Menu

Stay in Touch
Sign up for ENews
Subscribe Now

Unlimited access >

Menu

Why aren't Quarter Horses More Popular in the H/J Ring?

Hunter/Jumper
#221

RB,
Where I am still having difficulty understanding your viewpoint is that the TB has always been an influence on the breed, even before it was a breed. Appendix horses are nothing new.
I don’t know the timeline/history of the performance registries. How recent are they? Becoming a breed registry was the path that AQHA choose, perhaps they would have been a performance registry if it were started more recently.
Early QH had quite a bit of different influences on them. I think that the original registry really helped to organize and track the early American mutt of a horse. By limiting outside influences to a very restricted breed (TB’s) and by tracking lines, AQHA has organized a breed. Why is it necessary to change the rules now to exclude one source of genetic material?

I agree that the designer dogs are not a breed, yet. Could they be, perhaps, but as I said before the TB’s have always been there in the QH, the poodle not so much in the lab. It is not a good analogy.

#222

Dutch WB= first studbook 1887
Oldenburg = 1820 first stallion approval
Hanoverian = 1735 State Stud, 1888 first Studbook
Trakehner = 1732 established Royal Stud
Jockey Club = 1894
Morgan 1894

A mix of breeds/registries…all MUCH older than the QH.

The only reason the analogy doesn’t work is because the AQHA doesn’t adhere to the accepted definition of breed, not because it’s a faulty analogy. All dogs at some point came from a mix of blood. But when the “breeds” were established, those outcrosses where no longer allowed.

#223

Ok, just trying to make sure I am straight
Are Dutch WB, Oldenburg, Hanoverian and Trakehner are performance registries?

#224

But if he has his ROM then he is a Quarter Horse by AQHA standards.

Whether or not you or I or Rugbug agree or disagree really doesn’t matter. According to their rules, thats what the horse is and can be advertised as such.

#225

Chuckles and Tidy have already represented my thoughts, so I have one more thing to add to Chuckles last post…

Rugbug…There are no Poodles in the background of the Lab at all. There is no history of Poodles in creating/influencing the breed. Introducing the poodle in hopes to produce a hypoallergenic dog is a crapshoot since within one litter, you may have 5 totally different types-meaning, not every puppy is guaranteed to inherit the Poodles coat genes. If it works, great! But until there is consistency in producing, it will never be a breed.

With QH and TB, TB influence goes wayyyyyy back. The QH just never closed that book. If, say, a breeder decided,“You know what? I want to improve on QH feet so therefore I am going to breed to an Appy.” that would be IMO, the same scenario as the Lab/poodle cross, or the Corgi/Boxer cross (for shorter tails, no need to crop) or any other crosses designed in hopes of improving on the breed somehow. Years from now, they may very well have created a breed with Labradoodles but it hasn’t happened yet. And years from now, the AQHA may finally say, enough is enough where the infusion of TB comes in.

But until then, I think it is something that the AQHA is widely known and respected as a breed organization, the most popular in America, and a couple COTHers disagreeing on that won’t change that fact. You guys are entirely right to have your own opinions, and you have good points, it certainly makes for interesting discussions, but we aren’t talking about something that may happen. We are talking about something that already exists and an Appendix is not seen the same way by the AQHA as a Labradoodle is to AKC.

I like this article for in explaining how Appendix Vs QH are registered, and is a better source of info that is endorsed by AQHA:
http://americashorsedaily.com/appendix-vs-quarter-horse/

#226

[QUOTE=RugBug;4676384]
TR…you’re right. It doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. It’s just bothersome to some of us. :smiley: Don’t get me started on the APHA (not a breed) or ApHC (being ruined by the QH influence).

Ajierene…I have to say that while what I say may sound similar to Foundation QH people …I think they’re a bit of a crazy lot whose horses tend to fit the small feet, navicular prone, small strided QH stereotypes.[/QUOTE]

I did not mean to imply that the FQHA is full of more reasonable and sane people, just using them to counter the argument that amongst quarter horse people the whole appendix thing is accepted and alright. Just pointing out that there is dissension in the ranks. For the record, Diamond H is not FQHA, it is an AQHA breeding ranch.

[QUOTE=tidy rabbit;4676536]But if he has his ROM then he is a Quarter Horse by AQHA standards.

Whether or not you or I or Rugbug agree or disagree really doesn’t matter. According to their rules, thats what the horse is and can be advertised as such.[/QUOTE]

In the grand scheme of things, it matters not a whit what I think, unless I have the money and power to change things with the AQHA…but I am in the middle of a blizzard and this is the third day this week I have been stuck in my house.

[QUOTE=Chuckles;4676518]Ok, just trying to make sure I am straight
Are Dutch WB, Oldenburg, Hanoverian and Trakehner are performance registries?[/QUOTE]

All are performance registries except the Trakehner.

The Trakehner did have a closed stud book until the end of world war 2 when their numbers dwindled to about 700 and they had to open the books to approved thoroughbreds and arabs or inbreed. Unlike the AQHA, the book is closing. Now, no foal of a stallion that is not a trakehner can ever be a full trakehner. No colts of any mare that is not a Trakehner can ever be a trakehner. Only certain fillies (following a performance and conformation review) are allowed in the main mare book. I am sure in the next 20 years that will not be an option either.

All horses with one Trakehner parent CAN be registered as part-bred (kind of like being an appendix quarter horse). All horse with a part-bred parent CAN be registered as a part-bred.

#227

I’ve been snow bound too and jobless this week so I’ve been splitting my time between here and http://www.pro-stallions.com/en/stallions.htm :smiley:

#228

Trakehner would be considered a breed. The others are registries…not necessarily performance but the horse’s have to meet criteria (conformation, movement, gaits, some include parentage, etc) to be approved to a book

#229

[QUOTE=Equino;4676580]
I’ve been snow bound too and jobless this week so I’ve been splitting my time between here and http://www.pro-stallions.com/en/stallions.htm :D[/QUOTE]

YAY!!! Something else to do!

I did work on Monday, kind of…businesses were not open, so not much actually got done. Tuesday was better. Today and tomorrow do not look good…then what’s the point of going to work on Friday?

#230

Now that is something I’m going to take away from this thread. :yes: :lol:

#231

Check out Corando Sitte!

#232

Ditto. :slight_smile:

#233

[QUOTE=Equino;4675925]
Chuckles…do you know of a trainer in the NY, NJ, CT area that specializes in QH Hunters o/f? A friend has one she’d love to get evaluated to see if he could do the QH circuit, or if he should stay on the H/J circuit. It would be great to get him in training with someone who does both circuits. Thanks![/QUOTE]

In NJ only over fence AQHA trainers I know of are David Connors and Bill Ellis…as other have said they winter in Fla and come home to NJ in the spring.
To do any working hunter classes for a NJ person one has to travel out of state as not many QH people jump in NJ…the most they offer around here is Hunter Hack.

David and Bill do the USEF AA shows in NJ also. No website.
If your friend is in the area they are the best to get an opinion from IMHO.

#234

IIRC my instructor from the late 70’s,early 80’s had a half Trakehner that she was working on getting registered. I would assume that this is a registry that came about after the full Trakehner-is it sanctioned by the original body?

What I see is that the performance based registries are European, and that they are based on a national (read govt.) based standard. Is this correct?

Arjierene- one of the foundation sires that the Diamond H lists is Three Bars- A TB I just found that interesting. These are working horses and that only represents one part of the industry. There is debate and discussion across the industry on many subjects, a working ranch holds no more sway than a halter barn, or a hunter barn, or what have you.

cool site Equino!

I must say that I have issues with the opening and closing of the books. We are loosing breeds to popularity contests, which is very sad.

#235

Pretty much…WBs are European and that is there way of doing things. They don’t claim to be breeds, because they do accept a variety of bloodlines.

The FQHA indicates that any horse born before the AQHA inception date is considered foundation. Three bars was born in 1940 and maybe just eeked in?

I absolutely agree with this. It’s one reason I get so fired up about. Dilution may make a cool horse for some purposes, but it ruins a breed. Take the ApHC. These days, appies are just spotted QHs…and that’s sad, IMO.

#236

[QUOTE=Chuckles;4676705]

Arjierene- one of the foundation sires that the Diamond H lists is Three Bars- A TB I just found that interesting. These are working horses and that only represents one part of the industry. There is debate and discussion across the industry on many subjects, a working ranch holds no more sway than a halter barn, or a hunter barn, or what have you.

I must say that I have issues with the opening and closing of the books. We are loosing breeds to popularity contests, which is very sad.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I was just going back to quarter horses born after 1940. Mentioning Three Bars, to my view, is like mentioning the Godolphin Arabian as a found stallion of the thoroughbred.

I agree with your second paragraph and agree that it should only be done under extenuating circumstances, such as war destroying most of the horses in a registry. The Cleveland Bay is having a similar issue with numbers, but they are not allowing outside blood. While that is very noble, it may be the demise of the breed.

The half Trakehner is not a separate registry, it is an adjunct to the standard registry. Arabians allow part-Arab registry as well and these horses can show in Arabian shows. I cannot remember if they have their own classes or show with full arabs. Trakehner does not have breed shows, but a part-trakehner pedigree is kept by the same people that keep the full trakehner pedigree.

#237

I am really looking forward to showing Stanley this year. He has a really nice canter and because of his greeness he likes to overjump so he jumps huge. :lol:
I think he will make a really nice 3 foot horse. Someone asked me the other day at the barn if he is a WB. I just laughed and said, “Nope he’s a QH.”

It’s weird because I never thought I would buy a QH because I am not a QH person but he has a great personality and a good brain. He learns really fast plus the best thing is he is voice trained. All I have to do is say whoa and he stops on a dime.

I am still trying to figure out how he likes to be ridden. He let me know a couple of months ago that he didn’t like my saddle because he bucked me off. I am now using my trainer’s saddle and have had no problems. I am planning on buying a saddle Saturday and I hope that he likes it.

#238

My step-mom bought a horse. She came home and told my dad she bought a horse for $X.

He asked what she bought

She said a quarter horse.

He said for that kind of money she should have been able to buy a WHOLE horse!

I kid you not…this was the conversation…15 years later, she still has that horse.

#239

[QUOTE=Ajierene;4676764]
Yeah, I was just going back to quarter horses born after 1940. Mentioning Three Bars, to my view, is like mentioning the Godolphin Arabian as a found stallion of the thoroughbred.
.[/QUOTE]
Just so you know Wimpy P-1 was born before 1940 (he got the first breeding number in 1940) soooo… Three Bars came after the very first numbers were given.
Most performance breeders will say that the best horses go back to Barpasser somewhere on their papers. Barpasser goes back to Three Bars. This influence is what makes him a major part of the foundation of the modern QH.
Please know that the FQH people are peripheral to the registry,they have a certain agenda that is not widely accepted.
Thanks for the information on the Trakhener

#240

[QUOTE=Chuckles;4676838]
Just so you know Wimpy P-1 was born before 1940 (he got the first breeding number in 1940) soooo… Three Bars came after the very first numbers were given.
Most performance breeders will say that the best horses go back to Barpasser somewhere on their papers. Barpasser goes back to Three Bars. This influence is what makes him a major part of the foundation of the modern QH.
Please know that the FQH people are peripheral to the registry,they have a certain agenda that is not widely accepted.
Thanks for the information on the Trakhener[/QUOTE]

OK, I went to look up these horses and compare year birth/year accepted as a quarter horse, et al., right? Because it is this or…vacuuming…again…

So, look what I find…pay careful attention to year born:
http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/index.php?query_type=horse&h=TEX+2&g=5&cellpadding=0&small_font=1&l=

Get your Digital Subscription here - only $21.95 / year

Subscribe here
See gift options

Sign up to our monthly newsletter!

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.

Copyright © 2023 The Chronicle of the Horse