Painta-Pintaloosa's!!

[Tango14]

[QUOTE=SilverSpringFarm;4081254]
THIS HORSE

http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/reminic+in+spots

IS a purebred Quarter Horse and he is registered as such. He does not have a drop of appaloosa blood in his pedigree. AQHA is a CLOSED book. They do not allow horses with appaloosa blood to be registered.

There are other Quarter Horses within the registry that exhibit the same type of color pattern. It is a naturally occurring phenomena within the breed.[/QUOTE]

I beg to differ, that’s not really a ‘naturally occuring phenomenon within the breed’. It stems from WAAAAY back when QH’s and Appaloosas shared many of the same bloodlines - because MAN crossed them with each other before pedigrees were recorded. These anomalies have popped up occasionally over the years. It is seen in certain Appaloosa bloodlines too, where high jagged stockings, bald faces etc pop up. It absolutely goes to prove my point that genes will out. It doesn’t matter what one’s excuse is, such as the OP’s, that the offspring looks like a paint and not an Appaloosa. Years down the line the outcross can pop up.

However, we’re still dodging the issue. The AQHA would not allow an Appaloosa x QH to be registered in it’s registry right?
Would it allow offspring of that Appaloosa-looking QH x a paint QH to be registered?

[SilverSpringFarm]

[QUOTE=Tango14;4081267]
You’re forgiven:) For that, but not for thinking it’s okay to cross Skewbalds / Piebalds / Paints with Appaloosas and vice versa.

Pretty much any auction listing will have a bunch of colored fuglies on it. Considering they are the SMALLER percentage of horses bred compared to solids, it’s shameful. It’s the one thing that strikes me whenever I read them. Sure you’ve seen some of them on Fugly, haven’t you? Oh, but I guess you don’t like the Fugly blog so you don’t read it…

This is what gives folks who don’t like colored horses REASON to be condescending and patronising about them. This is WHY there is such discrimination about colored horses. This is WHY predjuidice exists against colored horses. People automatically assume that if one breeds colored horses one has to be a total dimwit without a clue about anything. This is WHY those who are responsible breeders of colored horses trying to keep the bloodlines pure get so frustrated with those who couldn’t give a toss about it so long as they can ‘create’ their own ‘masterpieces’.[/QUOTE]

I happen to love the Fugly blog and I read it every day. I don’t consider myself one of her cult followers though. I don’t jump to conclusions every time someone mentions an unconventional breeding or desire to have a foal that is a specific color.

After all, Fugly doesn’t pick on all colored horses or color breeders. .

She picks on those that breed ONLY for color with no regard for conformation and performance ability.

My point is, if the OP has chosen to cross two high quality horses of similar type that compliment each other well then I don’t care if one is purple and the other is pink and the goal is to produce a foal with polka dots.

If the OP were to post photos of her mare, and I found the mare to be a conformational train wreck, I would have absolutely no problem letting the OP know that I did not feel that the mare should be bred.

But… I don’t have a clue what the OP’s mare is like, or what the stallion is like. Neither do you yet you still insist on assuming that the foal is going to be nothing more then auction fodder. I say you do not know near enough about the OP or this cross to make that call.

[SilverSpringFarm]

[QUOTE=Tango14;4081282]
I beg to differ, that’s not really a ‘naturally occuring phenomenon within the breed’. It stems from WAAAAY back when QH’s and Appaloosas shared many of the same bloodlines - because MAN crossed them with each other before pedigrees were recorded. These anomalies have popped up occasionally over the years. It is seen in certain Appaloosa bloodlines too, where high jagged stockings, bald faces etc pop up. It absolutely goes to prove my point that genes will out. It doesn’t matter what one’s excuse is, such as the OP’s, that the offspring looks like a paint and not an Appaloosa. Years down the line the outcross can pop up.[/QUOTE]

Well yes, OBVIOUSLY. The LP gene had to come from somewhere.

[QUOTE=Tango14;4081282]However, we’re still dodging the issue. The AQHA would not allow an Appaloosa x QH to be registered in it’s registry right?
Would it allow offspring of that Appaloosa-looking QH x a paint QH to be registered?[/QUOTE]

Yes, the offspring would be registered as a QH because it IS still a QH.

What part of the “white markings of any type have no impact on registration eligibility” don’t you get? And what the heck to you mean by “dodging the issue?” I’m not dodging a damn thing.

If a QH was born with zebra stripes and it was confirmed by DNA to be a purebred QH it would receive its papers too.

[Tango14]

[QUOTE=SilverSpringFarm;4081292]
I happen to love the Fugly blog and I read it every day. I don’t consider myself one of her cult followers though. I don’t jump to conclusions every time someone mentions an unconventional breeding or desire to have a foal that is a specific color.

After all, Fugly doesn’t pick on all colored horses or color breeders. .

She picks on those that breed ONLY for color with no regard for conformation and performance ability.

My point is, if the OP has chosen to cross two high quality horses of similar type that compliment each other well then I don’t care if one is purple and the other is pink and the goal is to produce a foal with polka dots.

If the OP were to post photos of her mare, and I found the mare to be a conformational train wreck, I would have absolutely no problem letting the OP know that I did not feel that the mare should be bred.

But… I don’t have a clue what the OP’s mare is like, or what the stallion is like. Neither do you yet you still insist on assuming that the foal is going to be nothing more then auction fodder. I say you do not know near enough about the OP or this cross to make that call.[/QUOTE]

I get the strong impression that Fugly (and the majority of people who ride and breed high-end horses) have an extremely derogatory view of color breeders in general. I may be wrong. It’s my impression though. Sadly, I can’t say I blame them either though, when I read stuff like this.

You are assuming that the OP is breeding high quality horses. We don’t know. I don’t give a fig if they’re both lovely animals - they have no business being crossed because the colors are incompatible. Trying to browbeat and insult me into accepting it won’t work. You’re quite happy to say you would reprimand the OP if the mare wasn’t conformationally up to standard but you critisize me for commenting negatively on her breeding two incompatible colors together. Phew, that’s double standards…

The OP stated she crossed these two horses. I responded. If she didn’t want responses both positive and negative on such a controversial topic she shouldn’t post. That goes for any of us.

And, I say, please stop putting words in my mouth and twisting what I write, it’s getting very tiresome. I am pretty sure I haven’t said her foal will be auction fodder. What I HAVE said is that the MAJORITY of such crosses that I have seen usually are. I don’t recall ever seeing one which I would rate.

[Tango14]

[QUOTE=SilverSpringFarm;4081306]
Well yes, OBVIOUSLY. The LP gene had to come from somewhere.

Yes, the offspring would be registered as a QH because it IS still a QH.

What part of the “white markings of any type have no impact on registration eligibility” don’t you get? And what the heck to you mean by “dodging the issue?” I’m not dodging a damn thing.

If a QH was born with zebra stripes and it was confirmed by DNA to be a purebred QH it would receive its papers too.[/QUOTE]

Glad you understand this.

You wouldn’t answer the question. Since you are the QH afficionado I thought you’d answer the simple question.

White markings fine, but Appaloosa spots?
I guess the AQHA are trying to swell their numbers? Quantity not quality? Who knows.

[JB]

@Tango14;4081267

You’re forgiven:) For that, but not for thinking it’s okay to cross Skewbalds / Piebalds / Paints with Appaloosas and vice versa.

It’s for aesthetic reasons that you and Sonesta and a few others here have decided it’s not ok. It’s not genetically immoral, it’s “oh my eyes!!” immoral, and that’s not a good reason for you guys to condemn the OP for choosing such an option.

The Frame Overo issue, mentioned before about hiding, in an Appy pattern, is 100% not a valid reason for condemning this choice of breeding, because you can have a solid chestnut not a single white hair on him AQHA horse who is a Frame carrier. So, just lose that argument right there.

Many people abhor dilute colors, but their preference does not make it wrong for others to love them and choose to breed them.

I personally cannot stand the look of a “sorrel” horse - boring chestnut with the same boring colored mane. B-o-r-i-n-g. But many people love it. We have a cat who’s a very light tan, not a catchy color, not bright, not dark, just sort of…sand. But she’s every visitor’s favorite kitty.

[JB]

@Tango14;4081345

Glad you understand this.

You wouldn’t answer the question. Since you are the QH afficionado I thought you’d answer the simple question.

White markings fine, but Appaloosa spots?
I guess the AQHA are trying to swell their numbers? Quantity not quality? Who knows.

ANY registry who registers a horse based purely on having the same registry parents is NOT interested in quality. That goes for AQHA, TBs, TWHs, anything where “breed X to X and you still get X, end of story” is a parentage registry and has no interest in trying to make sure only good specimens are approved for breeding.

[JB]

@Tango14;4081331

You are assuming that the OP is breeding high quality horses. We don’t know. I don’t give a fig if they’re both lovely animals - they have no business being crossed because the colors are incompatible. Trying to browbeat and insult me into accepting it won’t work. You’re quite happy to say you would reprimand the OP if the mare wasn’t conformationally up to standard but you critisize me for commenting negatively on her breeding two incompatible colors together. Phew, that’s double standards…

How is that a double standard? Quality is what comes first. Color can be a secondary choice, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. YOU don’t like an appy/pinto cross. So? I don’t like most chestnuts. I don’t want a gray horse. I wouldn’t want an Isabella palomino. If I had a Pinto I wouldn’t breed to an Appy because I happen to like pinto spots. But that does not make it wrong for someone else to choose that cross, as long as the quality is there, and that goes even if they are an “acceptable” color/pattern.

What I HAVE said is that the MAJORITY of such crosses that I have seen usually are. I don’t recall ever seeing one which I would rate.

That really isn’t saying a lot, seeing as how many really fugly horses there are out there produced by people who breed testicles to uteruses, people who breed purely color to color (have you SEEN some of the hideous homzoygous Tobi, homozygous black stallions out there who are ONLy stallions because of their color?), people who breed their pet mare because they want a piece of her and look for the cheapest, closest stallion to get the job done. It IS a problem when someone breeds a pinto to an appy PURELY to try to get some cool color. No one has said otherwise - that’s no better than those who keep their horse a stallion because he’s ToTo.

[Sonesta]

@JB;4081349

It’s for aesthetic reasons that you and Sonesta and a few others here have decided it’s not ok. It’s not genetically immoral, it’s “oh my eyes!!” immoral, and that’s not a good reason for you guys to condemn the OP for choosing such an option.

WHOA, there! It is NOT aesthetic reasons that make me against this cross. It is a desire to keep the breeding pool for color a bit more predictable! Which, in turn, will HELP the horses bred in the future. And it’s a desire that each foal should have the ability to be REGISTERED in a legitimate credible registry to help safeguard its future a tiny bit better.

It’s like being against breeding a chesnut Friesian (yes, they exist, but that color is highly frowned upon in that breed). Now, forget for a moment that we have a genetic test for the red gene now (because we do not as yet have reliable tests for the variations of pinto and none at all for any of the LP and PATN stuff). So, Someone decides they like the look of the chesnut Friesian and so start breeding the chestnut Friesian to other black Friesians hoping to get another chesnut.

Vast majority turn out to be black (as the black gene covers the red gene) and so breeder is disappointed and keeps trying - all the while creating a slew of black Friesians that carry the red gene - hidden from the future breeders until it inevitably pops up - likely UNWANTED.

OF course, it is not exactly that simple for me, either, because at least the chestnut Friesian would still be a Friesian for dog’s sake. Unlike these mongrel foals being produced by crossing whatever to whatever willy nilly.

[Tango14]

[QUOTE=JB;4081349]
It’s for aesthetic reasons that you and Sonesta and a few others here have decided it’s not ok. It’s not genetically immoral, it’s “oh my eyes!!” immoral, and that’s not a good reason for you guys to condemn the OP for choosing such an option.

The Frame Overo issue, mentioned before about hiding, in an Appy pattern, is 100% not a valid reason for condemning this choice of breeding, because you can have a solid chestnut not a single white hair on him AQHA horse who is a Frame carrier. So, just lose that argument right there.

Many people abhor dilute colors, but their preference does not make it wrong for others to love them and choose to breed them.

I personally cannot stand the look of a “sorrel” horse - boring chestnut with the same boring colored mane. B-o-r-i-n-g. But many people love it. We have a cat who’s a very light tan, not a catchy color, not bright, not dark, just sort of…sand. But she’s every visitor’s favorite kitty.[/QUOTE]

It is not for aesthetic reasons, please don’t misquote me or misinterpret me. It is because to cross the two colours ‘bastardises’ the Appaloosa color the result of which can pop up many years later.

I think it’s more than a ‘few’ people who would disagree with you. After all, the ApHC consists of more than a ‘few’ members. Perhaps you think that everyone who has an opinion on this subject reads this forum and has posted on here on this topic?

I never mentiontioned the FO issue so, once again, please don’t misquote me.

It’s not really a matter of personal preference here, it’s a matter of keeping bloodlines pure and maintaining that standard. Trying to prevent spotted QH’s and paint-Appaloosas from popping up unexpectedly in one’s breeding.
Perhaps that’s just too difficult for some to accept though.

[Tango14]

[QUOTE=JB;4081359]
How is that a double standard? Quality is what comes first. Color can be a secondary choice, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. YOU don’t like an appy/pinto cross. So? I don’t like most chestnuts. I don’t want a gray horse. I wouldn’t want an Isabella palomino. If I had a Pinto I wouldn’t breed to an Appy because I happen to like pinto spots. But that does not make it wrong for someone else to choose that cross, as long as the quality is there, and that goes even if they are an “acceptable” color/pattern.

That really isn’t saying a lot, seeing as how many really fugly horses there are out there produced by people who breed testicles to uteruses, people who breed purely color to color (have you SEEN some of the hideous homzoygous Tobi, homozygous black stallions out there who are ONLy stallions because of their color?), people who breed their pet mare because they want a piece of her and look for the cheapest, closest stallion to get the job done. It IS a problem when someone breeds a pinto to an appy PURELY to try to get some cool color. No one has said otherwise - that’s no better than those who keep their horse a stallion because he’s ToTo.[/QUOTE]

WRT your first paragraph please stop harping on about this because it’s not representing my opinion on the subject. It is what you have incorrectly interpreted as my opinion.

Breed testicles to uteruses? What?

The topic is not about other fuglies, it’s about paintaloosa (fuglies). Let’s not digress. Two wrongs don’t make a right. You can’t excuse it that way.

[Tango14]

[QUOTE=Sonesta;4081370]
WHOA, there! It is NOT aesthetic reasons that make me against this cross. It is a desire to keep the breeding pool for color a bit more predictable! Which, in turn, will HELP the horses bred in the future. And it’s a desire that each foal should have the ability to be REGISTERED in a legitimate credible registry to help safeguard its future a tiny bit better.

It’s like being against breeding a chesnut Friesian (yes, they exist, but that color is highly frowned upon in that breed). Now, forget for a moment that we have a genetic test for the red gene now (because we do not as yet have reliable tests for the variations of pinto and none at all for any of the LP and PATN stuff). So, Someone decides they like the look of the chesnut Friesian and so start breeding the chestnut Friesian to other black Friesians hoping to get another chesnut.

Vast majority turn out to be black (as the black gene covers the red gene) and so breeder is disappointed and keeps trying - all the while creating a slew of black Friesians that carry the red gene - hidden from the future breeders until it inevitably pops up - likely UNWANTED.

OF course, it is not exactly that simple for me, either, because at least the chestnut Friesian would still be a Friesian for dog’s sake. Unlike these mongrel foals being produced by crossing whatever to whatever willy nilly.[/QUOTE]

Precisely:yes:

[Tango14]

[QUOTE=JB;4081356]
ANY registry who registers a horse based purely on having the same registry parents is NOT interested in quality. That goes for AQHA, TBs, TWHs, anything where “breed X to X and you still get X, end of story” is a parentage registry and has no interest in trying to make sure only good specimens are approved for breeding.[/QUOTE]

Thank You! I rest my case! LOOK at all the Thoroughbreds bred annually. How many make it as racehorses and how many fall by the wayside and end up in dire straits? PRECISELY my point about breeding ‘unknown quantities’ and excusing it with all sorts of codswallop as to why it’s acceptable and ok.

[RiddleMeThis]

@Sonesta;4081370

And it’s a desire that each foal should have the ability to be REGISTERED in a legitimate credible registry to help safeguard its future a tiny bit better.

OF course, it is not exactly that simple for me, either, because at least the chestnut Friesian would still be a Friesian for dog’s sake. Unlike these mongrel foals being produced by crossing whatever to whatever willy nilly.

And this is why I pointed out Reminic in Spots and the frame quarter horse. They DO exist in the same breed and CAN be registered with a legitimate registry.

1. I don’t know much about QH’s. Does the AQHA allow QH’s with with Appaloosa coloring and characteristics to be registered as proper Quarter Horses? Are they allowed in the Main Registry??

Yes. Those horses are both registered in the Main Registry.

2. Does the AQHA allow one to register a Paint x Appaloosa as Quarter Horse simply because one or both of the Paint or Appaloosa has a Quarter Horse in its pedigree?

If they are both registered AQHA yes.

3. You don’t get blue horses. You probably mean ‘gray’:lol:
   Nope. Didnt mean gray. If I had meant gray I would have said gray. I said blue as an example to get my point across. I dont care what color a horse pops out as. Black, gray, blue, pink, green. If its a quality horse its a quality horse.

And the answer is ‘yes’.

Wow how sad. I guess because some warmblood breeders breed to unapproved stallions and produce crap “warmbloods” I guess they all do and no one should be breeding warmbloods.

So the AQHA is another mickey-mouse ‘anything goes’ registry is it? Shame on them!
Nope. They register purebred quarter horses. And TB quarter horse crosses. Thats it. Hardly an “anything goes.”

Pretty much any auction listing will have a bunch of colored fuglies on it. Considering they are the SMALLER percentage of horses bred compared to solids, it’s shameful. It’s the one thing that strikes me whenever I read them. Sure you’ve seen some of them on Fugly, haven’t you?

Auction Listing for April 5 at Enumclaw.
Solids-23
Colored-10 (and one was the high seller of the auction)
There are twice as many solids going through than colored. Seems to me its the solid horses who are having more of a problem than the colored ones.

This is what gives folks who don’t like colored horses REASON to be condescending and patronising about them. This is WHY there is such discrimination about colored horses. This is WHY predjuidice exists against colored horses. People automatically assume that if one breeds colored horses one has to be a total dimwit without a clue about anything.
Interesting that you had those opinions before this whole debate started. Interesting that you had that opinion of the cross before you even saw the horses being crossed.

The AQHA would not allow an Appaloosa x QH to be registered in it’s registry right?
Would it allow offspring of that Appaloosa-looking QH x a paint QH to be registered?
1.Nope 2.Yes

Sadly, I can’t say I blame them either though, when I read stuff like this.
Studd like what? People saying that two quality horses can be bred?

The topic is not about other fuglies, it’s about paintaloosa (fuglies).
Im curious how you know these horses are fugly?

This is my problem right here. You are making assumptions that these horses arent quality when you have absolutely no basis to make that assumption other than color. Its like saying “hey i have a bay mare and a black stallion. Can I breed them?” "Sure they are black and bay they MUST be quality.

[SilverSpringFarm]

[QUOTE=Tango14;4081345]
Glad you understand this.

You wouldn’t answer the question. Since you are the QH afficionado I thought you’d answer the simple question.

White markings fine, but Appaloosa spots?
I guess the AQHA are trying to swell their numbers? Quantity not quality? Who knows.[/QUOTE]

I answered your question the very first time. The white rule applied to ALL white markings. Period.

It is not my problem that you have a reading comprehension issue.

[SilverSpringFarm]

[QUOTE=Tango14;4081331]

You are assuming that the OP is breeding high quality horses. We don’t know. I don’t give a fig if they’re both lovely animals - they have no business being crossed because the colors are incompatible. Trying to browbeat and insult me into accepting it won’t work. You’re quite happy to say you would reprimand the OP if the mare wasn’t conformationally up to standard but you critisize me for commenting negatively on her breeding two incompatible colors together. Phew, that’s double standards…[/QUOTE]

Incompatible colors??? What does that even mean?

Since when did it become YOUR job to determine which color patterns are compatible and which aren’t?

You don’t care for the color combination. WE GET IT. Doesn’t mean that other people don’t get the right to LIKE that combination. You do not get to define other people’s color preferences.

[JB]

@Sonesta;4081370

WHOA, there! It is NOT aesthetic reasons that make me against this cross. It is a desire to keep the breeding pool for color a bit more predictable! Which, in turn, will HELP the horses bred in the future. And it’s a desire that each foal should have the ability to be REGISTERED in a legitimate credible registry to help safeguard its future a tiny bit better.

When it comes to color, that IS an aesthetic issue. There are quite a few WB registries that do not accept more than minimal white - purely an aesthetic reason. It’s not like anyone here is promoting a pinto/appy registry where everyone vies to get the more acceptably pretty pattern in a foal.

It’s like being against breeding a chesnut Friesian (yes, they exist, but that color is highly frowned upon in that breed).
Exactly - someone in that world decided that Friesians had to be black. No real good reason except they thought that was the most attractive.

Now, forget for a moment that we have a genetic test for the red gene now (because we do not as yet have reliable tests for the variations of pinto and none at all for any of the LP and PATN stuff). So, Someone decides they like the look of the chesnut Friesian and so start breeding the chestnut Friesian to other black Friesians hoping to get another chesnut.

Vast majority turn out to be black (as the black gene covers the red gene) and so breeder is disappointed and keeps trying - all the while creating a slew of black Friesians that carry the red gene - hidden from the future breeders until it inevitably pops up - likely UNWANTED.

That’s no different from someone breeding fugly ToTo horses to fuglier Perlino horses just to get fugly buckskins - if you aren’t firstly breeding for comformation and temperament, then you are not a good breeder and should be stopped. If you have bred 2 nice horses together and just happen to get an undesirable color out of it, well, SOMEONE likes that color - we’ve had several threads on this board about a couple of chestnut Friesians that everyone was drooling over.

OF course, it is not exactly that simple for me, either, because at least the chestnut Friesian would still be a Friesian for dog’s sake. Unlike these mongrel foals being produced by crossing whatever to whatever willy nilly.
WHY is that any different than if the breeder was crossing a TB with a Morgan? If you get a nice horse, you get a nice horse, and if you did your job as a breeder and are at least breeding good specimens of like to like, the nice horse will be sale-able. NOBODY here is talking about willy nilly breeding! I think everyone on this thread is vehemently against breeding purely for color.

[belambi]

In my opinion the Friesian discussion is not really a fair comparisson. there is a huge genetic difference between colour and patterns. In the case of friesians, people tend to be suspicous of non black friesians since black is homozygous in the case of most of them, so naturally people till tend to question their pedigree… even though the stud book is over 100 years old , of course they are still a statistical possibility!

[JB]

@Tango14;4081401

It is not for aesthetic reasons, please don’t misquote me or misinterpret me. It is because to cross the two colours ‘bastardises’ the Appaloosa color the result of which can pop up many years later.

Since an Appy/Pinto cross cannot be registered as either, it does not bastardize the color any more than breeding pintos to grays. There are registries and people who are horrified when a cropout Overo is born - yep, it was hiding there for generations likely - should all horses with any white markings at all, even the normal little socks and stars, stop being bred because 2 of them might get together one day and produce a loud Sabino or Overo and “ruin” a good color?

I think it’s more than a ‘few’ people who would disagree with you. After all, the ApHC consists of more than a ‘few’ members. Perhaps you think that everyone who has an opinion on this subject reads this forum and has posted on here on this topic?
And like I said, the ApHC would not accept the registration of the cross to a Pinto, so what’s it to them?

It’s not really a matter of personal preference here, it’s a matter of keeping bloodlines pure and maintaining that standard. Trying to prevent spotted QH’s and paint-Appaloosas from popping up unexpectedly in one’s breeding.
Perhaps that’s just too difficult for some to accept though.
Again, since the appy/pinto cross isn’t registerable as either ApHA or APHA, why does it matter? If someone is breeding those “purebred” animals, they want registration papers, and this foal won’t have one.

[quote=Tango14;4081412]WRT your first paragraph please stop harping on about this because it’s not representing my opinion on the subject. It is what you have incorrectly interpreted as my opinion.
[/quote]

You are chastizing her for breeding 2 patterns together you don’t feel are acceptable, and you’d feel the same way regardless of the parents being fine specimens. I said I would have a problem if someone breeds ill-conformed horses. You said that’s a double standard - how? One is purely aesthetic - color. The other is a functional, useful issue, which has a far, far greater effect on what happens to horses than their color.

Breed testicles to uteruses? What?

Breeding anything with balls to anything with a uterus just because they can.

The topic is not about other fuglies, it’s about paintaloosa (fuglies). Let’s not digress. Two wrongs don’t make a right. You can’t excuse it that way.
It IS about aesthetic fuglies. I don’t like the Belgian mealy/pangare light chestnut. Just don’t. That does not make it wrong.

It IS a double standard when someone says “a good horse is never a bad color” and then turns around and chastizes someone for breeding an appy to a pinto simply because they don’t like the look.

[JB]

@Tango14;4081426

Thank You! I rest my case! LOOK at all the Thoroughbreds bred annually. How many make it as racehorses and how many fall by the wayside and end up in dire straits? PRECISELY my point about breeding ‘unknown quantities’ and excusing it with all sorts of codswallop as to why it’s acceptable and ok.

Yes, that WAS the point but has nothing to do with this conversation. I DO know that there ARE WB breeders (and others who breed for inspection/approval registries) who ARE registry-snobs against any registry that does not have approvals for breeding stick. That IS an issue. But it’s a general breeding issue and has nothing to do with color, other than color being a bad reason to breed. Color shouldn’t be a reason NOT to breed quality individual together, unless it is your personal preference to not do so. Aesthetics. Nothing to do with quality or the horse able to do his job soundly and for many years.