These look like Impressive bred halter horses to me, wonder if they are HYPP.
The point of my posting that link was to show the condition of the Appaloosa horses. They genuinely look like breeding quality Appaloosa horses to me, and this, from their website, proving that horses don't have to look like rescues just because they live outside in a natural environment:
"The stallions live on site year-round and carry the breed’s richest old-world bloodlines. Pedigrees trace back to many national and world champions and the most recognizable names in Appaloosa sires, including Bright Eyes Brother, Prince Plaudit, Acclaim, Joker B, Prince David, Mighty Tim, Spittin Image, King David, String of Stars, Skipper W and Mr. Exclusive — all tracing back to Old Fred. Sheldak broodmares are the epitome of the Appaloosa’s best qualities — hardiness, beauty and genetic vigor—characteristics which are readily passed on to their foals. Foals are born unassisted on the plains of North Dakota. Their innate people-loving personalities make them approachable within the first few days of life. They spend the summer with their dams in a herd setting on large pasture. The foals learn proper horse behavior from their elders and quickly accept the rigors of living life outdoors. By the time they are sold as weanlings, they are accustomed to heat, humidity, rain, snow, wind, insects, cattle and prairie wildlife — no wimpy horses come from Sheldak Ranch!"
Regarding Impressive-bred horses, as long as they are HYPP N/N, they are no different than any other horse. They possess no genetic defects from that bloodline, nor can they pass HYPP on to any successive generations.
It features some ApHC Hall of Fame stallions. It doesn't look like any of them are Impressive-bred, yet they obviously contributed positively to the breed, look to be in good flesh, were of good type, and were of breeding quality. Therefore, I don't think you can blame Impressive for their success.
How many Hall of Fame horses are in your horses' pedigrees? My yearling filly, for example, has 714 occurrences of Hall of Fame horses in her pedigree. In order to responsibly breed toward breed improvement, it is essential to duplicate the ancestors that were responsible for the success of your breed. Breeding away from those successful ancestors is injustice to the breed. Breeding by pedigree alone to preserve 'rare' bloodlines is an exercise in futility simply because those bloodlines became rare for a reason - they were of little to no value to anyone.
Along with QHs and Paints, the Appaloosa was promoted as a viable, versatile stock horse, used in many of the same disciplines as the other popular stock horse breeds. In the early days of the ApHC, there were many foundation stallions who lacked up close QH ancestors:
In striving toward breed improvement, and to work toward a breed standard that would hold up to the other stock horse breeds, some of the earlier foundation Appaloosa stallions achieved much success, even though they had no QH parents. If you didn't know who these stallions were, many would claim they had QH up close:
And, still breeding toward a breed standard and ideal, responsible breeders turned toward good QHs and TBs to get the quality conformation, substance, eye appeal, and superior performance ability, all while retaining pattern:
It's not difficult to see the breed improvement taking place throughout the history of the Appaloosa horse and ApHC. The latter horses were obviously an improvement over the first ones pictured, in terms of overall conformation, balance, substance, performance ability, and eye appeal.
As with stock horse breeds today, responsible breeders should breed toward breed integrity without buying into the corruption and extremes that have plagued the specialized horses. These horses were known for their versatility, and the QHs have excelled at that above all other stock horse breeds. Breeding for versatility while utilizing excellent outcross blood has proven to succeed toward maintaining the integrity of the breed.
As an FYI to anyone potentially receiving misinformation, keeping a foundered horse THIN is completely incorrect. There is zero health benefit in keeping a horse underweight for founder as opposed to a proper weight. And if she foundered on grass, it is completely beyond me why you would half starve her as a supposed "treatment" and yet have her ON grass. It doesn't matter that she's "healed", if she's foundered once on grass, you can be pretty darn sure it's going to happen again, regardless of how skinny you force her to be. Horses don't need to be fat to founder, it can happen to ANY size of horse if they don't handle the sugars in grass and grain well.
I have never in my life heard of a vet suggesting keep a horse "skinny" as an effective treatment plan. They shouldn't be obese or fat, and that's about it. You're only putting more strain on her body by keeping her so thin, and likely to trigger another attack, especially if she's on grass and chowing down to replace her lost calories.
And yes, I've dealt extensively with founder/laminitis and known plenty of people who have dealt with it extensively.
Maybe smrobs will re-post pics of some Appaloosas her Dad trained, with a young woman on them. Really great looking horses.
Why thank you .
I just happened to stumble across this thread and I am much of the same mind as FTFOTB. QH and TB were crossed into the appy breed in an attempt to better the breed and make it more competitive against the other stock breeds out there.
And, because it was suggested...
All these horses were trained and many were shown by my Dad in the late 70's and early 80's. Even though most of them have a QH or TB parent, I wouldn't consider any of them a detriment to the Appy breed. I apologize for the crappy color on some of the pictures, they were scanned from 30 year old photos that had discolored.