> down very nicely.  I try to avoid greys for several reasons, even though I
> really like dapples.  First of all, I can't keep them clean.  Secondly,
> white legs tend to get scratches worse (of course, socks on a dark horse
> are just as vulnerable.  Third, sunburn, no explanation needed.  Finally,
> in the neoplasia course I had last year, every other signalment was grey
> horses.  They seem to get every cancer known to horsedom.  My prof said
> there is no such thing as an older cancer-free grey horse.
> 
It is my understanding that sunburn is a function of the pink skin 
underneath white markings (and greys--rather than white horses--have 
black skin under their grey hair), so I am not sure that the sunburn 
issue is an issue with greys.  I believe this would also be true of the 
scratches question (as it is skin color rather than hair color that is 
more prone to scratches--although I have heard this is an old wives tale 
and that scratches is more a function of soil content than anything 
else).  I certainly haven't found that my horses gets scratches any worse 
on his front feet, the white ones, than he does on his back feet, the red 
ones--I have found it more the opposite, but I believe that is because 
they are the back feet.  Anybody else found that scratches occur more on 
the back than the front?
With regard to cooling an coat color, I don't know if this is meaningful, 
BUT, when I was trail/endurance training my paint horse (who was about 
half sorrel and half white--very flashy) that he always worked up 
noticeably more sweat on the white part of his body than on the sorrel 
part, and there was a noticeable wet/dry line that coincided exactly with 
the change of color in his coat pattern.  I thought it rather odd, 
because it seems to me that it ought to be the other way around (white 
reflecting the heat, dark absorbing the heat.  Go figure.  I never really 
considered it a particularly relevant question as the endurance horse I 
ride is chestnut, and I am not going to trade him in because of his 
color.  (Besides which, I have always been partial to chestnuts for the 
totally stupid reason that Man o' War was a chestnut and I had a love 
affair with Man o' War as a child--I carry that partiality with me into 
adulthood recognizing that it is rather a stupid reason--but the nice 
thing is...chestnuts breed true.)
On the question of grey horses and their health problems.  There is 
significant evidence to support the assertion that the cancers associated 
with grey horses are in fact caused by the same thing that causes 
greying, so it is most definitely a color linked trait.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that grey (a dominant gene) is a genetic 
defect and would never breed a grey horse.  There are plenty of extremely 
nice non-greys out there that I don't need to be breeding ones with (what 
I consider to be) an obvious genetic defect, and that because it is dominant 
(just like HYPP) if I don't breed a grey horse, I won't get a grey horse.
Which isn't to say that there aren't some VERY nice grey horses out 
there, that are doing extremely well in endurance (and many other 
disciplines), so I can't say I would never own one (I have) just that I 
would never pass it on to later generations.
I am aware that other people feel differently about the greying gene.
kat