Sugarbush Draft? Anyone heard of them? - Page 5
 
 

       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

    Like Tree62Likes

     
    LinkBack Thread Tools
        01-24-2013, 12:17 PM
      #41
    Foal
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by prettydecoy    
    And I re-iterate. Because, in my opinion, you are reducing the quality of a breed that I am passionate about, and have been for many, many years. I do not relish bashing, I am passionate about improving and preserving the Sugarbush.

    People who cannot take criticism in regards to conformation should not be breeding horses. I can point out the conformational flaws of every horse I ever owned, and I'm not offended when others do so. Barn blindness makes for poor breeding (and registration) decisions.

    The photos speak for themselves of the quality of horses.
    Your argument would be much more compelling had the photographs been of the horses being stood up properly so that one could assess their actual conformation. That and one really can't pick on a yearling -- they go through all sorts of bizarre growth spurts. Ok, well you CAN pick on them, but I think it's hardly fair as they really aren't indicative of what the horses will turn out like. At least three of the photos you posted were of young horses at bizarre growth stages. It happens.

    The remainder of the horses you chose to showcase were the products of the original breeding program (with the exception of Rosie, of whom several more flattering and true-to-life pictures have been posted) -- that which you claim to have been a passionate supporter of for years. If that were the case, why weren't you asking about quality a decade ago when these horses were being bred? As those were what we had to start with, we could hardly pull their papers and say "you don't count". Three of the four are directly related to O (half siblings, etc).
         
    Sponsored Links
    Advertisement
     
        01-24-2013, 12:20 PM
      #42
    Foal
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by prettydecoy    
    Everett Smith, Heather Harmon, Heather Crispin, Stephanie Adame.
    Ok, so you have spoken to some (though certainly not all) of the people involved.

    Were you unhappy with Everetts' choices of breeding? In what way have we become a dictatorship? What had you wanted to do that was shot down or dismissed? What were your plans/ideas?
         
        01-24-2013, 12:31 PM
      #43
    Foal
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bkhart77    
    Your argument would be much more compelling had the photographs been of the horses being stood up properly so that one could assess their actual conformation. That and one really can't pick on a yearling -- they go through all sorts of bizarre growth spurts. Ok, well you CAN pick on them, but I think it's hardly fair as they really aren't indicative of what the horses will turn out like. At least three of the photos you posted were of young horses at bizarre growth stages. It happens.
    You failed your own argument here. How can you judge the young horses then, to make the decision to register as Foundation, if we too cannot judge them from photos (as you did)? I hardly think all the posters here are ignorant, we too can judge conformation. Even the more flattering photos you chose (under saddle? Moving? Hmmm...) still reveal the same conformational faults.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bkhart77
    Ok, so you have spoken to some (though certainly not all) of the people involved.
    So who else is involved? Should I list the dozens of breeders, either members of SDHR or not, who I have also communicated with extensively? You seem to have a personal vendetta against anyone who suggests that your horses are not perfect, even if it wasn't meant personally... interesting.
    themacpack and MsBHavin like this.
         
        01-24-2013, 12:33 PM
      #44
    Trained
    Having such dissimilar horses conformation wise and trying to "set" a breed type with those same dissimilar horses is an uphill and losing battle... There is no predicting the outcome of the mishmash of breeding that seems to be going on other than for color...
         
        01-24-2013, 12:41 PM
      #45
    Foal
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bkhart77    
    That and one really can't pick on a yearling -- they go through all sorts of bizarre growth spurts. Ok, well you CAN pick on them, but I think it's hardly fair as they really aren't indicative of what the horses will turn out like.
    This 16 month old was just posted on your FB page, as having recieved Foundation registration. If you can't judge yearlings, how old was she when you judged her? Didn't applications for Foundation have to be in by December? I happen to like this horse for the most part. Granted, no horse is perfect and this horse is no exception. I am just trying to understand your logic.



    Anyway, I am tired of arguing. As I've said before, the pictures speak for themselves. Careful how you conduct yourself on the Internet, as an official of a registry your actions online will reflect on your registry....
    themacpack and MsBHavin like this.
         
        01-24-2013, 12:46 PM
      #46
    Trained
    I totally agree about the yearling fuglies, I wouldn't even take pics of my girl last winter, she took fugly to a whole new level. This is when she was emerging from it..



    But even there she shows that she has substance, which is what is missing from this one

    themacpack and bkhart77 like this.
         
        01-24-2013, 12:51 PM
      #47
    Foal
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by prettydecoy    
    You failed your own argument here. How can you judge the young horses then, to make the decision to register as Foundation, if we too cannot judge them from photos (as you did)? I hardly think all the posters here are ignorant, we too can judge conformation. Even the more flattering photos you chose (under saddle? Moving? Hmmm...) still reveal the same conformational faults.


    And again, the majority of the horses you chose were of the old bloodlines -- so you didn't like the direction of SDHR prior to it's revival. You CAN judge young horses -- but don't you think it's most helpful to have actual conformation shots to judge? And wouldn't you rely more heavily on the word of judges themselves than looking at pictures? Just asking. I never implied that anyone was ignorant, but you ALL should know that looking at yearlings isn't really fair to the horse you're looking at. Ugly heads, imho, aren't a conformational fault. An upright shoulder is but did you grab an angle to see what the angles are on the pictures you chose? Between 45-48 is ideal. Hip angles also have their correct ideal angles, as do length of back, bone depth, etc. Does an upright shoulder on one horse mean that the whole horse is terrible? No, it means that the horse has an upright shoulder and there are still ample other things to look at.

    So who else is involved? Should I list the dozens of breeders, either members of SDHR or not, who I have also communicated with extensively? You seem to have a personal vendetta against anyone who suggests that your horses are not perfect, even if it wasn't meant personally... interesting.

    Sure, go ahead and list everyone. As SDHR doesn't have members, I'm curious what 'members' you are speaking with.

    I don't have a personal vendetta -- I'm merely clarifying things. You've stated mistruths, I'm clearing them up. On the BOD, there are two more people -- another Heather and Rachel. All of us are reachable via the emails provided, or via facebook.

    As you only posted a picture of a single "new" SBDH Foundation horse, I should point out that at this time, we have only approved 47 horses out of over 200. The only foundation animal you posted is Rosie -- and I think she's quite a nice mare, personally (apparently so do the judges she's shown under). So again, I have no problem with the horses not being perfect. Point out to me one animal that has NO faults whatsoever. Please. I'd like one of those!
         
        01-24-2013, 12:54 PM
      #48
    Green Broke
    Im just curious about all the horses with leg faults that are breeding horses then..the majority of those horses posted all stand under themselves quite a bit. Including the new yearling that was just posted (though not quite as much as some of the others). When do you plan on breeding that fault out?

    Overall, each of the horses posted (from what I can tell from pictures) look to have some leg fault.
    Posted via Mobile Device
    themacpack and MsBHavin like this.
         
        01-24-2013, 12:56 PM
      #49
    Foal
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Golden Horse    
    I totally agree about the yearling fuglies, I wouldn't even take pics of my girl last winter, she took fugly to a whole new level. This is when she was emerging from it..



    But even there she shows that she has substance, which is what is missing from this one


    True -- and as we've stated, at THIS time (well, up until the end of December 2012 at any rate) the Foundation part of the registry was accepting horses that had (provably) greater than 50% draft who also fit the conformational standard within 70% of 'ideal'. In order for this filly to have SDHR eligible foals, she MUST be bred back to a Draft in order for the offspring to be registered thereby insuring that the next generation is closer to the ideal. So yes, at the beginning you'll see a few who lack something -- whether it be bone density, height, color -- but eventually with the 'type' being set and the requirements being met for breeding up, the bone will come back in. This was done at the beginning with the Stonewalls being bred back to Percheron or Sugarbush horses with the resulting foals being heavier than the dam (which is what we're looking for).
         
        01-24-2013, 01:01 PM
      #50
    Foal
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by prettydecoy    
    This 16 month old was just posted on your FB page, as having recieved Foundation registration. If you can't judge yearlings, how old was she when you judged her? Didn't applications for Foundation have to be in by December? I happen to like this horse for the most part. Granted, no horse is perfect and this horse is no exception. I am just trying to understand your logic.



    Anyway, I am tired of arguing. As I've said before, the pictures speak for themselves. Careful how you conduct yourself on the Internet, as an official of a registry your actions online will reflect on your registry....

    She was judged on conformational standards -- we use many more than one photograph to go by. And she is a very cute filly. And yes, the Foundation acceptance was ended in December. If you have questions regarding her scoring, you are certainly welcome to ask them of her owner, as that is the owner's to pass along.

    I'm sorry -- in what way has my conduct been unbecoming? I was on more than one occasion clarifying mis-information. And I'm more than happy to answer any questions that people may have -- but again, you seem to have misinformation that you're putting out there (members, for one thing -- we don't HAVE members. We're talking about it. We probably will have an actual membership by this summer -- but SDHR has NO members, merely volunteers and board members).
         

    Thread Tools

    Similar Threads
    Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
    Sugarbush Draft Horses Smokum Draft Horses 40 04-25-2013 11:49 PM
    Any Spotted Draft or Pinto Draft Owners? Let's see em! randomrider92 Draft Horses 28 04-16-2012 05:06 PM
    contest for all draft and draft cross owners!!!!! english_rider144 Draft Horses 1 02-03-2009 05:07 PM



    All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:49 AM.


    Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
    Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0