COMMENTS FROM VISITORS TO THE ARTICLE

COMMENTS FROM VISITORS TO THE ARTICLE

Jack Weichel

ws.aslideabove@sasktel.net

Why don't you make a motion to close the book? We need to see some of the comments and opinions that you getting to build your idea's {like a chat form}

Yours Jack Weichel

Dawn Basso
www.luckyhorseshoe.ca

Hi Rick, I read your article and want to tell you, there are many very good points. I have my opinions too, and I agree with much of what you say. I am including my letter that I have sent to directors and the magazine, I hope for some feedback too. I don't know what is needed to overhaul the system, when it is so flawed.

Hi, I am not sure where to start with my question but I hope maybe someone can shed some light for me. I purchased a filly that is appaloosa x appaloosa breeding - with her being generation 1 there are 2 quarter horses in her 6th generation. Her mother is a solid no characteristic, so when I registered her Canadian they only give her F3 since her mother can only be an F2 because she is (nc). She is 100 % fpd on her ApHC papers. Now what I want to know, is there seems to be a cross between solid (nc) mares on fewspots and getting the loud leopard pattern, is that going to tick off people who want those babies registered as purebreds when the ApHCC gets to that point? I was a little bit angry that she was not considered f4, however I will accept the f3 status if that is how it is, though I seriously think it is wrong! I also wonder how many (nc) mares there are actually being inspected, since I see some advertised as f3 which they can't be unless they have characteristics, and from the pictures advertised I don't see characteristics? And when there are "purebreds" will there not still be solids that appear even though they have generations of appaloosa blood behind them? I just don't think that something that is quarter horse in the fourth generation carries as much appaloosa blood as my filly and can be classified as f3. Is this political, based on ignorance, or totally ignoring the fact that appaloosa horses could be a blood breed?

Hans and Judy Ullmann

hman@telusplanet.net

I read your views on what is wrong with the Appaloosa Industry in Canada. While I agree with some of your comments, I also have a different view on several topics

The AQHA's registration move will become more common in other breeds-ie a horse breed is defined by his genetics, not by visible characteristics exclusively. The visible indentification of breeds is what created some of the mess as far as color in the first place

In the good ole days, there were just stock horses. Then the AQHA, ApHC and the APHC were formed. Breeding records weren't always that accurate-certainly no blood typing or DNA before registries were formed. Thus Appaloosa marked horses were placed in the ApHC, and solids into the AQHA-with many of those solids being minimal colored Appaloosas. There were really no crop outs-just roan Appaloosas and others with just characteristic and no coat color being placed into the AQHA and then producing loud color unexpectantly. Heck, Plaudette the dam of both Bright Eyes Brother and Maddons Bright Eyes had both Paint and appaloosa markings. Those Paint genetics have come back to haunt breeders of Mighty Bright horses, myself included.

The Sabino gene which usullay is limited to high white stockings and blazes, is carried by most breeds of horses. Once in a while the loud 'Paint' expression of the Sabino gene comes out-even in TB's

As far as solid colored Appaloosas-many of them carry the PATTN gene which is needed to turn on the color gene. Those solid Appaloosas should be genetically indentified separate from the true solids They carry Appaloosa color genetics-thus are Appaloosas

The very biggest problem with the Appaloosa in canada is the separate registry. I know many people outside of Appaloosas are turned off by the two sets of papers, different show point etc-why would anyone chose an Appaloosa over a Paint if he wanted a colored performance horse. Makes sense to chose a horse that has a unified registry recognized world wide and you know that all shows run under the same point system

Back in the good ole days, the number of Appaloosas registered was partly due to the fact that the acccepted cross out breeds were almost unlimited.

Entry level people and Europeans want a recognizable coat pattern-that is one market. Serious Appaloosa performance people wishing to compete at upper level-including open-chose athletic ability for their discipline first. Where are the straight Appaloosa lines winning NSBA< NRHA, NRCHA etc? A very few, so few that many people think these are not open events, but AQHA events. If Appaloosas, colored foundation, purebred, or what have you-were to start dominating those events-you can bet your bottom dollar that their market share would sky rocket in disciplines where NRHA and NRCHA prospects sell in the $50,000 range

I have one ApHCC colt (bought as a 50/50 prospect and incorrectly advertized as an ApHC colt), thus I got the ApHCC magazine.

What I see is many stallions having done nothing, except maybe produce more horses advertized. All many can lay claim to iis F level and color-sorry, I'm not interested in such a horse

Why no Appaloosa trainers in Canada-because it doesn't make sense to send an App out for training if they cannot have a hope of competing for major purses-most of us can't afford to do it for just personal satisfaction

What will the ApHCC do now, concerning Congenital Stationary Night blindness, which appears to be linked to the Leopard complex gene? They have declared themselves a registry free of all known genetic defects. You don't grade genetic defects, like in the magazine article, saying it can be managed. Some would argue that HYPP can also be managed

All Appaloosas carrying CSNB would have to be culled

Genetic defects are constantly cropping up through new mutations or concentrated line breeding, where two carriers pass on the defect, like HERDA. Much more realistic to legislate responsible breeding. In a case like HERDA, which is ressessive-one just would need a rule to never breed two carriers together , and no abnormal foal would be produced

To pooh hoo CSNB is certainly self serving. It is a problem. I just about rode off the edge of a cliff on a ride out of the mountains in the dark/ I know of several freinds who have had horses cut themselves up at night becuase they were night blind.

Never ride a night blind horse into a dark arena and have him spooking off the wall?

If you have a rule in place-you don.t grade genetic defects to serve your own purpose

I must finish for now, but you can see this is a 'hot' topic for me, and I hope you don't take offense by me expressing some of my feelings

The appaloosa in Canada and elsewhere is too small to be devided . AQHA and Paints shake their heads at the Canadian Appaloosa confusing boarder as defining a breed.

How many ApHCC people dual registered their stallion in the good ole days, but sent in only ApHCC stallion reports and registered everything ApHCC only-until an International sale came up They then piggy backed on the ApHC and used the allowable outcross to re register that horse-because most of the World runs on ApHC papers

The ApHC has to consider any Appaloosa outside of the ApHC registry as a grade. The ApHCC is not an outcross , but the same horse. Would the AQHA accept a separate Canadian AQHA registry as an 'outcross' Does the Jockey Club???

Anyway-maybe we can have a beer sometime and talk again!

Judy S Ullmann

Hans and Judy Ullmann

<hman@telusplanet.net>

Hi Rick

Thanks for the reply.

In an article once printed, I think in Horse Canada, the question was raised whether the Appaloosa was a color registry or a breed. The conclusion was that it is neither

Breeds are created by man. Appaloosa color genetics have many variables as far as expression, modification and inheritance go

The solid coat pattern has always been one possibility of expression-even when strong App to App crossing is practiced

I believe the Appaloosa should be a versitile breed with a color preference-not color above all else

Iron Cap may have enjoyed local promotion and success, but we are still not talking of a horse able to compete and win either top NSBA event or the NRHA futuriity.

As for fixed type-can't have that in a breed that practices virility. Even the AQHA hunt seat horse is a way different animal than a cutter or reiner. Arabian reiners don't look like the classical level top lined Arabian , as that rear end configuration doesn't have the power to hold a stop

TBs are bred for one thing-to run, thus their type is fixed and uniform

Certainly the Mixer painting of an Appaloosa halter horse would not be suitable as an Appaloosa Sport Horse or reiner. If you want fixed type-then the Appaloosa must become a specialized horse

Color precious-sure to some extent, and breeders of Tobiano horses are also aware of it. Why is this though? Because all too often loud colored horses were shown whose primary assets was color, making serious performance people consider loud colored horses to have been bred mainly for the color and not for athletic potential. Thus a loud colored horse must prove itself to earn respect. If it is a superior horse, I truly believe the good judges will reward it. Loud color also makes poor performance very noticed and remembered. The high Sign Nuggets have done much to promote the colored cowhorse and reiner to non Appaloosa people-and certainly the color did not prevent fair judging at the Supreme and other venues

Tradacious won the NRHA, inspire of being an AQHA reject at the time, due to excessive white .

The Wap Spotted Sport horses are recognized when they perform well on the open circuit. Color precious is just too much of a cop out for many breeders of colored horses.

To suggest that judges have a vested interest in AQHA horses and thus judge a good colored horse unfairly, discredits unjustly great judges like Joe Carter.

Yes, cull all the leopards if CSNB is associated with that pattern. The ApHCC has no other choice, having made such a strong and unrealistic statement that the ApHCC is a registry free of all KNOWN GENETIC DEFECTS. Any scientific person can tell you that genetic mutations occur constantly. Heavy line breeding increases the concentration of both desirable and undesirable recessive genetic defects. It was very easy to point at the AQHA while HERDA and other defects were discovered. When one looks at the facts-for every Appaloosa foal produced there is probably a thousand AQHA foals produced. Add heavy line breeding to that, producing expensive foals that express a flaw. One defective Appaloosa foal probably would not be investigated. Have 10 to 100 AQHA foals presented to research vet universities, and someone is going to notice a common factor. A research grant is applied for, and voile-a new genetic defect comes to light. Then up jump genetically uniformed Appaloosa breeders thinking genetic defects are solely due to other breeds and use the unrealistic claim of being a breed free from all known genetic defects. Well, guess what-no more. Gotta change the mission statement. Much more realistic to strive for a breed free of genetic disease-meaning recessive carriers are present, but rules are in place never to breed them together and produce a clinical affected individual. Dominant defects like Hypp are denied papers

The ApHC is not free of political agendas or other unfavorable components-no organization is. Big organizations have more controversy than little ones-but lets not point fingers. The ApHCC sat on the Animal pedigree Act for several years, until forced to act

The survey sent out was less than accurate-if not completely self serving and miss leading. Two choices were given-to become an evolving breed under the APA or to opt out. The option to opt out and become part of the ApHC was never given. The average Appaloosa owner thus opted to go with the APA, and not be left in no mans land. It was also stated that in order to register Appaloosas in Canada, one would need to belong to the APA. Completely misleading

Like it or not, the ApHC is recognized by the rest or the World and by organizations such as the AQHA, the NRHA, NRCHA< NSBA, act, as being the registry for Appaloosa horses

The ApHCC would have served the Appaloosa much better in Canada by becoming the Canadian ApHC club, promoting Canadian bred ApHC horses to the World, putting on a Canadian National ApHC show and serving Canadian Appaloosa breeders in a similar manner as Canadian AQHA associations provide World wide opportunities and unification for their members.

As for the most colorful class-you have it in reverse,If this is the optimal idea of an Appaloosa-where are those horses in the afternoon performance events? All too often back in their stalls

I breed for color and have ridden some great colored and solid horses, relatively successful, even if trained by only myself.

The mare I'm currently riding is solid. She is a horse capable of winning halter in the morning and going on to win various performance events in the afternoon. Should she be bared from Appaloosa competition because she happens to be solid? I guess your answer would be yes

As far as the joint show. I’ll be honest and tell you that I was not in favor-not with two point systems and three sets of numbers. What is gained? We only look stupid to the rest of the horse community and I guess serve those that just like to show and thus have horses showing both ApHC and ApHCC It just underlines our division. Don't get me wrong-I have enjoyed showing ApHCC in the past and the people -but this move does nothing for the future of the Appaloosa in Canada. Personally, I prefer a joint show with the Paints. Less confusing.

Hope to see you sometime

Judy

Ps Feel free to post my views, as I never have hidden agendas but believe in expressing myself honestly

REPLY TO JUDY’S COMMENTS

Hi Judy

Sorry to be so long in getting back to you.

I have some comments and responses which I would like to share with you. See below:

Hi Rick

Thanks for the reply.

In an article once printed, I think in Horse Canada, the question was raised whether the Appaloosa was a color registry or a breed. The conclusion was that it is neither.

At this time I agree with conclusion expressed.

My premise is that "Appaloosa" is base color modifier gene(s) which gives unique color patterns. Appaloosa is not a breed any more than bay or sorrel colors constitute a breed. Palomino, buckskin and even Albino have had registries in which they erroneously described themselves as "breeds". The general definition of a breed is a group of individuals with recognizably similar characteristics which are passed down from generation to generation.

Breeds are created by man.

Not necessarily...isolated gene pools can evolve into what we describe as a breed. (i.e. a closed gene pool of similar individuals without outside influences. Icelandic ponies for example.)

Registries are created by man and most “breeds” have evolved to service a particular need.

Appaloosa color genetics have many variables as far as expression, modification and inheritance go

Correct...and we have just recently developed the technology to see what goes or behind the scenes of "Appaloosa" color genetics.

The solid coat pattern has always been one possibility of expression-even when strong App to App crossing is practiced

Solid patterns occur only if dominant "Appaloosa" or double recessive "Appaloosa" modifier genes are absent. Every "Appaloosa" colored horse is a solid, with modifiers acting on the base color to exhibit the unique patterns. Therefore solid genes are present in every "Appaloosa" colored horse, but not every solid colored horse carries "Appaloosa" color modifying genes. A solid lacks the correct combination of modifier "Appaloosa" genes to exhibit color so you are not talking "pure" Appaloosa genes when you get a solid from strong App to App crossing.

I believe the Appaloosa should be a versatile breed with a color preference-not color above all else

Then call it something else!

It isn't a breed without unique traits
It isn't an Appaloosa without color.

Historically, an "Appaloosa" is a color pattern modified horse, just as Paint is a color pattern modified horse. You wouldn't call the sorrel foal of a palomino mare a palomino, so why call a solid offspring of an Appaloosa, an Appaloosa. The original definition of Appaloosa was a colored horse and this definition is still considered by the majority of the horse industry to be correct.

Basically we are arguing about the definition of the word "Appaloosa". I take the traditional definition which is the most widely accepted.

You would apparently prefer a revised definition. That viewpoint negates the uniqueness of the Appaloosa horse and leaves it without a distinct identity.

Iron Cap may have enjoyed local promotion and success, but we are still not talking of a horse able to compete and win either top NSBA event or the NRHA futurity.

Up to this point we have been discussing what constitutes an Appaloosa.

Now we have moved into a completely different area. Athletic ability and talent are not related to color. There have been "horses of color" that have been extremely successful in these venues. Granted many were out-crosses or "crop-outs". This supports my stand that athletic ability is not color related.

As for fixed type-can't have that in a breed that practices versatility.

By definition a "breed" is not conducive to being an animal that can do it all. Versatility is limited in all pure breeds. Percherons make poor cutters, Shetland ponies are poor candidates for Olympic jumping competitions. If a Percheron breeder wanted to raise cutters, would he be justified in lobbying to change the whole breed standard to satisfy his desire to have Percheron "Cutters" that could be competitive in NCHA? The Percheron would loose its identity and cease to qualify as a breed.

Even the AQHA hunt seat horse is a way different animal than a cutter or reiner.

My point exactly...The Quarter horse is not a breed. AQHA is a "Club" … a registry for a variety of different types on light horses which excel in a number of different disciplines. Definitely not a breed!!!

Arabian reiners don't look like the classical level top lined Arabian, as that rear end configuration doesn’t have the power to hold a stop

So Arab reiners choose to selectively breed for the conformation that meets their particular needs. However Arab reining horses and Arab halter horses have enough similar traits to still be recognized as members of the same breed.

TBs are bred for one thing-to run, thus their type is fixed and uniform

Definitely a breed...recognizable as a unique type of individual from a closed gene pool. You don't see thoroughbred breeders breeding to Quarter horse sprinters to get faster short distant runners and then calling them Thoroughbreds. Thoroughbred traits would be compromised and it would cease to be a pure, recognizable breed.

Certainly the Mixer painting of an Appaloosa halter horse would not be suitable as an Appaloosa Sport Horse or reiner. If you want fixed type-then the Appaloosa must become a specialized horse

Agreed...For "Appaloosa" to be called a breed, it must be identifiable and therefore, somewhat unique from other "breeds", an "Appaloosa" colored horse with common conformation traits from a limited gene pool (closed book).

As to what I want...I believe in calling a spade a spade. I feel that the Appaloosa color genetics need to be preserved in a purebred registry and that means a closed book, selective breeding for the color genes and the eventual evolution of a true "Breed".

Color prejudice-sure to some extent, and breeders of Tobiano horses are also aware of it. Why is this though? Because all too often loud colored horses were shown whose primary asset was color, making serious performance people consider loud colored horses to have been bred mainly for the color and not for athletic potential. Thus a loud colored horse must prove itself to earn respect.

Any horse must prove itself to earn respect. As I stated earlier, athletic ability is not related to color patterns. When inferior colored horses were competed upon, they obviously were wash outs. That was the fault of the breeders and/or trainers.

Inferior, solid quarter horses also were produced, fell into the same category and then disappeared from the competitive world. The coloreds were more memorable and stereotyping of ALL colored horses evolved in many narrow minds.

If it is a superior horse, I truly believe the good judges will reward it. Loud color also makes poor performance very noticed and remembered. The high Sign Nuggets have done much to promote the colored cowhorse and reiner to non Appaloosa people-and certainly the color did not prevent fair judging at the Supreme and other venues

Tradacious won the NRHA, in spite of being an AQHA reject at the time, due to excessive white.

The Wap Spotted Sport horses are recognized when they perform well on the open circuit. Color prejudice is just too much of a cop out for many breeders of colored horses.

To suggest that judges have a vested interest in AQHA horses and thus judge a good colored horse unfairly discredits unjustly great judges like Joe Carter.

My comments were of a general nature when it comes to color prejudice in judges. Many are fair and many are prejudiced. Many have vested interests in promoting the type of horse they are producing and / or making a living off and have prejudices that they may not even be aware off.

The reality is that the Appaloosa Horse Club of Canada erred in issuing such an uneducated statement.

Any scientific person can tell you that genetic mutations occur constantly. Heavy line breeding increases the concentration of both desirable and undesirable recessive genetic defects. It was very easy to point at the AQHA while HERDA and other defects were discovered. When one looks at the facts-for every Appaloosa foal produced there is probably a thousand AQHA foals produced. Add heavy line breeding to that, producing expensive foals that express a flaw. One defective Appaloosa foal probably would not be investigated. Have 10 to 100 AQHA foals presented to research vet universities, and someone is going to notice a common factor. A research grant is applied for, and voila-a new genetic defect comes to light. Then up jump genetically uniformed Appaloosa breeders thinking genetic defects are solely due to other breeds and use the unrealistic claim of being a breed free from all known genetic defects. Well, guess what-no more. Gotta change the mission statement.

Unfortunately the decision makers in most registries are volunteers and many are not well informed or educated in regards to genetics or the livestock industry. Unqualified, mostly well-meaning people are setting standards in numerous so called "breeds" that are faulty. Calling solid colored horses Appaloosas is one example of short sighted, ill-informed decisions.

Yes, there are genetic defects related to Appaloosa colored horses so do we cover it up, or accept the fact that this is the reality of Appaloosa genetics? This is something Appaloosa breeders have to acknowledge.

When I studied genetics in University, I learned that there are sex-linked genes and color-linked genes, etc. in most species. For example, Black people can inherit sickle cell anemia, Labrador dogs are susceptible to hip dysphasia and Appaloosa horses have eyesight issues.

Much more realistic to strive for a breed free of genetic disease-meaning recessive carriers are present, but rules are in place never to breed them together and produce a clinical affected individual. Dominant defects like Hypp are denied papers

Long term, it is better to remove all the undesirable carriers (both dominant and recessive) and thus eliminate the costly monitoring systems which adversely affect the overall costs of producing horses. However, this would call for the elimination of all Appaloosa horses, since the color modifier genes are related to adverse predispositions. Appaloosa’s colored horses are susceptible to night blindness, cataracts and eventual blindness in many cases. Just as all humans have a graying gene, Appaloosa horses have baggage that comes with the territory.

The ApHC is not free of political agendas or other unfavorable components-no organization is. Big organizations have more controversy than little ones-but let’s not point fingers. The ApHCC sat on the Animal pedigree Act for several years, until forced to act

The survey sent out was less than accurate-if not completely self serving and misleading. Two choices were given-to become an evolving breed under the APA or to opt out. The option to opt out and become part of the ApHC was never given. The average Appaloosa owner thus opted to go with the APA, and not be left in no mans land. It was also stated that in order to register Appaloosas in Canada, one would need to belong to the APA. Completely misleading

Like it or not, the ApHC is recognized by the rest or the World and by organizations such as the AQHA, the NRHA, NRCHA< NSBA, etc, as being the registry for Appaloosa horses

My position is that both registries are sadly lacking in either knowledge or backbone when it comes to facing the hypocrisies evident in both their organizations. And thus the loss of stature of the Appaloosa horse...from third largest registry to a distant eighth or ninth place presently. The Appaloosa has been losing ground since the solids were accepted on equal status.

The overall point is the politics don't matter much if the Appaloosa horse keeps losing public acceptance.

As for the most colorful class-you have it in reverse, If this is the optimal idea of an Appaloosa-where are those horses in the afternoon performance events? All too often back in their stalls

In my opinion, most colorful doesn't promote the optimal idea of the Appaloosa horse. The Most Colorful class in designed to reward the horse exhibiting the strongest Appaloosa traits. It does take conformation into consideration but promotes Appaloosa identifiable characteristics. Horse bred for performance only and without color won't win in most colorful.

To many, color is the primary factor in identifying the Appaloosa. Your interest is more performance oriented…as is my own. But I believe that Appaloosa color must be present in the poorest to the most elite athletes if we are to call them Appaloosas.

I breed for color and have ridden some great colored and solid horses, relatively successful, even if trained by only myself.

Obviously yes!

If she isn’t an Appaloosa, why would you want to represent her as one in order to compete? She’s also not a Quarter Horse, but you don’t try to represent her as one to enter AQHA competitions.

She’s obviously a superior animal but since she doesn’t meet the criteria of being an Appaloosa, she belongs in open competition.

In my original article, I suggested a phasing out of the solid colored show and race horses by allowing those currently being shown a lifetime pass but allowing no more solids into the Appaloosa show and race industry. I also stated that I have some superior solid individuals and I would suffer financial and personal hardship if I couldn’t show them anymore. I also stated that for the betterment and future of the breed, I would be willing to accept the losses.

I also am not in favor of the joint show format for many of the same reasons you are. I think it is reflective of the desperation in both organizations to deal with dwindling numbers of competitors and a lack of interest from the general public.

And I re-iterate that I firmly believe that the main reason for this decline in both organizations is the loss of identity of the Appaloosa horse. Without color it isn’t an Appaloosa and the current situation reflects the way the majority of the horse World views it.

Hope to see you sometime

Judy

Ps Feel free to post my views, as I never have hidden agendas but believe in expressing myself honestly

Judy

I realize that we all have personal agendas and notions of how things should be in the Appaloosa industry.

Realistically, I think that the fundamental key to a successful future is the development of a pure Appaloosa breed (gene pool) thereby restoring the Appaloosa identity.

When the solid rule came into effect, I had mixed feelings, but basically supported it.

I thought it was the first step in forming a true “breed”.
I assumed the books would be closed in the immediately future.
I feared the loss of the unique identity the Appaloosa had up until that time.
I had a wait and see if it works attitude.

I have come to realization that it has been a catastrophic decision.

From a breeder’s point of view, it has drastically weakened the market.
From a trainer’s point of view, there is little to no demand for services
Buyers lack the confidence to invest in the “breed”
The Appaloosa industry has sustained enormous damage in terms of status, the potential for future growth and credibility.

Thanks for you input on this very controversial subject.

Hope to see you soon

Rick

Judy

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE ARTICLE

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE BULL CHUTE