Re: RC: Re: CIDs

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/23/99 10:59:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
magnumsmom@aol.com writes:

<< Anyways, if breeders want to get something out of the gene
 code, they need to start now, not say they will do it later. >>

Sure would be nice if life was that simple.  When one becomes so obsessed 
with one flaw that one excludes it at the expense of all else, then one can 
do tremendous damage.  SCID carrier state must be considered to be a 
fault--just like any other fault.  We currently face a breed with long backs, 
hollow backs, shallow hips, upside-down necks, bad legs, etc.  Where would 
YOU suggest we put our priorities?  With ANY breeding animal, one looks at 
the strengths and the weaknesses.  If there are enough strengths, one keeps 
the animal intact.  Then one breeds away from the weaknesses.  That's what 
intelligent breeding is all about.  There are plenty of "sausages on 
toothpicks with a flag on each end" out there in the Arab world that are SCID 
clear.  Perhaps we should eliminate SCID and use THOSE for our breeding 
stock?  Thanks but no thanks.  I prefer being up front about SCID carrier 
state, but that carrier state does not cause the horse NEAR the discomfort 
that the conformation caused by many of our "popular" breeding fads can.  
Certainly we all prefer to use horses that are not carriers, but there are a 
lot of things that could be wrong with a horse that are a heck of a lot more 
detrimental.  The perfect horse has yet to be born.  Keep this fault in 
perspective.

Heidi


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.    
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=