Appaloosa Horses: Breed standards gone too far? - Page 16
   

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

Appaloosa Horses: Breed standards gone too far?

This is a discussion on Appaloosa Horses: Breed standards gone too far? within the Horse Breeds forums, part of the Horse Breeds, Breeding, and Genetics category
  • Appaloosa original stock horse
  • Haggin cup appaloosa

 
LinkBack Thread Tools
    06-17-2011, 01:42 AM
  #151
Jax
Foal
To add to the original idea...

I take care of an Appy from the original stock (she has the marking on her papers and everything), so maybe that sways my idea. In my experience mixing breeds with the Applaoosa has done little good for the breed. I really don't care if people decide to do this, but I'm going to steer clear. I somewhat fear for the future of the breed, but not enough to ask for more regulations on the breed.

My reasoning for not mixing is because Appaloosas naturally are very intelligently bred horses. They have their akward fram and little mane and tail and this deters people, but internally they are very hardy animals. Appy's are known for their sturdy legs and tough hoofs (very necessary), little hair (convinient in some occasions, though looked at as ugly currently), endurance, agility, flexibility, and just the ability to last a long time. I have experienced all of this with my mare and read much about it. On top of that Appys are known for their attitude, something I love. It seems to me a result from their intelligence. They are very smart animals and if you have a good relationship with them are usually a wonder to train at any age. Now, lets talk of QH Appys. They usually look gorgeous, but I have witnessed on numerous occasions their poor leg structures. Many become crippled at a you age and do not move a fluid as appys. This is just a quick example of what the mixing can do.

Anyways, I will stay away from mixes no matter their beauty. I like durability in my equine.
     
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
    06-20-2011, 09:55 PM
  #152
Banned
Quote:
Originally Posted by FTFOTB    
Ok, I think we're getting somewhere, now.

I have a question: If Appaloosas aren't supposed to be a stock horse breed, then what are they?

If you tell me 'all around horses', then I will just tell you that the QH blood improved upon that. The QH was the ultimate in versatility. Up to the late 1970s, that is.

I agree with many that these stock horse breeds have become much too specialized, but that's a subject for a thread of its own. Right now, we're talking about a breed standard, if there is one.
No offense, but you seem to be chock full of misinformation about Appys. Do you own Appys or have bred Appys?

Appaloosas are not "supposed to be a stock horse breed". They have been steered in that direction by ApHC to achieve the highest possible membership and revenues. Appaloosas were not originally bred to be stock horses.

Your statement about Quarterhorses is rather pretentious. Sorry to disappoint you, but a Quarterhorse is not anywhere close to the "ultimate in versatility". Quarterhorses are bred for performance with a large percentage of fast twitch muscle fiber. As a result, they excel at strength events requiring explosive power. This would be opposed to an Arab, which has been bred with a high percentage of slow twitch muscle fibers, which are conducive to endurance. Breeds like (true) Appys are bred for both endurance and performance...they are not as good at performance as Quarterhorses, and are not as good at endurance as Arabs, but are more versatile than both.

In answer to your question if they aren't supposed to be stock horses, what are they, that underscores your lack of knowledge of Appys. Appys pre-date "stock", just as they pre-date Quarterhorses. Now if there weren't any cattle around when the breed was developed, they couldn't very well have been bred to be stock horses, could they?

Appys are a very interesting breed of horse. You should really research them before making statements and assumptions. Sadly, there aren't too many actual Appys around any longer, thanks to ApHC. Most Appys today are no more than a color variation of Quarterhorse. To have a registry alter a breed (and actually change the breed standard) just to fullfil its own agenda because Quarterhorses happen to be the most popular breed in the US and thus that conformation and ability can build the largest membership, is shameful. Should Arabs be turned into Quarterhorses? How about Clydesdales? Why not breed Shetlands up to Quarterhorse standards?

Don't get me wrong - there is nothing wrong with colored Quarterhorses or colored Arabs or colored Thoroughbreds. They are excellent crosses. But they are not Appys - they are just sporting Appy color and characteristics.

Different people prefer different breeds, and different breeds have there own attributes and abilities. Although Quarterhorses are the most popular breed in the US, it would be rather boring if that were all we had to choose from...sort of like everyone driving a Chevy...
     
    06-21-2011, 10:52 PM
  #153
Green Broke
^

In 1969, an Appaloosa won the Haggin Cup at Tevis, which for any of you who don't know is the "Best Condition" cup for the famous 100 mile one day endurance race through the Rocky Mountains. Which means he beat DOZENS of Arabs bred specifically for this sport with better return to resting rates.

In a race almost dominated by Arabs (a few partbreds, a Mustang, a mule or two, and a TB/QH cross) for 55 years, that is pretty impressive. I've always seen the Appaloosa as a very versatile breed, with all the strength of the QH and the stamina to go the distance.
     

Thread Tools



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:49 AM.


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