Sunny Draco basically nailed the point I was trying to get across home. There is nothing wrong with calling a paint that is pinto colored a pinto. Pinto is the color pattern and that doesn't bother me at all. It's when someone calls a horse that is not a paint a paint because it has pinto coloration that it irritates me. (Basically you are looking at one of my biggest horse knowledge pet peeves.)
And as for paint horses, the breed's bloodlines are established to only allow the inclusion of quarter horse lines or thoroughbred lines. Which basically means you can register a foal that is QH x Paint, TB x Paint, or register a full bred quarter horse or thoroughbred that ends up with paint pattern markings.
Really it's kinda comparable to saying that a horse that is arabian x quarter horse is a freisian because it's black. It sounds ridiculous doesn't it? That and shouldn't logic dictate that if the color name has been around a lot longer than the breed name that people should be calling their pinto mustang, or any horse really a pinto rather than a recently established breed name?
As I said it bothers me a lot because we used to breed them, and I don't like seeing them mixed up simply because people are too lazy to do a bit of research on things.
I understand, and mostly agree.
The issue I have, and I am not at all trying to be inflammatory, is that many Paint folks make such a distinction that Paints are a "breed" and Pintos are not, when in fact neither is actually a breed.
We have had similar discussions about Appys, which are my "breed". The fact is, that because APHA permits outcrossing with both Quarterhorses and Thoroughbreds, the latter being a disimilar breed, and ApHC permits outcrossing with Arabs, Quarterhorses, and Thoroughbreds, neither Paints nor Appys (as registered by the registries) are "breeds". An APHA Paint, just as an ApHC Appy, can in fact have very little Paint or Appy blood. In other words, a half Paint/TB registered as a Paint can be crossed with a TB, resulting in a 1/4 Paint registered as a Paint...then the same in the next generation, resulting in a 1/8 Paint registered as a Paint...and so on. At what point does the folly of calling a horse a "Paint" or an "Appy" stop? 1/8th? 1/16th? 1/32, which is only 3% Paint?
I am not trying to be argumentative, but am just pointing out that registries thast permit outcrossing generation after generation are not truly either developing or maintaining a "breed". Quite the contrary, they are merging breeds together, thus are, quite frankly, color registries rather than breed registries.
Now with that being said, that does not mean that there are not Paint or Appy horses that could be considered a Paint or Appy breed. A Paint to Paint cross results in a Paint, just as an Appy to Appy cross results in an Appy - assuming of course it is done for several generations.
But just because a horse is registered as a Paint by APHA does not necessarily mean it acutally is a Paint, any more than a horse registered by ApHC does not necessarily mean it is an Appy. A horse that is 3% Paint is NOT a Paint...period. And no papers or registration on Earth can make it a Paint. Same with Appys.
Until these registries stop permitting outcrosses - or as an alternative follow a similar outcross registration policy as AHA, neither will in reality be a "breed" registry. There is nothing instrinsically wrong with a registry that is not a breed registry, but for the registry or its membership to portray it as a "breed" registry is rather absurd...