[QUOTE=RiverOaksFarm;6707789]
fish, I’m guessing you’re the one who gave me a “thumbs down” since you seem to disagree with me regarding the importance of genetics, understanding the risk of throwbacks, and so forth.
I agree with you to a point – breeding is a gamble. BUT… I think responsible breeders minimize the gamble as much as possible by being as careful and educated as possible – and when I say educated, I mean educated about breeding in general, but also educated about the individuals being used for breeding. The more you know about the stallion and the mare you’ll be breeding, the more you can “stack the deck” in your favor.
Sticking to your gambling example, it’s like how anyone can play Blackjack – whether you can hardly add two numbers together, or whether you’re a math whiz and you’ve memorized the odds/strategies backwards and forwards – anyone can play. But the players in the latter group are more likely to win than the players in the former group. Breeding is similar, the more you know, the more likely you are to be successful.
So I respect much of what you’ve said here, but we disagree about the wisdom of using grade mares for breeding. And I think saying “all breeding is a gamble” trivializes the vast research and homework many breeders do in their quest to breed quality horses, responsibly.
I guess I’m about to get another thumbs down
(sorry!)[/QUOTE]
I don’t do thumbs down-- and wish they’d get rid of the things.
And I’ve not trivialized any of the research people do in preparation for breeding-- I do a helluva lot of it myself-- some of which led me to breed my (premium) mare to a then unapproved stallion (Cunningham) in 2002 to produce a (supposedly) unregisterable foal. I took a lot of flack on these boards for my decision at the time, but have never regretted it for a second. IMO, people who equate breeding outside registry rules with not being “educated about breeding in general” are pretty obviously “trivializing” the work of those whose own experience and research have led them in different, but often far from “uneducated” directions. There have long been and still are many highly educated breeders in this country who are not at all adverse to breeding unpapered horses if other factors (e.g., conformation, performance, what is known of bloodlines…) “stack the deck” in their favor. I see nothing wrong with this. Meantime, you insult a great many fine horsepeople and breeders-- especially in the h/j world-- by equating such people with Blackjack players who “can hardly add two numbers together–” not to mention demonstrating your failure to read my post carefully. E.g., what do you think I was referring to when I wrote of highly successful professional gamblers studying the odds, etc., etc. if not the necessity of study/education to guard against losing one’s shirt in gambling of any stripe, including breeding??
To illustrate where I’m coming from on this issue of breeding unregistered mares to produce sport horses, I like to recall a USDF seminar with Hilda Gurney I attended several years ago. In one session, she evaluated 3 mares as sport horse breeding prospects: a registered TB mare, an unregistered Anglo-Arab, and a branded Hanoverian. The first two she described as “elegant, of excellent type,” and said she would not hesitate to breed either. The WB, however, was coarse, incorrect, ill proportioned… so Hilda said she would not breed her whether she was approved for breeding or not. As fate would have it, the WB mare was in foal at the time. The other two were (I think unfortunately) never bred.
Seems to me that that’s the sort of thing that is all too likely to happen when people place paper/approvals above the quality of the individuals in front of them, and stridently condemn people willing to take chances on grade/unregistered horses regardless of the quality of the individuals or what they might have to contribute to sport.