What is interesting is that for all of the debate no one who produced a foal has made a comment.
IMO, itâs irresponsible for any stallion owner to let 100+ foals be born withOUT doing any test breedings.
Yes, the mare owners took that risk but the stallion owner should have limited the breedings the first year.
This should be a requirement for ANY breed association IMO.
[QUOTE=Sandra6500;4619549]
Say the stallion is now EVA positive. Say he got kicked in the balls. Say heâs impotent. I donât care- donât say he produces crap. Horses are quietly âswept under the carpetâ 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.
[QUOTE]
So now we WANT stallion owners to lie to us?! Iâm sorry, thatâs crazy.
Breeders are constantly harping and moaning on this board that they want stallion owners to âbe more honestâ; they want disclosure if there is even a hint that a stallion might be passing on issues (whether that be temperament, OCD, limb issues, etc). Now we have a stallion owner coming out and saying âhey, these foals arenât good enough, we wonât stand this stallion anymoreâ and we are crucifying them! You canât have it both ways.
Sure, they could be more forthcoming with exact details, but guess what? This is their stallion and they can handle this as they see fit. If their client base feels screwed over, then they can vote with their feet and not use any of their stallions anymore.
Iâd be interested to hear from someone who actually bred to this stallion, and to see what the reaction has been in other parts of the world.
I agree with those who said there are less harmfull ways to discretely prevent stallions from the breeding shed. You donât have to make your clienteleâs lifes miserable like this. How is anybody supposed to sell those âsubstandardâ 100something foals? There isnât even enough expertise around these days to tell the sparrows from the nightingales why do they have to play rough like this especially when they as one of the hobby-stations can keep burning money while some of their clients rely on breeding professionally? Not the smartest move to stay in business if you ask meâŠ
Nobody says the stallion owner should lie about anything but since when are they required to explain their actions to anybody let alone bubbling about it on the internet?! They could have just kept their mouth shut and geld him if the foals s***** without being liars.
The question is not whether stallions should or should not be removed from breeding programmes if they donât reproduce well. The question is whether itâs necessary to disintegrate your last yearâs highly praised hero stallion all over the internet a few months later right in the face of 100+ mare owners who have been good enough to pass on money to breed to him. Now on top of their allegedly useless expense they earn all the downside on top of that after the stallion owner has neatly covered their own âinvestmentâ and goes on to new ventures.
If they were concerned with whatever faults they found with the foals they should have taken it where the information belongs: To the registries.
Me thinks something has gone seriously wrong here. Being transparent does not equal riding on âyourâ mare ownerâs shoulders.
Blu Hors does business on a world-wide basis and I believe the only way to reach all of their potential customers is through the internet. Should they instead keep quiet and just answer all the inquiries from interested breeders?
And Kareen, please donât call them hobby breeders - I do believe they are a little more than that. 
[QUOTE=Hillside H Ranch;4619811]
[QUOTE=Sandra6500;4619549]
So now we WANT stallion owners to lie to us?! Iâm sorry, thatâs crazy.
Breeders are constantly harping and moaning on this board that they want stallion owners to âbe more honestâ; they want disclosure if there is even a hint that a stallion might be passing on issues (whether that be temperament, OCD, limb issues, etc). Now we have a stallion owner coming out and saying âhey, these foals arenât good enough, we wonât stand this stallion anymoreâ and we are crucifying them! You canât have it both ways.
Sure, they could be more forthcoming with exact details, but guess what? This is their stallion and they can handle this as they see fit. If their client base feels screwed over, then they can vote with their feet and not use any of their stallions anymore.
Iâd be interested to hear from someone who actually bred to this stallion, and to see what the reaction has been in other parts of the world.[/QUOTE]
Whoâs crucifying them? All anyoneâs saying is that it sucks for the breeders who have/are having foals by him, and that we wish there was more information.
I do think it was a bit irresponsible to breed 131 foals on their part, simply because this whole fiasco could have been avoided (not that they really care, they got at least 100K out of him first). At the same time, I acknowledge that those breeders did choose to use a completely unproven stallion.
I also think that something more should have been added to the statement, if they were going to make taking him off the roster for being a poor producer such a big, public deal. Something along the lines of he didnât stamp the foals, they were nice but not breeding quality babies so we donât want to continue breeding, etc.
As an aside, what is up with the pictures on their website? Does he really look like that? I hope theyâre just bad. Otherwise, heâs really not as impressive as they hyped him up to be. Itâs not that heâs ugly, but I can see where the conformationally average bit would come from if thatâs whatâs the matter.
I was responding to a previous poster that said they could have told the public that the horse had EVA, was injured or impotent. That is indeed lying.
In hindsight, it is easy to say that test breedings should be done, why breed 130 mares to an unproven stallion, etc., but this happens every year with the latest, hottest stallion. What would have happened if Quaterback had turned out to have a problem? Or Hotline? Or Dancier? Every year a gorgeous stallion or two comes through the BC or licensing process, and attracts hundreds of mares. It is truly a big gamble to breed to an unproven stallion, and this time the SO made sure that those with foals will pay dearly for taking that risk.
So are they going to geld him?
I will have a lot more respect for Blu Hors if they do perform a ball-ectomy on Doolittle. What will not impress is if they sell him to someone intact, who in turn uses him to sire more âsubstandardâ foals.
1 Like
Hereâs what I want to know.
By June of last year, a lot of those 131 foals had hit the groundâŠYes?
So, by that time Blu Hors probably had a pretty good idea of the âproblemâ (whatever it is).
I want to know if they began to encourage the mareowners to switch the mares that were booked to him in 2009 but not yet bred. Or if they just sat happily back and let him finish his commitments for the 2009 season, and continue to cash the checks.
If he got 131 in 2008, he must have gotten at least 100 in 2009.
How is this being covered in the European equestrian press?
OK, some of you are arguing that Blue Hors should be applauded for being so honest. Others are arguing that you donât remove a stallion from your roster and publicly damn him without good cause, therefore Doolittle must be passing on serious faults or genetic deformities. First of all, both Don Schufro and Lauries Crusador have hundreds (thousands - ?) of foals on the ground, and Doolittleâs bottom line also contains a lot of very familiar names. If there was a genetic tendency in those lines for club feet or parrot mouths or whatever, there would have been some indication of it by now. Secondly, the fact that Blue Hors made such a public statement about the horse indicates their intent to be forthright. If the horse was in fact passing on severe conformational issues, they would not keep him a stallion â he would be gelded and sent on to a riding career.
As stated earlier, a disappointing foal report in a dressage stallion usually means two things:
1 - They are not typey, elegant foals, with good toplines, well set on necks, and pretty faces.
2 - The gaits are not big enough to overcome unattractive heads and rough looking frames.
They may turn out to be wonderful horses for amateurs to play around with, but when you are one of the worldâs top studs, you have to produce foals that sell quickly for lots of money. Unattractive dressage bred foals with shoebox heads and rough exteriors are not going to attract buyers in todayâs market, especially if they are not powerhouse movers.
While I applaud Blue Horse for being so candid, I find it very unfortunate that they have so thoroughly ruined the chances for anyone to get his foals sold, AND that they have also made damned sure he doesnât get picked up by a competing stallion station. (Again, if he was that bad, they would have gelded him â but no, they instead announce that he wasnât producing to their expectations so they are dropping him from their roster.)
And for those wondering why Blue Hors allowed him to breed 100+ mares without a test foal crop â the first foal crop of a stallion is ALWAYS a test foal crop. Those breeders knew they were taking a chance, and it is unrealistic to expect a stallion owner to only breed a few mares of his own as âtestsâ before letting the stallion stand at public stud. You just cannot make a true assessment from only a few foals, but 100 foals would give a pretty good idea of what the stallion is passing on.
As we all know, breeding is a crap shoot. This is a classic example of a well bred stallion that showed a great deal of promise as a youngster, turning out to be an end-product instead of a hereditary transmitter.
I wish those who bred to him good luck in getting their foals into good situations, and I wish good luck to the stallion himself for the rest of his life.
Very well stated, Down Yonder
Why should they not be called hobby breeders? There is nothing wrong with spending money on your hobby. Only because they have a big facility and spend a lot of money on stallions doesnât necessarily mean they are in it for the money. Matter of fact most stallion ownerships arenât in it for the profit but the prestige. Nothing wrong with it but thereâs no need to sugarcoat the truth?
The point is they shouldnât do their mareowners this kind of disservice because some of them might care.
As far as informing the public goes are you kidding? How do other studfarms manage to inform their clientele? They could have made a statement on their website or anywhere else public to say Doolittle was no longer on their stallion roser. Period.
This is too much information especially when someoneâs owl might be someone elseâs nightingale. I find it an incredibly selfish action and irresponsible towards their clients.
[QUOTE=Kareen;4620332]
Why should they not be called hobby breeders? There is nothing wrong with spending money on your hobby. Only because they have a big facility and spend a lot of money on stallions doesnât necessarily mean they are in it for the money. Matter of fact most stallion ownerships arenât in it for the profit but the prestige. Nothing wrong with it but thereâs no need to sugarcoat the truth?
The point is they shouldnât do their mareowners this kind of disservice because some of them might care.
As far as informing the public goes are you kidding? How do other studfarms manage to inform their clientele? They could have made a statement on their website or anywhere else public to say Doolittle was no longer on their stallion roser. Period.
This is too much information especially when someoneâs owl might be someone elseâs nightingale. I find it an incredibly selfish action and irresponsible towards their clients.[/QUOTE]
I wouldnât call them hobby breeders simply because theyâre a business. Theyâre not breeding just one or two a year just for the fun of it and absorbing all the costs the way you would if you were just feeding your one riding horse.
Ok from a buyers point of view. Would you want to spend money on one of these fillies without the above knowlege? As in make her a part of your breeding program? How would you feel finding out later or after her third bad colt. How much of a waste of money is that.
Someone is going to get shortchanged, by making it public it is the people that took the risk, instead of the buyers. These horses can still be sold as riding horses if they turn into swans. Riders care less about these things. It is the breeders that need to know.
It is unfortunate that so many people trust a BN judgement/words, rather than seeking knowledge for themselves. If buyers of the foals developed their own ability to judge a horse, then the foal/horse would sell or not on their own merit, and any announcement would not have an effect, as people could SEE with their own eyes.
One could say if âyouâ (generic you) as a breeder canât see the fault in those fillies, you should not be breeding anyway. If âyouâ as a purchaser canât see of the horse has a glaring fault, maybe you need to learn to evaluate before buying.
In this world however, if a VERY famous breeder or rider said QB was a bad mover, most people would think the statement was gospel.
I have seen some serious ugly broodmares that produce great horses (jumpers). Is it true that broodmares are just judged on their conformation? Because I hear time and again that people rely on the success of the lines in choosing. Correct me if I am wrong.
