RE: [RC] [RC] Generalizations about breeds (was: Club Foot) - Ranelle Rubin
Genevieve,
You seem to forget to mention though that Mustangs, when considered a breed, are a VERY mixed breed at that. There have been many stallions of different breeds turned out with herds all across the West specifically to improve the quality of the "breed". There are also herds that are so significantly inbred that they have serious conformation problems. I had the opportunity to meet some folks in the Bend,OR area who were doing a magnificent job of introducing a quality Spanish Mustang stallion (he was breath-taking to see) into an exhisting herd to rehabilitate the genetic pool. The mares were what I call "committee horses" (each person on the committee designed a different part of the horse). The offspring were incredible...just like their daddy.
While riding the Washoe, NV ride last May we came across a herd of Mustangs that were tall, and Paint..very refined..looked much like the modern day NSH Paints that are so popular.
I have also seen the pens of captured Mustangs in Palomino Valley, NV about 50 miles north of Washoe that look totally different..small, stocky, heavy boned, large heads..gorgeous in their own way.
So, your generalization does not exactly hold much water when it comes to Mustangs. I am glad to see folks like the ones in OR who want to see these herds survive. When my 15 yr old was 3 or 4 and would see the horses in Gardnerville, NV grazing on folks' lawns with no fences and asked who they belonged to, I told him they belonged "only to God"...
Please know that most of the folks on the list want others who ride any breed to do well..as long as they take great care of their horse. I remember watching Naomi Preston and Mustang Lady at ROC in Montana..now THAT is a Mustang! (She sure looked half Arab to me though)
> Kat, I usually appreciate your logical approach, > and admittedly I should have been more specific. > But actually, you took my quote entirely out of > context, since the context was making generalizations
> about faults and poor quality.
Personally, I think it completely appropriate to also make breed generalizations about "faults and poor quality" as well. If the fault that leads to the poor quality is a heritable trait (which many of them
are), then it is perfectly reasonable to consider the possiblity that this trait runs in breeds.
An obvious example is HYPP. A fault that doesn't exist in purebred arabs at all, while it is rampant in quarter horses.
And to quote from the UC Davis Book of Horses, "Cervical Vertebral Malformation: This disorder, also called wobbles or wobbler syndrome, is a common cause of incoordination in young horses, particularly
Thoroughbreds." Other texts (like James Rooney's book _The Lame Horse_) suggest that the reason for the prevalence of wobblers in Thoroughbreds is that "the longer the neck and the heavier the head, the greater
chance there is for wobbles to develop" and in race horses, man has been selecting for this (since horses with long necks and big heads mechanically are able to run faster with less effort).
It seems pretty obvious to me that there are a goodly number of faults
that have a tendency to run in breeds. It would be a mistake to think that my two examples are the only faults that run in breeds.
Some of them, whether intentionally or inadvertently, are actually selected for as part of the "breed standard" (as evidenced by the
examples given above).
The reason HYPP is prevalent in quarter horses is that the stallion that is the genetic source of the condition had bulgy muscles that were highly sought after that he also passed on to his progeny (some people
hypothesize that the HYPP condition actually contributes to this type of "desireable" musculature, but I don't think it has ever been conclusivel y demonstrated). Whether HYPP causes the bulgy muscles or whether the
HYPP just comes along with the trait coincidentally because Impressive was passed on both these traits is irrelevant. The fact is, this type of musculature is sought after in the breed standard such that before
the gene for HYPP was discovered, people bred to Impressive and his progeny for his "type" and after it was discovered, they continuted to do so...and still do; although the AQHA seems to be trying to do
something about it by denying registration to foals that have the trait (more on that below).
> I stick by my guns--generalizing that one breed > has more horses of poor quality than another > breed is patently silly.
And with this I also cannot agree. In fact, there are SOME "breeds" that will not register horses of "poor quality" (most notably the multitude of European Warmblood breeds). Foals are inspected to ensure
that they are not of poor quality before being accepted as representatives of the breed. But the AQHA denying registration to Impressive bred horses that test positive for HYPP would also come under this heading.
However, even with breeds that do not have such strict quality requirements for registration, there are some breeds of horses (varies from person to person) for which the breed standard is the equivalent of
"poor quality." If a breed has selection criteria for standards that I consider to be traits to make for poor quality horses, then I can say that this breed has more "poor quality" horses than one that has a
standard with traits that I like.
The fact is, many traits are heritable and consequently run in families. If I consider that trait to be a fault, then I CAN "generalize" that one family is more likely to be faulty than another where the trait does not
run.
Not everybody agrees what traits constitute faults, and some people are willing to accept faults if they can get other traits that they like (e.g. TB people are willing to accept the possiblity of a wobbler in
exchange for getting a horse that runs really fast).
> I've known good and bad in every breed I've > dealt with, and I suspect you have, too.
Yes, I have known good and bad individuals in every breed I have dealt
with, but I can also point out a goodly number of traits that run in different breeds. I can even point out a goodly number of "faulty" traits that run in different breeds and which breeds you are more likely
to find them in.
It is up to the individual to determine which traits s/he considers to be faults, and which faults s/he is willing to live with in exchange for traits s/he likes, "but I stick by my guns"-- to deny that traits
(whether you consider them faults or not) run in breeds is silly.
