks, ALL 133 of them…ridiculous??? I just don’t get their response…and I’ll bet there is far more to this story. No breeder here or anywhere else wants substandard foals on the ground on purpose…but I doubt that is the real story here. If I had a spectacular filly out of my “Brentina” mare by this colt…and now she is worthless to the breeding world because of their reckless abandonment…ummhummummm. Not a classy move at all.
Anybody know the ACTUAL defect of these poor babies??

[siegi_b]

As a former stallion owner, I think I’m a little qualified to have an opinion on this… Here it is -

If you have a freshman stallion and breed him to 100 mares you will get a pretty good representation of what the guy produces. My guess in Doolittle’s case is that, as fannie mae has mentioned, their exterieur was all over the place, meaning that the stallion did not reliably produce a certain type of foal. Now you all say that the Dutch at least put the stallion on the watch list for something like that, but let me tell you that once they’re on that list people think twice about breeding to him, and most stallions on said list will end up losing their license to breed.

I have experience in breeding to stallions that are not consistent in what they “give” to the mares and those are stallions I will not breed to again. Breeding is a crapshoot to begin with - why would I make life more difficult than it already is?

Just my opinion…

[stoicfish]

Some people have suggested that it was a breach of faith to have the stallion “not proven” but it was his first breeding year and everyone that bred to him did so knowingly. They also agreed to pay the stud fee for a horse that did not yet have a foal crop of the ground. I personally take responsibility for my choices and in this case there was full disclosure, young stallion with no offspring. They could have limited the numbers on the first season as a precaution, that is the only thing I could see doing different, damage control in the off chance it doesn’t work out, but the irony is you need the numbers to make the decision.
Some others are upset because the resulting foals are reduced in value because of the public announcement but the only other option would be to sweep it under the rug…that would be better? Once again the breeders knew that it was his first breeding year.
As far as more information about what the flaws are. Has anyone contacted them and asked? Maybe they would be vey forth coming in telling people the facts their decision was based on. The writes of the article probably did not want to go into detail as it covered many subject briefly on one page.
I am sympathetic to the subject as a similar thing has happened to me but I am not upset at the SO as I knew the risk of breeding to a first year stallion. And to be honest, I would definitely still have made the same choice but I was breeding for myself and not for sale. If you are breeding for sale if makes more sense to use proven.

It may be a PR move to announce it the way they did but it does not necessitate that the actions behind it were wrong or the logic of the decision.

[Sandra6500]

AHF is so right. If there are conformational faults there are lots of ways to make a stallion “go away” without hurting the breeders that may have bred to him and got lucky with a super foal.

Here is the thing: Breeding to a “freshman” stallion is a big risk. You may get a crappy foal or you may get a great foal. If you get a bad foal you will not be able to sell that foal for much if at all. If you are breeding for yourself and get a filly, you hopefully won’t breed that mare later on. If you get a super foal you will have a much greater chance of selling for $$$$.

With the statement they made they screwed ALL the breeders with a Doolittle foal. Now there is a stigma attached to those foals and even people that got lucky and got a super foal (you can’t tell me that out of 131 there isn’t one super foal) now will pay the price of their statement.

Say the stallion is now EVA positive. Say he got kicked in the balls. Say he’s impotent. I don’t care- don’t say he produces crap. Horses are quietly “swept under the carpet” all the time. I feel like that would have been the responsible thing to do in this case. No one is saying continue to stand a stallion that produces bad foals but there is no reason to screw over all your clients from around the world.

On a sidenote: My Don Schufro filly was a mess until she was 3. As a yearling I could hardly look at her. At 2 I thought about shooting her in the face. At 2 1/2 I thought about setting her free into the wilderness. At 3 she changed completely and turned out very nice. I couldn’t be more happy with her. I’ve never seen a horse change so much from foal to grown-up. She does have a corse (read ugly) head, even though her dam has a very pretty head, but you don’t ride the head I guess.

[stoicfish]

Doolittle’s foals were in general not of the quality we had hoped for and we have a big stallion collection at Blue Hors and only want the best of the best. This is in the interest of the breeders and stallion stations themselves has to pick the stallions and keep the standard at a high level."

I am not sure this statement would deter a someone from taking a look at a nice colt or filly and if it did it is should be thier choice. I would want to know if I was buying.
Each to their own how you feel about this. But I find it a bit odd that many times on this board it is said that their needs to be more open critic and information about stallions to be able to make better breeding decisions “like the Europeans”. Then when it happens it is judged to be harsh. We also talk about only using the best for breeding and to be honest about the history. It would be in direct conflict of this statement that would protect the foals owners against loss of value of the offspring. They are the ones that took the risk, why should an unwitting buyer not have the information about one of these foals? I still might buy a foal, especially for riding, but should I not know about the history if I am looking to breed? Integrity and full disclosure are what I expect from people that I do business with.

[Fairview_Horse_Cente]

Could the problem be not so much that he was siring bad conformation, but that the foals were consistently clones of mom? If a stallion is not bringing much to the table, no reason to be a stallion. On that note, they should geld him if they are not happy with the foal quality.

[YankeeLawyer]

[QUOTE=siegi b.;4619398]
As a former stallion owner, I think I’m a little qualified to have an opinion on this… Here it is -
.[/QUOTE]

FWIW, I am a former stallion owner, also