How about Calloway Hills Stables in Missouri? They are long time breeders. It might be fun and useful to visit them
I am truly sorry, but I have seen one too may pukes with brands on their asses, in my lifetime, to sit quietly for so obvious an insult. Every respectable breeder is going to breed to the exceptional horse, whatever they perceive that to be. And you know what? They are still going to get a whole lot of average.
So have I. That is my point exactly. There are already enough average horses out there…warmblood or not. You keep taking this as a jibe against ASB’s but as I have explained numerous times already, there are tonnes of average/below average of every breed out there. There are so many of them that there is no respectable reason to produce yet another one.
When you breed for average you don’t produce exceptional horses. That is why the horse slaughter issue exists. It exists because people who bred those horses did not have high enough standards when breeding! When you breed for exceptional, if you know what you are doing, you aren’t likely ever going to produce something of the same caliber found at the meat plant. Obviously it is possible. Anything is possible. But it is unlikely.
Take a look at this pretty little mare. She’s obviously been started and shown saddleseat first, but just imagine what she would look like with proper (dressage) retraining, shoeing, riding, etc… You can certainly see why the OP would consider such a cross.
Before I start, just want to reiterate something - those photos etc posted are PUREBRED Saddlebreds, not crosses or Georgian Grandes as some have assumed.
[QUOTE=stoicfish;7434051]
Tb is not considered an off breed for most Wb’s as it is improvement blood.[/QUOTE]
Isn’t it interesting that the Thoroughbred is considered improvement blood, yet the Saddlebred which was developed side by side with the Thoroughbred for 200 years, with a substantial amount of Thoroughbred in its makeup, is not.
Consider that the Thoroughbred was bred for racing and the Saddlebred for riding, having superior soundness and riding qualities to the Thoroughbred in many respects as a result, so what is the difference?
I daresay it’s the lack of knowledge of the breed by warmblood breeders in the USA to be honest, they have an amazing refiner under their noses but because Europe is so strong in the industry (and naturally has Thoroughbreds not Saddlebreds) the peer pressure to conform I imagine is incredibly strong (at least by my observation in this thread).
No disrespect intended towards some very excellent breeders, but I think it’s part of the truth; lack of knowledge and the pressure to conform to the system.
I realise the first response is that the system WORKS, but I’m referring more to the question, what would really happen if you used Saddlebred as a refiner, and say arguably you produced a really nice type, similar to what you would expect putting in Thoroughbred, but with better riding qualities?
Would the warmblood registries welcome a good type with open arms, or would your horse be disqualified from registration because you used Saddlebred instead of Thoroughbred? Would you be disdained because you used a non-traditional breed for refining even though you produced an excellent horse?
The question then would be why - and to me it’s lack of knowledge, lack of familiarity, and because it’s not a European breed you are shit out of luck - and not anything to do with the actual quality or usefulness of the refiner.
And before you roll your eyes and say ‘as if I would ever use Saddlebred’, stop. And consider why that is - do you truly know the qualities and have assessed them and discarded them as a refiner, or are you just taking the easy and comfortable, conformist way out as a member of a particular view on the breeding of performance stock. Conformist in this sense is not being used disparagingly but descriptively of the situation.
Here we have someone trying something new and not usual to the Warmblood fraternity, yet we have 17 pages of carry on from warmblood breeders over anyone innovating. I’m talking about the immediate assumption that it will be a low level cross, despite the TB x WB being so common and without mention. Is it just me, or does nobody else find this interesting?
[QUOTE=silvia;7434555]
Isn’t it interesting that the Thoroughbred is considered improvement blood, yet the Saddlebred which was developed side by side with the Thoroughbred for 200 years, with a substantial amount of Thoroughbred in its makeup, is not.
Consider that the Thoroughbred was bred for racing and the Saddlebred for riding, having superior soundness and riding qualities to the Thoroughbred in many respects as a result, so what is the difference?
I daresay it’s the lack of knowledge of the breed by warmblood breeders in the USA to be honest, they have an amazing refiner under their noses but because Europe is so strong in the industry (and naturally has Thoroughbreds not Saddlebreds) the peer pressure to conform I imagine is incredibly strong (at least by my observation in this thread).
No disrespect intended towards some very excellent breeders, but I think it’s part of the truth; lack of knowledge and the pressure to conform to the system.
I realise the first response is that the system WORKS, but I’m referring more to the question, what would really happen if you used Saddlebred as a refiner, and say arguably you produced a really nice type, similar to what you would expect putting in Thoroughbred, but with better riding qualities?
Would the warmblood registries welcome a good type with open arms, or would your horse be disqualified from registration because you used Saddlebred instead of Thoroughbred? Would you be disdained because you used a non-traditional breed for refining even though you produced an excellent horse?
The question then would be why - and to me it’s lack of knowledge, lack of familiarity, and because it’s not a European breed you are shit out of luck - and not anything to do with the actual quality or usefulness of the refiner.
And before you roll your eyes and say ‘as if I would ever use Saddlebred’, stop. And consider why that is - do you truly know the qualities and have assessed them and discarded them as a refiner, or are you just taking the easy and comfortable, conformist way out as a member of a particular view on the breeding of performance stock. Conformist in this sense is not being used disparagingly but descriptively of the situation.
Here we have someone trying something new and not usual to the Warmblood fraternity, yet we have 17 pages of carry on from warmblood breeders over anyone innovating. I’m talking about the immediate assumption that it will be a low level cross, despite the TB x WB being so common and without mention. Is it just me, or does nobody else find this interesting?[/QUOTE]
Interesting.? I find it infuriating, actually.
As always, you articulate everything perfectly. I guess I just can’t type straight when I’m butting my head against a massive collective brick wall of stubbornness and tunnel vision.
[QUOTE=Donella;7434431]
I am truly sorry, but I have seen one too may pukes with brands on their asses, in my lifetime, to sit quietly for so obvious an insult. Every respectable breeder is going to breed to the exceptional horse, whatever they perceive that to be. And you know what? They are still going to get a whole lot of average.
So have I. That is my point exactly. There are already enough average horses out there…warmblood or not. You keep taking this as a jibe against ASB’s but as I have explained numerous times already, there are tonnes of average/below average of every breed out there. There are so many of them that there is no respectable reason to produce yet another one.
When you breed for average you don’t produce exceptional horses. That is why the horse slaughter issue exists. It exists because people who bred those horses did not have high enough standards when breeding! When you breed for exceptional, if you know what you are doing, you aren’t likely ever going to produce something of the same caliber found at the meat plant. Obviously it is possible. Anything is possible. But it is unlikely.[/QUOTE]
This post really has had me thinking today. Why is it that “when you breed for average you don’t produce exceptional horses”? Is that really true? What is average? What is exceptional? In all honestly, please do not take this as being argumentative for the sake of it. I just think this is an interesting philosophical and ethical question.
It really had me thinking today…why do I breed? How do I do it that I feel ethical? Especially since I am a vet and deal daily with the results of the animal overpopulation.
I honestly can say I am not breeding to produce a dressage horse for the Olympics, WEG or the International playground. Does that mean I am not breeding for the exceptional? Does that mean I should not be breeding?
I do not want to breed a horse that moves like Totilas or has the mind of Parzival, Don Johnson, Ravel or Warum Nicht. This is because I do not know a rider such as Isabel Werth, Stefan Peters or Edward Gal that can ride such a horse. I know me and the majority of competitive AA riders. Am I less of a breeder because I want to produce exceptional AA horses? Not exceptional International horses. If I do not set my goal for International caliber horses, but rather AA horses, am I going to produce something less than that? Am I going to flood the meat market?
This has really perplexed me all day…especially since this week I am planning on sending in my check to purchase semen! After literally hours of thought, my answer is no. I think it is fine to breed for the AA market and doing so will not lessen the quality of my minute breeding program. Because what I deem exceptional for my program is a sound mind, sound horse, attractive type, good basic movement…not super flashy, not for the FEI YH ring (although I love going to the YH shows) and not the temperament usually needed for the International FEI ring.
Now I realize this is a totally separate issue than the original point of this thread. In that regard I do believe one should stick within the confines of a successful breed registry… be it a WB registry, a Welsh registry, ISH, ASB, etc. I am not a proponent of the crosses, but that has more to do with the lack of predictability of the F1, F2, generation. I believe in breeding for the future generations, which is undoubtedly more difficult with the crosses. I believe if one loves an ASB then breed an ASB, if one loves a Welsh Cob then breed a Welsh Cob. Breeding within a registry, to some extent, helps control quality, educates breeders, and helps direct a “mission statement” of sorts.
Having said all that, I think it interesting the folks that have brought up the argument if the ASB had been used instead of the Tb as a refining breed this whole discussion might be a non-issue. I do not know the answer to this, and frankly no one does because that is not how the history of the WB was developed. It was developed with the TB, which has been successful (as defined by the directives of each WB registry) so I will stick with that.
[QUOTE=Kyzteke;7434190]
So there isn’t a hot, reactive, pea-brained ASB out there? Seriously. My one exposure to the breed was through a friend who use to show them (they were all gone by the time we met). Granted, her’s were the gaited type, but she used to say it was like sitting on a keg of dynamite…you never knew which way they were going to blow.
So, just like most breeds, I guess it depends on the type of ASB?[/QUOTE]
You’re right, we get all kinds. I’ve had two that were HOT but not reactive. THey wouldn’t blow but they tried way too hard. My current horse is not hot, but very reactive. One was hot, reactive and unhinged while super intelligent. One was a little dim and calmly psychotic. But the norm is high intelligence, excellent work ethic, with a flair for the dramatic.
[QUOTE=propspony;7434373]
Cull… So… you cull…
Cull = selling a horse so that somebody else purchases a WB with low athleticism, soundness or temperament issues
(Funny, I feel like that has been brought up numerous times in this thread, and you’ve denied that any of your horses would EVER be one of THOSE horses)
Cull = or eventually euthanasia, slaughter/dog food/Rosswürst
(huh… I feel like THAT’S been brought up in this thread too…)
Pot?? Pot??? The kettle’s calling…[/QUOTE]
Boy…you folks really don’t know anything about a breeding program.
Culling ? Yes ! Every horse is a “cull” that you don’t want to keep for breeding. Does culling mean they automatically have mind or soundness issues ? NO !
And just as an example…the last 24 WB’s I’ve sold have had good to excellent x-rays , great minds , always sound and still being much enjoyed by their owners. Does no one any good to breed or deal in horses with issues. If you buy and breed from motherlines that historically don’t have issues…chances are neither will the foal.
Breed the best , “CULL out” and ride the rest people !
An thank you Stoicfish…we finally agree on something ! LOL
I personally think amateur horses are mostly made, not born. My now-GP dressage horse can be ridden by just about anyone now. When I bought him, he was a complete mess-- he earned his nickname of “Bucky”. A couple years later (under a then-JR and eventually AA), he’s rideable by anyone and is really a pleasure to work with.
He has that “spark” that I was able to redirect from misbehavior to GP work. If he didn’t have that “spark”-- or that joy of movement, or that incredible work ethic-- I don’t think he would have made it to GP. I doubt that if he were “born broke” he’d have enough fire for GP.
If we’re being honest with ourselves, new riders should buy TRAINED horses, no matter what the breed. Green horses deserve pro (or pro-equivalent, because there are definitely pro-quality amateurs out there) rides.
So if you really want to make amateur-friendly horses, train them.
[QUOTE=silvia;7434555]
Before I start, just want to reiterate something - those photos etc posted are PUREBRED Saddlebreds, not crosses or Georgian Grandes as some have assumed.
Isn’t it interesting that the Thoroughbred is considered improvement blood, yet the Saddlebred which was developed side by side with the Thoroughbred for 200 years, with a substantial amount of Thoroughbred in its makeup, is not.
Consider that the Thoroughbred was bred for racing and the Saddlebred for riding, having superior soundness and riding qualities to the Thoroughbred in many respects as a result, so what is the difference?
I daresay it’s the lack of knowledge of the breed by warmblood breeders in the USA to be honest, they have an amazing refiner under their noses but because Europe is so strong in the industry (and naturally has Thoroughbreds not Saddlebreds) the peer pressure to conform I imagine is incredibly strong (at least by my observation in this thread).
No disrespect intended towards some very excellent breeders, but I think it’s part of the truth; lack of knowledge and the pressure to conform to the system.
I realise the first response is that the system WORKS, but I’m referring more to the question, what would really happen if you used Saddlebred as a refiner, and say arguably you produced a really nice type, similar to what you would expect putting in Thoroughbred, but with better riding qualities?
Would the warmblood registries welcome a good type with open arms, or would your horse be disqualified from registration because you used Saddlebred instead of Thoroughbred? Would you be disdained because you used a non-traditional breed for refining even though you produced an excellent horse?
The question then would be why - and to me it’s lack of knowledge, lack of familiarity, and because it’s not a European breed you are shit out of luck - and not anything to do with the actual quality or usefulness of the refiner.
And before you roll your eyes and say ‘as if I would ever use Saddlebred’, stop. And consider why that is - do you truly know the qualities and have assessed them and discarded them as a refiner, or are you just taking the easy and comfortable, conformist way out as a member of a particular view on the breeding of performance stock. Conformist in this sense is not being used disparagingly but descriptively of the situation.
Here we have someone trying something new and not usual to the Warmblood fraternity, yet we have 17 pages of carry on from warmblood breeders over anyone innovating. I’m talking about the immediate assumption that it will be a low level cross, despite the TB x WB being so common and without mention. Is it just me, or does nobody else find this interesting?[/QUOTE]
I’ve already answered this question once in this thread already. Some TBs have the talent to jump world class show jumper courses, and their speed, endurance and jumping ability and scope have been necessary in the development of the modern top showjumper and event horse. They are more likely than a saddlebred to carry the X factor. They can have beautiful floating movement with great ability to extend in every gait, and collect in the canter.
If you’ve read bayhawk at all he spits on TB crosses too, as do some other breeders on here so…
If Europeans had had something like a Saddlebred they may very well as have used both Saddlebreds and Thoroughbreds to refine and add athleticism and endurance to their warmbloods. A very nice Saddlebred could make a super cross to a warmblood these days.
There are some very elitist attitudes on this board - particularly towards small breeders with one mare/without pots of cash, or people that do not want to produce top level competition horses or who may produce a less recognized breed for sport, knowing the horses will never make upper level competitors. This saddens me as there are many members here who breed such horses and who have a lot of valuable knowledge to offer and share but who are sometimes put off posting.
The amount of assumptions made on this board also astonishes me. Just because someone like OP asks a question or needs advice does not mean they lack experience within the horse world as a whole. When I was breeding I asked EVERYONE for advice and information. If I posted the replies/views of some of the top riders I spoke to here here (including Olympic competitors) there would be jeers and snarky comments on inexperience and how such a person should buy instead of breeding. Just because someone asks a question does not make them stupid or un-knowledgeable in other aspects of the horse world.
As to why OP wants to breed and not buy, that question could apply to many of us. Maybe OP wants to breed for the fun and satisfaction of breeding and simply doesn’t want to buy a horse? I myself can no longer ride the type of big moving warmbloods I like due to back problems but I really do enjoy breeding and if I can, being an owner and watching my horse progress with a pro rider. Just because OP may not want to produce an Olympic caliber horse does NOT mean she doesn’t want to produce an absolutely top quality horse. I personally don’t see anything wrong with specifically producing top quality horses for lower level sport instead of relying on culls that are not good enough to make the grade. If I was looking for a horse and someone asked me would I like a cull of top breeding (i.e. an inferior horse not living up to its parentage) or an absolutely outstanding representative of another perhaps less athletic breed - I would take the outstanding individual every time, and I don’t think I am alone in this. Horses are very expensive to keep and train, therefore I want the very, very best I can buy/breed myself and to be proud of that horse. For me, that’s certainly not someone elses second rate cull.
I have in the past bred to produce the quality of horse I wanted as I could not afford to buy, so I do sympathise with OP. A minority of the wealthier members on his board seem to sneer at those of us who have to do this warning of certain disaster, but it can work out. Yes, its a risk, but part of the fun is the process of breeding your own foal and learning. For me it did not work out 100% as my broodmare produced a gorgeous colt (I wanted a filly). My broodmare was bought as a 6 month weenling so it was a long process waiting for her to mature and have her graded etc. She wasn’t top quality in herself as I couldn’t afford that, but I felt she had the bloodlines to produce top quality if bred to the right stallion, and she has consistently outproduced mares that were better individuals and scored higher in their grading and MPT. If she had not produced any better than herself I would still have had the satisfaction of producing a very nice (but not outstanding) foal who would have gone on to give many hours of happiness to anyone that owned him/her, despite not being outstanding. For me, a horse which gives its owner lots of happiness through being sane, sound and useful is a successful horse. We all have different criteria on what we want to produce and whether the breeding was a success. Sane and sound come before being a GP prospect for me (even though a GP level horse is ultimately what I try to produce). Luckily my mare did produce better than herself and her first foal was nice enough to be sold to buyers in North America looking for a stallion prospect. Her second foal was also very nice and also sold abroad - to Germany this time. So even a small time breeder with one mare can take on the big boys in terms of the quality they produce, as long as they have knowledge and commitment. I did and there is no reason why OP should not do this either, so good luck to you OP and I hope the good replies you got here steer you towards a nice mare that fulfills your dreams.
[QUOTE=grayarabpony;7434660]
I’ve already answered this question once in this thread already. Some TBs have the talent to jump world class show jumper courses, and their speed, endurance and jumping ability and scope have been necessary in the development of the modern top showjumper and event horse. They are more likely than a saddlebred to carry the X factor. They can have beautiful floating movement with great ability to extend in every gait, and collect in the canter.
If you’ve read bayhawk at all he spits on TB crosses too, as do some other breeders on here so…
If Europeans had had something like a Saddlebred they may very well as have used both Saddlebreds and Thoroughbreds to refine and add athleticism and endurance to their warmbloods. A very nice Saddlebred could make a super cross to a warmblood these days.[/QUOTE]
Hi greyarabpony, please understand I am not maligning Thoroughbreds at all or in any way trying to minimise their impact on the development of the modern sport horse.
There are thousands upon thousands of Thoroughbreds out competing and there have been a good number that have been very competitive and worthy of adding to breeding programmes at the highest levels. There is no question there.
My point is that of the handful of Saddlebreds taken out competing, they have all (to my knowledge) been very successful and a disproportionate number have entered upper level competitions. Are there many at ‘the top’ - no. However for the small quantity out there (and remember, using Saddlebreds for sport has been a relatively recent development), they are doing exceptionally well.
Granted, I have a small sample pool to draw from here. I can only tell you that every Saddlebred we have produced (or purchased) has shown wonderful jumping ability with plenty of scope, great gallops, super attitudes, lots of agility.
While their movement ‘out of the box’ is lacking in sport horse terms, they are agile and athletic enough to develop their gaits extremely quickly and have little difficulty with either extension or collection.
So while they do not have the numbers, they show at LEAST equal qualities to the Thoroughbred if not better in some departments quite consistently amongst the ones selected for and bred with for sporthorse work.
Of course this is all ‘talk’ and little ‘walk’ but my point is while that there are few numbers to show the ‘talk’ in the numbers game, the qualities are definitely there that I could confidently say we would see the same results in the Saddlebreds if they had the numbers and throwaway industry scope of the Thoroughbred.
And so back to the OP: as a Saddlebred breeder I know why there is an instinct to look to the Saddlebred broodmare. I know it is unfathomable and unfamiliar to warmblood breeders. Hence the disparity in the discussion 
silvia
There is a huge difference between an ASB and an European bred TB. The ones that were used as stallions were hand selected and then the offspring closely monitored before they were seen as an improvement. There is even a big difference between the NA Tb and the European versions. Selection for different abilities has made them different in ability and genetically.
I might be ignorant but could a ASB be really competitive in steeple chase?
It was that type of horse that brought some great genetics to the WB.
Isn’t it interesting that the Thoroughbred is considered improvement blood, yet the Saddlebred which was developed side by side with the Thoroughbred for 200 years, with a substantial amount of Thoroughbred in its makeup, is not.
Consider that the Thoroughbred was bred for racing and the Saddlebred for riding, having superior soundness and riding qualities to the Thoroughbred in many respects as a result, so what is the difference?
Your really think they are the same type of horse after all this time?
[QUOTE=grayarabpony;7434660]
I’ve already answered this question once in this thread already. Some TBs have the talent to jump world class show jumper courses, and their speed, endurance and jumping ability and scope have been necessary in the development of the modern top showjumper and event horse. They are more likely than a saddlebred to carry the X factor. They can have beautiful floating movement with great ability to extend in every gait, and collect in the canter.
If you’ve read bayhawk at all he spits on TB crosses too, as do some other breeders on here so…
If Europeans had had something like a Saddlebred they may very well as have used both Saddlebreds and Thoroughbreds to refine and add athleticism and endurance to their warmbloods. A very nice Saddlebred could make a super cross to a warmblood these days.[/QUOTE]
GAP…don’t mention my name in your diatribes. When you actually breed a horse or compete one, you may then get a little credibility. You come on here giving absolute advice and giving absolute statements about things you don’t have a clue about.
I don’t “spit” on anything. I have previously stated that F1 crosses with TB’s are generally not desirable because you have lost parts of both parents and have different parts of both parents.
You wouldn’t know about your last sentence either as you don’t have the experience to know what will or won’t make a good cross.
100% agree with this!
[QUOTE=Bayhawk;7434791]
GAP…don’t mention my name in your diatribes. When you actually breed a horse or compete one, you may then get a little credibility. You come on here giving absolute advice and giving absolute statements about things you don’t have a clue about.
I don’t “spit” on anything. I have previously stated that F1 crosses with TB’s are generally not desirable because you have lost parts of both parents and have different parts of both parents.
You wouldn’t know about your last sentence either as you don’t have the experience to know what will or won’t make a good cross.[/QUOTE]
Woooooooow. That was classless.
[QUOTE=stoicfish;7434747]
silvia
There is a huge difference between an ASB and an European bred TB. The ones that were used as stallions were hand selected and then the offspring closely monitored before they were seen as an improvement. There is even a big difference between the NA Tb and the European versions. Selection for different abilities has made them different in ability and genetically.
I might be ignorant but could a ASB be really competitive in steeple chase?
It was that type of horse that brought some great genetics to the WB.
Your really think they are the same type of horse after all this time?[/QUOTE]
Thank you for some very valid and excellent points, stoic
I agree with you that there was a selection process for the choice of Thoroughbred for refinement. That they selected the best and most suitable types, there is no doubt!
However a selection process does not mean that the Saddlebred was by default a lesser option than the Thoroughbred, it just means that they chose from the pool of Thoroughbreds and not Saddlebreds - and of course understandably so in Europe considering they did not have access to the Saddlebred so there was nothing to consider when choosing a refiner! That could apply to any breed naturally, just saying they wouldn’t choose from something that was absent.
The Australian Thoroughbred is also different to the European Thoroughbred. We have an excellent reputation for producing international grade eventers, and the lines that have done so are well known to most breeders here in Australia. Again no question the best and most suitable types were selected to go into breeding programmes.
The main difference is that Thoroughbred blood is used because it’s in great supply, cheap and easy to access. It’s not difficult to look at a thousand Thoroughbreds and find a few that are the cream of the crop for sporthorse work - but they are happy circumstances and NOT selective breeding for sports.
The Saddlebred is in far smaller supply, the good ones are expensive, and finding a suitable type can be a real pain in the ass when you’re shopping from a show horse dealer. The proportion of great types for sporthorse work is HIGHER because they are bred selectively for sports compared to the Throughbred.
And this is the thing I’m trying to get across. The ability and potential is there, unused. There is absolutely no question in my mind that if the breed had the numbers in the sporthorse pool, you would see the cream rise and perform exceptionally. However ‘words’ are not ‘deeds’ and so we turn to breeding selectively and then spending the money to take them out into the competition world to show it can be done.
You asked if they are the same horse after all this time - and no, they are not - that is the whole point! They never lost riding qualities or compromised soundness or great minds for the sake of speed. You will not hear about man-killer Saddlebred stallions. OCD, stifle issues, bone chips are a rarity, as are poor feet. They stay sound for a long, long career under heavy loads. They have more movement and balance than Thoroughbreds in general. Yet they still have stamina, endurance, heart, they are hotbloods, they are gutsy, they’ll jump, they’ll gallop for miles. They never lost those traits we seek in the Thoroughbreds, they just never developed the issues we see in them now as a pursuit of speed lets riding qualities go to the wayside. These are not things we ‘wish’ we saw, we see it every day in our stock.
Harry Callahan went GP because his owner also wanted to show it can be done. Forty Something was well on his way before he sadly passed on. Albert Ostermaier loved the Saddlebreds and Patriot was certainly a willing and able partner. Lawrence Unica van Rosheove is a nice example of the WB cross as a showjumper, and Superman a nice example of the refining a Saddlebred can give to the Warmblood without losing movement/riding qualities. There is a small pool of Saddlebreds and the ones that look and compete well are a high proportion of the ones people actually try to go somewhere with.
Silvia, I do not know who you are but would just like to say I really enjoy reading your posts! You write clearly, intelligently, without emotion/ offense, without insult.
It has given me much to think about how breeds develop and change, how our influence is made often by what is available to breeders, or even at times what is fashionable.
So, thank you.
[QUOTE=Blume Farm;7434995]
Silvia, I do not know who you are but would just like to say I really enjoy reading your posts! You write clearly, intelligently, without emotion/ offense, without insult.
It has given me much to think about how breeds develop and change, how our influence is made often by what is available to breeders, or even at times what is fashionable.
So, thank you.[/QUOTE]
Oh hey, you’re welcome! I’m learning a lot about Warmbloods from people like yourself. I know I’ve had bad experiences with them personally but it’s great to learn more and accept that my own experience doesn’t mean they are all like that. I’ve had so much support from fellow breeders who have Warmbloods that we’ve even elected to try a couple of Warmblood crosses and see how they go
I’m just a small Saddlebred breeder in Australia. We produce them for dressage and eventing, although we are in very early days.
[QUOTE=Angelico;7434881]
Woooooooow. That was classless.[/QUOTE]
Nope…truth. Sorry you can handle it.
