Sugarbush Draft? Anyone heard of them? - Page 3

       The Horse Forum > Horse Breeds, Breeding, and Genetics > Horse Breeds > Draft Horses

Sugarbush Draft? Anyone heard of them?

This is a discussion on Sugarbush Draft? Anyone heard of them? within the Draft Horses forums, part of the Horse Breeds category
  • Reviews on Sugarbush horses
  • Sugarbush+draft

Like Tree62Likes

LinkBack Thread Tools
    01-24-2013, 02:44 AM
Originally Posted by prettydecoy    
Who said I objected new blood? I think you missed the entire point of my post, assuming this was aimed at me. I have personally spoken with all of the registry officials and many of the breeders AT LENGTH, for YEARS. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I strongly disagree with what the registry is doing to this breed.

I don't recall ever having spoken to you. Not once. So.......your assertion may be a bit of a stretch (not saying you're lying, but you're not really telling the whole truth here, either).
Sponsored Links
    01-24-2013, 02:50 AM
Originally Posted by prettydecoy    
Ok, I sent a quick e-mail to two of my Sugarbush breeder friends. They corrected me, the Purebred Appaloosas are not being accepted but the ones with, for example, 1% draft can be bred to purebred draft mares and the resulting foal registered as G-1 Sugarbush......
Wow, interesting. Well first off there are NO purebred Appaloosa by the 8 generation definition, never have been. The most generations of App to App breeding record right now is 6. The Appaloosa is a breed that has ALWAYS allowed crossbreeding, just as the QH also does.
Secondly, there is draft in the Appaloosa, QH, and Paint right up close, not a million generations ago. Any horses tracing to Joe Hancock or Old Fred have draft right up close, not a little draft, a lot of draft. Line bred Peavy, Roberds and Wiescamp horses are loaded with Old Fred and Joe Hancock. It's not a big secret.

In regards to conformation types: Review ANY breed at the foundation (creation) stage and you're going to run into different types. Early QHs had bulldog, racing and saddle types. Early Appaloosas had four distinct types, including some pretty drafty ones. Modern Arabs have five distinct types: Russian, Polish, Crabbet, Spanish and Egyptian. While they mostly have dished faces they all have very distintive traits to an Arabian person. Even Tbs have distinctive types from racing to show to field hunter. And NO you can't tell they are all TB, because I had registered TB polo ponies that looked like bulldog Qhs.

Breed creation occurs when a registry is started and people with a similar idea get together and work toward a standard. At one time the Jockey Club thought the AQHA was a joke, now AQHA registers ten times the horses each year that the JC does. ApHC was started in 1938 by 1 man and 75 years later is still going because people got together to preserve a breed. So belittling the efforts of the people trying to preserve a type of horse doesn't seem very enlightened or productive. Every time a new person is drawn toward horses it benefits the entire industry and helps horses survive as an economic factor and for people to keep their jobs.

Tracy M
Elizabeth Bowers and bkhart77 like this.
    01-24-2013, 02:57 AM
Green Broke
First of'd be lovely if the breed became bigger and started up again. But, these horses arw ridiculous to be considered as foundation or first gen breeding stock. Now, I'm not the most experienced, but regardless, this is my opinion on each picture shown.

I sure hope to dear god that that mare is a yearling or so. She has a hideously weak hind, spindly legs, thin neck, GIANT shoulders, and she stands unser herself.
I imagine this horse is older than a year, and in need of a competent farrier. She has flared beyond all belief dinner plates from what I see. She's also swaybacked..which may be from having foals, or it may be hereditary, I can't tell from the picture. Other than that, I can't tell anything more from the picture.
Third [Note that you have to visit the link to see the image]:
While I don't see any huge conformation looks like a Shire or Clyde (I get them mixed up often, thankfully I don't have much to do with drafts).
While I can't tell anything from the picture, it looks like a perch/appy cross.
Too young to tell too much..but I'm not seeing anything that compares similarly to the top four. It'll probably end up camped out behind though unless it was just standing funny.
God bless this poor filly..Very steep croup, I don't like her legs (can't pinpoint why), her head is too big for her body (extremely..hope she grows into it a bit), and her neck just looks way too her head/neck belong to a different horse than the rest of her.
Not too bad aside from how ridiculously far she stands under herself and looks to be camped out. She looks younger, but regardless. I also see nothing similar to any of the others above.
Poor thing..All I can say about that mare. Either the foal needs weaned weeks ago or she never had enough weight in the first place. She also looks like a small train wreck conformationally and she looks like she could be a refistered perch.
I can't say anything about this one..
Not too bad..but I feel like his front legsare soo much thinner than his hinds..
Again, looks like a perch. Stands under herself an INSANE amount, steep croup, overly thick neck, post legged, and a very weak looking stifle area. GH said, I can't imagine these horses all being of the same breed..or what exactly they're all adding to the breed.
Posted via Mobile Device
Golden Horse and prettydecoy like this.
    01-24-2013, 03:37 AM
Originally Posted by prettydecoy    
I would love the conformation scores for these Sugarbush Draft horses...

The above horse is shown around 18 months of age. She has been a very awkward filly to raise, but now at 4 years of age she has finally stopped growing and started fitting herself. We often joked about her being a "Moose" while she grew. She was the last horse bred by the founder of the breed, and born after his retirement from the last breeding pair.

This is a Foundation mare. Shown is probably one of her worst pictures, but she has proven herself well enough to have articles written on her by Chronicle of the Horse as an example of a non traditional horse performing well in dressage.

This mare barely made the cut, and brings a long neck and straighter legs to the breed. Naturally, the picture of her immediately post foaling is the one shown. The foal is less than 48 hours old in this picture. This is my own mare, whom I admitted was less than stellar, but her daughter (on the ground before her) is the goal that the SDHR is trying to achieve with allowing this mare to breed.

This mare is a sibling to the last stallion of the breed, and was born into the breed (Sugarbush x Sugarbush crossing). Her image is very unflattering, as she's leaning forward and about to take a step. I didn't even know this picture had ever been published, and you would never recognize the mare from it... it's simply horrid.

This filly is a short yearling in this image. She had only recently had her sire approved, and hence gained registration through him. She was not at her most flattering stage of growth, and has been doing her best to grow like a weed.

This filly is a yearling (14 or 16 months, can't recall now) and the new owner had applied for Foundation Evaluation. This horse is not SDHR registered.

This gelding is a G-1, or first generation SDHR horse. He is 2 years old, and meets the "more than 50% draft blood" criteria. He was sired by the last stallion of the breed. He was gelded because he did not meet the ideal criteria, but is proving to be an amazing novice horse.

This picture was posted while awaiting the baby. The image was posted because of the owner's concern over how her weight had suddenly shifted down. The mare foaled within 2 days of this image, and returned to a normal appearance.

This is the last mare unrelated to Sugarbush Harley's Classic O, from the original SDHR bloodlines. She is shown in foal (I can't recall how close to foaling this picture was)

This gelding is a half brother to both the last stallion, and the last unrelated mare (O and Rose).

This mare was the dam to Sugarbush Harley's Classic O, and shown as an aged mare. She is now deceased (in her 20s when she died, but I can't recall the exact age) and this image was taken a year or so before.

Interestingly, most of the horses shown here are from the old lines, and are examples of the horses we are trying to improve because they were all that is left. Many of these horses are the reasons we are trying to bring in new blood, to correct the overly strong emphasis of Percheron breeding in the last decade (because the lines were getting limited) and to improve upon the shorter necks, weak hips, and leg issues.
Elizabeth Bowers likes this.
    01-24-2013, 05:44 AM
Just to show how a picture can do great or bad things to a horse, here are the same horses (most of them) again (same order, minus horse number 6 from before).

    01-24-2013, 09:56 AM
The mare above with the ribbons in her mane - the three blue (first place) and one red (second place), registered Sugarbush Draft Horse, is named Whole Lotta Rosie. Rosie is NOT 51% draft -- Rosie IS 100% draft horse with Percheron and Belgian heritage. I want to say THANK YOU for using that crappy cell phone picture though, even though it was taken at the end of a very long and hot show day -- it does show how well we do against the traditional Dressage horses!!!! I think we hold our own.

Here she is in nearly the same movement as the last remaining original Sugarbush Draft Stallion, Sugarbush Harley's Classic O
    01-24-2013, 11:53 AM
First of all, I have never once attempted to register any horse with your registry, so not sure where that idea is coming from? Likewise, I am well-versed in Appaloosa history. Just because an Appaloosa is descended from drafts, does not mean it has the genes to produce the draft phenotype. I stand by my opinions. My only "beef" with this registry is what it is doing to the quality of the horses... reducing it, and making the breed a joke in the eyes of many. Your assumptions are amusing. Good day ladies.

My sentiments exactly"

Now I'm confused, and not for the first time, these can't all be from the same breed surely, there is no conformity of anything that would lead a person to believe that they are trying to preserve a type? A lot of those mares are, well lets just say I hope they have nice personalities, because they don't look brood worthy. Such a shame, I do commend anyone trying to save or remake a breed, but such diversity is very worrying to the uneducated eye.
    01-24-2013, 12:11 PM
Originally Posted by prettydecoy    
First of all, I have never once attempted to register any horse with your registry, so not sure where that idea is coming from? Likewise, I am well-versed in Appaloosa history. Just because an Appaloosa is descended from drafts, does not mean it has the genes to produce the draft phenotype. I stand by my opinions. My only "beef" with this registry is what it is doing to the quality of the horses... reducing it, and making the breed a joke in the eyes of many. Your assumptions are amusing. Good day ladies.

My sentiments exactly"

You've stated several false things in your posts -- one would wonder what the issue is that you have with the registry. Again, you stated that you've talked to all of the registry officials (untrue), you mis-stated registration requirements. No one ever said that the Appaloosa could produce the desired phenotype by itself (though it can certainly add to what we're looking for which was why it was used back in the 50's at the origin of the breed). What was stated is that some Appaloosas carry enough draft bloodline that their get will, when crossed on a full draft, produce >50% draft by blood.

Again, when the judges have issues with what we're doing we'll rethink the approach -- but for now, the feed back we're getting from people who have these horses show under them is encouraging and far more useful than critiques from people choosing poor photos to pick at.
    01-24-2013, 12:12 PM
Originally Posted by bkhart77    
. It really does sound like someone's horse got rejected (didn't meet the 70% standard) and they're having a hissy about it.

Are you hinting that GH's horse didn't make the cut to be a sugarbush?
    01-24-2013, 12:14 PM
Originally Posted by MsBHavin    
Are you hinting that GH's horse didn't make the cut to be a sugarbush?
She stated (in a post just above this one) that that isn't the case, but I honestly can't figure out why she seems to take such relish in bashing the re-building of the breed if that weren't the case.

Quick Reply
Please help keep the Horse Forum enjoyable by reporting rude posts.

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the The Horse Forum forums, you must first register.

Already have a Horse Forum account?
Members are allowed only one account per person at the Horse Forum, so if you've made an account here in the past you'll need to continue using that account. Please do not create a new account or you may lose access to the Horse Forum. If you need help recovering your existing account, please Contact Us. We'll be glad to help!

New to the Horse Forum?
Please choose a username you will be satisfied with using for the duration of your membership at the Horse Forum. We do not change members' usernames upon request because that would make it difficult for everyone to keep track of who is who on the forum. For that reason, please do not incorporate your horse's name into your username so that you are not stuck with a username related to a horse you may no longer have some day, or use any other username you may no longer identify with or care for in the future.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Old Thread Warning
This thread is more than 90 days old. When a thread is this old, it is often better to start a new thread rather than post to it. However, If you feel you have something of value to add to this particular thread, you can do so by checking the box below before submitting your post.

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sugarbush Draft Horses Smokum Draft Horses 40 04-26-2013 12:49 AM
Any Spotted Draft or Pinto Draft Owners? Let's see em! randomrider92 Draft Horses 28 04-16-2012 06:06 PM
contest for all draft and draft cross owners!!!!! english_rider144 Draft Horses 1 02-03-2009 06:07 PM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0