# Appaloosa Horses: Breed standards gone too far?



## appylover31803

i have to say my mare has qh and tb blood in her, though you have to look way back to find the tb.

http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/impression+in+time


----------



## Supermane

I have to say that I'm all for it. I'm not a huge fan of foundation appaloosas; however I've seen many with qh/tb that I think are lovely.


----------



## farmpony84

several years ago TB's were heavily introduced into the apps to give them more height, I remember when that was happening the "new" apps were really starting to get hot headed in nature and that's not what that breed is supposed to be, so then I think they started adding the QH's into the bloodline to bring them back to their original demeanors and body types... is that true?


----------



## irisheyes12

I'm not a fan of foundation Appaloosa's as they are ugly and bull-headed in my opinion. I don't agree with cross breeding of any sort and i'm saddened to see Quarter Horses being crossed with Appaloosa's just to put the Appy color on a decent looking horse. People like the color of Appaloosa's and think, "why not breed this Leopard Appaloosa with a Thoroughbred so that I can get one over 14.2 hh and market it to more people?".... you can paint an apple orange, it's still going to be an apple. :roll:


----------



## Supermane

I have no problem with cross breeding as long as it is done sanely.
http://tucson.craigslist.org/grd/709823788.html
^^These are the cross breeds I just can stand. Why would anyone do this?

QH, Paint, TB, and Appies being crossed doesn't really bother me, I think they can help the breed rather than hinder it.


----------



## Curly_Horse_CMT

irisheyes12 said:


> I'm not a fan of foundation Appaloosa's as they are ugly and bull-headed in my opinion. I don't agree with cross breeding of any sort and i'm saddened to see Quarter Horses being crossed with Appaloosa's just to put the Appy color on a decent looking horse. People like the color of Appaloosa's and think, "why not breed this Leopard Appaloosa with a Thoroughbred so that I can get one over 14.2 hh and market it to more people?".... you can paint an apple orange, it's still going to be an apple. :roll:


You can cross basically any horse and try to sell it and market it to more people. That is why there are crosses such as the Tennuvian, Arappaloosa, Morab, Quarab, ect. The possibilities are endless. People can see the Appaloosa's that are foundation bred as ugly and bullheaded, but they need to at least be accepting of what the horses was used for, and bred for by the Nez Perce. We also must remember that these horses almost went EXTINCT like many of the other breeds around the world at one time or another because of the carelessness of humans. Just because people want a Appaloosa that looks like a quarter horse with the quarter horse bloodlines, wouldnt that make that horse a quarter horse? duh


----------



## Curly_Horse_CMT

Supermane said:


> I have no problem with cross breeding as long as it is done sanely.
> http://tucson.craigslist.org/grd/709823788.html
> ^^These are the cross breeds I just can stand. Why would anyone do this?
> 
> qh, Paint, tb, and Appies being crossed doesn't really bother me, I think they can help the breed rather than hinder it.


Alot of those people that cross Ferisians are looking for big bucks because the horse is slightly "unusual". Some people can help the breed, but other people are just plain stupid with their breeding.


----------



## Supermane

Curly_Horse_CMT said:


> irisheyes12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a fan of foundation Appaloosa's as they are ugly and bull-headed in my opinion. I don't agree with cross breeding of any sort and i'm saddened to see Quarter Horses being crossed with Appaloosa's just to put the Appy color on a decent looking horse. People like the color of Appaloosa's and think, "why not breed this Leopard Appaloosa with a Thoroughbred so that I can get one over 14.2 hh and market it to more people?".... you can paint an apple orange, it's still going to be an apple. :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> You can cross basically any horse and try to sell it and market it to more people. That is why there are crosses such as the Tennuvian, Arappaloosa, Morab, Quarab, ect. The possibilities are endless. People can see the Appaloosa's that are foundation bred as ugly and bullheaded, but they need to at least be accepting of what the horses was used for, and bred for by the Nez Perce. We also must remember that these horses almost went EXTINCT like many of the other breeds around the world at one time or another because of the carelessness of humans. Just because people want a Appaloosa that looks like a quarter horse with the quarter horse bloodlines, wouldnt that make that horse a quarter horse? duh
Click to expand...

The problem with that is many of the foundation looking appies aren't marketable. I'm not saying that all of them are ugly, I've seen some pretty looking ones, but the majority just look sad. Why would you breed something that isn't guaranteed a nice life just because you can?


----------



## farmpony84

Of course the QH is a breed that was put together by horses that had unknown breeding... I think it started somewhere in the 1600's when they bred the english thourobreds to native american horses and arabians...

Then as they moved outwest they used horses like steel dust and traveler that were unkown breeding, peter mccue was a thourobred. The Thoroughbred race horse Three Bars, alive in the early years of the AQHA, is recognized by the American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame as one of the significant foundation sires for the Quarter Horse breed. Other significant Thoroughbred sires seen in early AQHA pedigrees include King Plaudit, Blob, Top Deck, Vandy and Truckle Feature.

So really the American Quarter Horse is absolutely the definitiion of an American! LOL - it's a mixing bowl of breeds. My horse, Riley has Man O' War in his bloodlines... and he's as QH as they come! So anyway, I do think "they" the people who think they are refining the breeds go a little to far when they do what they do... but ... i don't know... I'm still a sucker for the old style foundation ranch horses... and I like the newer styles somewhat, not the TB-looking ones. to me, when the have those behavioral traits and that look, they just arent' QH's anymore. They're TBs. 

I know this discussion was about Appy's but I don't know a ton about that breed so I couldnt go into a big rant about the history of it......


----------



## Supermane

farmpony84 said:


> Of course the qh is a breed that was put together by horses that had unknown breeding... I think it started somewhere in the 1600's when they bred the english thourobreds to native american horses and arabians...
> 
> Then as they moved outwest they used horses like steel dust and traveler that were unkown breeding, peter mccue was a thourobred. The Thoroughbred race horse Three Bars, alive in the early years of the aqha, is recognized by the American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame as one of the significant foundation sires for the Quarter Horse breed. Other significant Thoroughbred sires seen in early aqha pedigrees include King Plaudit, Blob, Top Deck, Vandy and Truckle Feature.
> 
> So really the American Quarter Horse is absolutely the definitiion of an American! LOL - it's a mixing bowl of breeds. My horse, Riley has Man O' War in his bloodlines... and he's as qh as they come! So anyway, I do think "they" the people who think they are refining the breeds go a little to far when they do what they do... but ... i don't know... I'm still a sucker for the old style foundation ranch horses... and I like the newer styles somewhat, not the tb-looking ones. to me, when the have those behavioral traits and that look, they just arent' qh's anymore. They're TBs.
> 
> I know this discussion was about Appy's but I don't know a ton about that breed so I couldnt go into a big rant about the history of it......


Coming from the hunter world I really like the newer qhs. The foundation ones aren't exactly my favorite...

EDIT: Anyway, personally, I really like the inversion of other breeds into making a specific breed better. For those that don't want to they don't have to... I know there are a few farms that are dedicated to breeding foundation horses, whether they be appies or qhs


----------



## Curly_Horse_CMT

The problem with that is many of the foundation looking appies aren't marketable. I'm not saying that all of them are ugly, I've seen some pretty looking ones, but the majority just look sad. Why would you breed something that isn't guaranteed a nice life just because you can?[/quote]

Alot of horses arent marketable. Look at the market as it is now. I mean, alot of people are trying to sell show horses off the national circuit and they are wondering why that they havent been purchased yet. Its because the horse market is horrible right now. Horses are going for peanuts, as I am sure everyone on here knows. Some people think that the Appaloosas look "sad" but alot of people see them for who they are. Its just like how some people are still breeding to the Impressive bloodline, even with the hypp going around. People still keep THOSE horses alive. And they seem to think it is worth it. It all depends on the person I guess. You can see alot of horses here in the U.S.A. right now because of too much breeding. People are just breeding to breed right now, and its sickening. But so now people are trying to turn away horses that look ugly and bullheaded and trying to make them look more built like the Quarter Horses with the Appy color? Make changes but within reason. Dont go changing them into the Quarter Horse breed. Make a improved Appaloosa breed, but not all out new.


----------



## irisheyes12

It's not just the horse market that sucks right now, it's all of the economy which isn't anything new to anyone. I don't agree with cross breeding, as I said in my prior post, and I don't agree with the ever popular concept of "breeding for color". When I hear "Foundation Appaloosa" I instantly think big head, poor feet, mucus filled eyes, barely there tail/mane and short (14.3 hh). But again, i'm not a fan of the breed so i'm always going to have a sort of "bias" if you will. Same goes for Arabians, I can't stand them. I don't find them the least bit pretty and they don't look like horses IMO. To me, an Arabian looks like a big, high strung Doberman Pincher dog.

Has the breed standard gone too far for the Appaloosa? Show me a breed that it hasn't so far. You have groups of people getting together going "hey i've got a great idea, let's breed your Arabian stallion to my Percheron mare and see if we can get a nice dressage horse!".....


----------



## farmpony84

Curly_Horse_CMT said:


> The problem with that is many of the foundation looking appies aren't marketable. I'm not saying that all of them are ugly, I've seen some pretty looking ones, but the majority just look sad. Why would you breed something that isn't guaranteed a nice life just because you can?


Alot of horses arent marketable. Look at the market as it is now. I mean, alot of people are trying to sell show horses off the national circuit and they are wondering why that they havent been purchased yet. Its because the horse market is horrible right now. Horses are going for peanuts, as I am sure everyone on here knows. Some people think that the Appaloosas look "sad" but alot of people see them for who they are.* Its just like how some people are still breeding to the Impressive bloodline, even with the hypp going around. People still keep THOSE horses alive.* And they seem to think it is worth it. It all depends on the person I guess. You can see alot of horses here in the U.S.A. right now because of too much breeding. People are just breeding to breed right now, and its sickening. But so now people are trying to turn away horses that look ugly and bullheaded and trying to make them look more built like the Quarter Horses with the Appy color? Make changes but within reason. Dont go changing them into the Quarter Horse breed. Make a improved Appaloosa breed, but not all out new.[/quote]

_OUCH. I don't think you know anything about the Impressive line or HYPP for you to make that comment. Impressive horses are very smart, quick learners with great attitudes. That's why people keep them around and for you to say "HYPP going around" you act like it's a virus or something. It's not, it's a genetic disorder and if you breed a negative horse to a negative horse, you can NOT pass it on. I have an Impressive bred horse, Impressive on both ends, the parents were tested and do not carry the gene, that means mine does not have it and will never get it. So for you to say people keep breeding THOSE horses... that's just an unfair uneducated statement._


----------



## Curly_Horse_CMT

*Impressive bloodlines*

I do know about the Impressive bloodline....my one Quarter horse mare that I have currently is a direct decendent of the horse and I have known many others with the same bloodline. All I was saying was I was agreeing with people that keep them around, but people with the horses that have tested positive for the disease have kept them around because they wanted to, but because they had to. I was just trying to make a point, not to be mean or anything like that. I dont know any horse that has tested positive for the disese at all but I have heard about horses that have it and what people do to keep them going so they have the most comfortable life possible.


----------



## appylover31803

my mare is hypp N/H, and there's another horse at the barn who is also NH.
I'm keeping Vega so she doesn't go to someone who wants to use her as a broodmare and produce more positive foals. I have done a lot of research and i personally find the disease ugly, but do you really blame the people for keeping they hypp positive horses? Maybe they just love their horses personality too much to give them away, maybe they didn't know at the time of their purchase that their horse was positive.

The day people could care less about an animal making them tons of money, i feel, is the day that hypp disappears.

just my 2 cents though.


----------



## farmpony84

Like Appy said.... It's a matter of smart breeding. That desease could completely be abolished by breeding smartly. the impressive line is a good line and should be saved without completely wiping it out. ... by smart breeding.

And to be perfectly honost.... mares can be fixed. If you have a stud w/ the desease it should be gelded... a positive mare should be fixed... no more accidental breedings........


----------



## appylover31803

i know mares can be fixed, but that's a couple thousand dollars i just don't have laying around.

If my mare is kept with all geldings and i plan on having her until the day she dies, i don't see why i have to spay her. Yes i know it will stop any unwanted breedings from happening, but if i dont have the money to do it, i think she's fine how she is.


----------



## farmpony84

yeah but appy, you are a RESPONSIBLE owner. AND you are keeping your mare... I don't foresee any accidental breedings on your part... I'm talking about those other people....... not responsible people like you!


----------



## appylover31803

ohh ok  Sorry for that misunderstanding. It's the heat and humidity. It's terrible.

Talking about irresponsible people, the people who bred Vega's dam to Impress me Shanon are, IMO irresponsible. Impress Me Shanon is NH so he has a 50% of producing a positive baby if bred with a NN horse. Vega's dam was NN. So 11 months later little Vega was born. She apparently shown no signs of hypp so the never got her tested! :shock: 
50% chance and you're not going to get her tested?!
I couldn't believe it when she told me that. Some people ya know


----------



## farmpony84

you would not believe how many impressive horses went through the auction this weekend that were not tested. i was shocked...


----------



## Sara

To the op, unfortunately breeds are a human invention: we create them and we can destroy them as well...it takes a lot of interest, organization and money to revitalize a breed. I actually agree with you that the crossbreeding up this point has not done the poor apps much good. I actually really like the old style of the breed, but it has become almost impossible to find good specimens with that clean, leggy, mustang-like look to them.


----------



## irisheyes12

_OUCH. I don't think you know anything about the Impressive line or hypp for you to make that comment. Impressive horses are very smart, quick learners with great attitudes. That's why people keep them around and for you to say "hypp going around" you act like it's a virus or something. It's not, it's a genetic disorder and if you breed a negative horse to a negative horse, you can NOT pass it on. I have an Impressive bred horse, Impressive on both ends, the parents were tested and do not carry the gene, that means mine does not have it and will never get it. So for you to say people keep breeding THOSE horses... that's just an unfair uneducated statement._[/quote]

Impressive horse are very smart, I agree. The Impressive line should not be wiped out all together, it just needs to be bred correctly and sadly, it's not even to this day. APHA now requires that is your horse carries Impressive in its lines for it to be noted as so on the registration papers (my gelding was off of the Scotch Bar Time line which goes way back to Impressive). It's like OLWS...if it's bred correctly it isn't going to be a problem.... people need to test.


----------



## irisheyes12

appylover31803 said:


> my mare is hypp N/H, and there's another horse at the barn who is also NH.
> I'm keeping Vega so she doesn't go to someone who wants to use her as a broodmare and produce more positive foals. I have done a lot of research and i personally find the disease ugly, but do you really blame the people for keeping they hypp positive horses? Maybe they just love their horses personality too much to give them away, maybe they didn't know at the time of their purchase that their horse was positive.
> 
> The day people could care less about an animal making them tons of money, i feel, is the day that hypp disappears.
> 
> just my 2 cents though.


If you're horse is HYPP positive that's fine and dandy but if it's a stud, GELD IT! It's not hard...people are out to make money, like you said, and it's killing off perfectly good horses.


----------



## appylover31803

irisheyes12 said:


> appylover31803 said:
> 
> 
> 
> my mare is hypp N/H, and there's another horse at the barn who is also NH.
> I'm keeping Vega so she doesn't go to someone who wants to use her as a broodmare and produce more positive foals. I have done a lot of research and i personally find the disease ugly, but do you really blame the people for keeping they hypp positive horses? Maybe they just love their horses personality too much to give them away, maybe they didn't know at the time of their purchase that their horse was positive.
> 
> The day people could care less about an animal making them tons of money, i feel, is the day that hypp disappears.
> 
> just my 2 cents though.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're horse is hypp positive that's fine and dandy but if it's a stud, GELD IT! It's not hard...people are out to make money, like you said, and it's killing off perfectly good horses.
Click to expand...

Oh i totally agree! 
At my current barn, there are 2 stallions as my current place that has impressive on both sides. On their website (they are for sale) it says nothing about hypp. If someone where to buy either one of them and breed the horse, they'd just be continuing on and infecting more and more horses. It only costs $50 to get the horse tested... DO IT!


----------



## irisheyes12

We're getting a bit off topic for this thread but yes, I totally agree with you


----------



## my2geldings

When you look at most registries, practically every breed has been tempered with and changed. There has been a lot of questioning about the tb registry and the breeding that has been taking place and the lack of a good quality tbs. Lines have been changed to accommodate racing.

It's really unfortunate that the appy registry and breeding is being changed so much.


----------



## appylover31803

Does someone have a picture of a foundation app?

what are the bloodlines to know if your app is foundation?


----------



## Sara

Forgive me, I know these are all leopards These are the horses you see less and less of. I am pretty sure all of these are 100% foundation...most of them were labeled as such. You get a general idea of the body type anyway.


----------



## my2geldings

The coloring blows me away!


----------



## appylover31803

wow! those guys look beautiful!

but Vega and Gem are definitely not foundation.

What i think is someone a long time ago properly introduced another breed to better the apps, and then people caught wind and just went haywire with it, just like every breed out there, or breeder out there...


----------



## stsjade

dont know... foundation appys look alot like qh's to me... I think that the markings should not be changed for the registry


----------



## bsms

My Appy is 3/4 Arabian by breeding. Don't know if they would accept him as an Appy or not. The sire was an unregistered Appaloosa that broke thru one fence and mated a show Arabian thru another fence. He sure LOOKS like an Appy, but the Arab blood is pretty plain too. Oh well. He's a good horse, and I won't be trying to register him anyways. With my daughter last year:


----------



## wakiya

The Appaloosa is in no way anything like the Nez Perce horse that is not why the ApHc was formed. They preserve the color (not all NP horses were spotted) and they have their on breed standard that is in no way related to NP horses. Different entirely. Even foundation appies have little to no Nez Perce blood and every one has an App, Arab, TB and/or QH somewhere even if it's far back


----------



## wakiya

My2Geldings said:


> When you look at most registries, practically every breed has been tempered with and changed. There has been a lot of questioning about the tb registry and the breeding that has been taking place and the lack of a good quality tbs. Lines have been changed to accommodate racing.
> 
> It's really unfortunate that the appy registry and breeding is being changed so much.


Not every breed :wink: the Indian Pony bloodlines that created the Nez Perce horses (specifically Shoshone horses but also Choctaw and Cherokee) haven't changed in literally hundreds of years. Some are still appy colored, too. It's in the registry to preserve and promote anyone who tries to "improve" the breed will be pretty much shunned out of the registries...


----------



## Rachel1786

I'm kinda clueless with this, and i posted this before, but what do you think Legacy is, foundation, appy with QH or appy with something else? He's a rescue so i have no info on his breeding and he's my first appy so i have no idea the differences in conformation, and even if i did i'm not sure if i could tell the difference lol



















He is about 15hh btw if that is relevant


----------



## Eastowest

Wakiya is correct in that the ApHC was not organized to discover and preserve only ACTUAL Nez Perce horses or bloodlines. The color and reputation of the Nez Perce horse "of legend" was certainly referred to by early organizers and breeders, but from the beginning, any light horse with app color was registered, and crossing was not actively discouraged, and in some cases actilve encouraged. 

_>>>> It's really unfortunate that the appy registry and breeding is being changed so much. _

Here are some observations of breeding trends according to sampling research I have been doing of the Appaloosa studbooks-- 

Back in the mid 1960's, almost 70% of all Appaloosas registered with the ApHC had a non-appaloosa parent, and only 30% were from registered ApHC x ApHC breeding. nearly 60% of all Appaloosas registered had at least one unknown/unregistered parent, and only around 10% were ApHC x another registered breed (crossing to registered AQHA was around 8%.).

By the early 1970s, ApHC x ApHC breeding had increased to around 55%, and ApHC x non-appaloosa was around 45%. Those with at least one unknown/unregistered parent were down to 28%, and ApHC x another registered breed was around 17%. (Crossing to registered AQHA was around 13%.)

The mid 1970s saw ApHC x ApHC with another increase to 57.5%. Now, 42.5% of the total Appaloosas registered had at least one non-Appaloosa parent. Appaloosas with at least one unknown or unregistered or non-app ID parent was down to 15.8%. Appaloosas which were ApHC x another registered breed were 27% of total Appaloosas registered. (crossing to registered AQHA was around 18%.)

Today, over 70% of all Appaloosas registered are ApHC x ApHC. The only Appaloosas registered with an unknown parent are hardshipped geldings/spayed mares, and they make up less than 2% of the total Appaloosas registered. ApHC x another registered breed is around 25%. (crossing to registered AQHA is around 22%).

So what has REALLY changed is the movement away from unknown/unregistered crosses, toward registered/known lines, and more breeding ApHC x ApHC. 

Yes, crossing to AQHA has increased, but it is still not the majority of breedings, and crossing to AQHA has nowhere nearly replaced the amount of crossing to unregistered/unknown which used to dominate the ApHC in earler years.


----------



## ButtInTheDirt

I think that foundation Appaloosas are beautiful animals. I can't get my hands one one, but I would prefer one of the more original types over a qh/tb influenced one. If I wanted a thoroughbred, I'd get a thoroughbred. If I wanted a Quarter horse, I'd get a Quarter horse. It's that simple. I think this is really sad that people would do this to such a fine breed.


----------



## ridesapaintedpony

Supermane said:


> Coming from the hunter world I really like the newer qhs. The foundation ones aren't exactly my favorite...


As the owner of a FQH mare, I have to say I like the foundation ones.  I dislike the Appendix and do not feel they are true QHs, just as I don't like crossing Paints to TB and feel the APHA should not allow it. 

It comes down to preference.


----------



## wakiya

ridesapaintedpony said:


> As the owner of a FQH mare, I have to say I like the foundation ones.  I dislike the Appendix and do not feel they are true QHs, just as I don't like crossing Paints to TB and feel the APHA should not allow it.
> 
> It comes down to preference.


I agree. I feel like if you want a TB get one don't turn a QH into one


----------



## noogie the pony

[_QUOTE=Curly_Horse_CMT;98135]People can see the Appaloosa's that are foundation bred as ugly and bullheaded, *but they need to at least be accepting of what the horses was used for, and bred for by the Nez Perce*. We also must remember that these horses almost went EXTINCT like many of the other breeds around the world at one time or another because of the carelessness of humans. Just because people want a Appaloosa that looks like a quarter horse with the quarter horse bloodlines, wouldnt that make that horse a quarter horse? duh [/QUOTE]_




so true! it's like wanting a husky dog to live in the Bahamas! they are dogs bred for work and cold climate but someone might decide they like the color of the dog so they take him down there and expect him to do well- same thing!


----------



## Trinity3205

Where there is a market, there will end up being something to fill it. The breeds will change to suit our wants and use, thats just a fact. Purists will love the foundation factors while other folks might want the color with a more athletically suited body type. Some want taller, some want short. 

IMO, so long as the horses being produced are useful, of good mind and conformation, have a market, it really doesnt matter. Fresh blood is necessary now and then as the bloodlines become stagnant without it and rather inbred like the fresians are which can result in genetic mutations as you refine and undilute the good genes and the bad ones. 

I have to say tho...alot of the foundation looking appys ive been around are rather bullheaded and not an attractive horse. Some of those horrible coarse heads, along with the steep shoulders and weak HQs should not be bred IMO. I also dont understand why wed want horses without fly protection. I have been around 5 or 6 completely rat tailed apps with no manes to speak of and the poor things cannot even swish a fly. In any other horse that would be a serious fault. That is a hard sell unless you just love them. 

IME with a foundation looking appy horse, you either love that particular one or hate it. There were few in betweens for me and they were happier being a one person horse also IME. I love the appy colors but Id personally rather it be on a more tractable and athletically built body myself than a typical foundation build. I have avoided appy colored horses in the past however due to my interactions with them and the predominent bulheaded, single handler personalities I have encountered. I have actually owned 2 but both were more QH looking and had manes and tails.


----------



## wakiya

I honestly don't really understand what a foundation appy is, I know it has many appxapp bloodlines but behind the horse that's labeled and app, what is it? It's not a NP horse (a few are but very very few) and a lot of horses registered were grade, so why foundation? I understand not wanting to turn the appy into a QH or a TB, but I still don't really get it


----------



## FTFOTB

Trinity3205 said:


> Where there is a market, there will end up being something to fill it. The breeds will change to suit our wants and use, thats just a fact. Purists will love the foundation factors while other folks might want the color with a more athletically suited body type. Some want taller, some want short.
> 
> IMO, so long as the horses being produced are useful, of good mind and conformation, have a market, it really doesnt matter. Fresh blood is necessary now and then as the bloodlines become stagnant without it and rather inbred like the fresians are which can result in genetic mutations as you refine and undilute the good genes and the bad ones.
> 
> I have to say tho...alot of the foundation looking appys ive been around are rather bullheaded and not an attractive horse. Some of those horrible coarse heads, along with the steep shoulders and weak HQs should not be bred IMO. I also dont understand why wed want horses without fly protection. I have been around 5 or 6 completely rat tailed apps with no manes to speak of and the poor things cannot even swish a fly. In any other horse that would be a serious fault. That is a hard sell unless you just love them.
> 
> IME with a foundation looking appy horse, you either love that particular one or hate it. There were few in betweens for me and they were happier being a one person horse also IME. I love the appy colors but Id personally rather it be on a more tractable and athletically built body myself than a typical foundation build. I have avoided appy colored horses in the past however due to my interactions with them and the predominent bulheaded, single handler personalities I have encountered. I have actually owned 2 but both were more QH looking and had manes and tails.


I agree with your post. 

To me, it's about _breed improvement_. With Appaloosas and Paints, the opportunity to add QH and TB blood is a good thing, in my opinion. The QHs and the TBs have proven their abilities to add positive traits to other breeds. Of course, you will always have people who take things too far to the extreme, and perhaps we've gone past that with several breeds in favor of specialization today. For example, I think the QH reached its peak of excellence in the late 1970s, when the versatility was bred for and rewarded at the highest levels. 

If APHA or ApHC ever closed their books to QHs and TBs, it will be a sad day. I would never want to be limited to Paint to Paint matings. There is still room for much improvement in the APHA. And if I bred QHs, I would not want to see TB blood disappear, either. It is that blood that made the QH the versatile breed it once was. Do I want to turn QHs into TBs? Absolutely not. But if you study the history and bloodlines of the QH, you'll find they were predominantly of TB breeding. Leo, Oklahoma Star, Peter McCue, Joe Reed, Vandy, all of those great sires (and many others) were of mostly TB breeding, yet they are considered the foundation types of the breed. The horses that had the most impact on the breed were either TBs themselves (Three Bars, Depth Charge, etc.), or of high percentage TB blood. 

Paints and Appaloosas are _color_ breeds, and were not distinguished by *bloodlines* or *type* at their inception. It was about _color_ or _pattern_. That alone means that using the allowed outcrosses toward breed improvement, while retaining color and pattern, is the best route toward maintaining a breed standard or ideal. None of the so-called "foundation types" of any of these breeds would be competitive today in most disciplines (or even back in the day before specialization).


----------



## FTFOTB

Further explanation of why I believe TB blood improves the QH, and TB and QH blood improves the Paints and Appaloosas - All of these breeds are basically stock-type breeds, used for most of the exact same purposes (show, halter, cow work, racing, ranch work, versatility, pleasure, trail, etc.). The horses of the Paint and Appaloosa breed associations in the beginning were not of the same caliber of performers as the QH. They weren't as fast, weren't as agile, and weren't exceptional, conformation-wise. If these breeds are going to compete and do the same things the QH does, then adding QH blood (while retaining the pattern) only improves the breed and type. It has been proven throughout history that the speed blood of the TB is what created the _versatility_ in the stock horse. 

If the foundation Appaloosas (and many of the earlier types of Paints, Tobianos, to be specific) were superior to the QH, for example, they would have prevailed instead of bordering on extinction. The types of horses that will excel at different disciplines are what people demand, and those types will prevail. Some like the Appaloosa pattern, some like the Paint pattern. And some like QHs. Basically, they're all the same horse when it comes down to their origins and purpose.


----------



## wakiya

I personally think both the ApHc, AQHA, and APHA would benefit genetically from their now distant spanish ancestors that have no TB or Arab blood. Of course I'm completely biased.


----------



## Cowgirl140ty

I own 3 appaloosas. All of which have Qh and Tb blood. But looking at them you would never know. As a matter of fact... my baby (almost 3 now) is the ugliest horse I have. And he has more QH than App almost. And he has all the ugly factors. Except the sparse mane and tail.

La Storm Appaloosa
















L a Malibu Maui Appaloosa















Imheirrisistibletoo Appaloosa















Im all for crossing. To make a better horse. And one suited for what I need them for.


----------



## wakiya

All of them are cute, but I definitely see a QH hip and chest. I can see the influence there but maybe it's just me. Like I said, I'm biased and I've seen breeds crossbred out of existence into something else. I think apps are different though because they've always had a open book now it's concentrating on QH, TB, and Arab because that's what's popular. I'm happy with my breed because we are trying to preserve old Spanish type not create something popular. Like I said biased I am so biased.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Hobo

Yes The ApHC standards have Gone to far. They are now allowing Paint bloodlines into the registry in direct violation of the "No Paint or Pinto Rule" 

And seriously people not all the foundation horses are ugly. Anyone saying so hasn't had much dealings with foundation horses. 

And for Foundation horses being " unwanted" or not marketable Here are a few examples of foundation horses at work

F1F NorthStar Casper
Foundation Bred Appaloosa Horses
CharEd stud flyer
Distance Riding
Rolling Thunder: Foundation Black Leopard Appaloosa Stallion


----------



## Hobo

Rat tales and no mane's isn't just a foundation appaloosa trait. I've seen quite a few foundation horses with longer manes and tails then some of the cross breds. In fact the mare I owned with the shortest mane and tail had the most crosses back to TB and QH. 



Trinity3205 said:


> also dont understand why wed want horses without fly protection. I have been around 5 or 6 completely rat tailed apps with no manes to speak of and the poor things cannot even swish a fly. In any other horse that would be a serious fault. That is a hard sell unless you just love them.
> 
> I have actually owned 2 but both were more QH looking and had manes and tails.


----------



## FTFOTB

Hobo said:


> Yes The ApHC standards have Gone to far. They are now allowing Paint bloodlines into the registry in direct violation of the "No Paint or Pinto Rule"


Paint bloodlines have existed in the ApHC _since its inception_, long before APHA was formed. *Bright Eyes Brother (F-3096)* is a good example of that. He was foaled in 1950. There weren't any Paint organizations until the early 1960s.


----------



## Sarahandlola

I thought Appaloosa was a colour not a breed? =/


----------



## QHDragon

Sarahandlola said:


> I thought Appaloosa was a colour not a breed? =/


It is indeed a breed, with its own "closed" stud book: Welcome to the Official Web site of the Appaloosa Horse Club

The only crosses allowed are to TB or QH.

Anyway, I like the more modern Appy better, more functional for modern sport and uses. They are certainly much easier on the eyes!


----------



## Hobo

registering a horse with a "pinto" parent before much of anything was known about genetics is certainly 100% DIFFERENT THAN intentionally telling the owners of a 'mistake" colt to ignore the fact that the stallion was born a Paint from a mare who was born a paint and both were ineligible to produce ApHC registerable foals before the AQHA changed their excessive white rule. 

The colt in question should never have been registered, should never have been eligible to show and poorly represents the ApHC. The Registrar is responsible for a portion of the seriously falling standards of the ApHC and she refuses to accept responsibility for her actions. 




FTFOTB said:


> Paint bloodlines have existed in the ApHC _since its inception_, long before APHA was formed. *Bright Eyes Brother (F-3096)* is a good example of that. He was foaled in 1950. There weren't any Paint organizations until the early 1960s.


----------



## Hobo

That is incorrect. Arabians are also allowed as an acceptable cross breed and any grade parentage unknown horse can be accepted for registry based on color only if the horse is spayed or gelded. 



QHDragon said:


> It is indeed a breed, with its own "closed" stud book: Welcome to the Official Web site of the Appaloosa Horse Club
> 
> The only crosses allowed are to TB or QH.


----------



## FTFOTB

Hobo said:


> registering a horse with a "pinto" parent before much of anything was known about genetics is certainly 100% DIFFERENT THAN intentionally telling the owners of a 'mistake" colt to ignore the fact that the stallion was born a Paint from a mare who was born a paint and both were ineligible to produce ApHC registerable foals before the AQHA changed their excessive white rule.
> 
> The colt in question should never have been registered, should never have been eligible to show and poorly represents the ApHC. The Registrar is responsible for a portion of the seriously falling standards of the ApHC and she refuses to accept responsibility for her actions.


So it is perfectly okay for _some_ Appaloosas (with known Paint genetics) to be registered, but it's not okay for others? Somehow, that doesn't seem right to me. How would you eliminate the Paint blood from the breed? 

This is no different than the foundation QH registries disallowing TB blood, yet the foundation horses they base their registry on were of mostly TB blood! How would you eliminate the TB blood from the breed? You can't. 

The breeders who don't want Paint genetics can simply breed away from the bloodlines known to produce Paint type markings, much like the breeders of the foundation QHs who breed away from TB blood. They don't want the type they perceive the TB to be, and it's simple enough to stay away from it. It is costing them dearly, though. 

There is a parallel here - IMO, it's a big mistake to base registration eligibility on blood percentages, which tends to place more importance on bloodline percentages (or genetics) than on individual quality. These "color" breeds don't have enough going for them (aside from color) to eliminate outcross blood. They aren't competitive until outcross blood is brought in and utilized for breed improvement. The QH has been proven to add positive qualities to the Appaloosa (and the Paint), and along with that QH blood you get some Paint genetics. Be glad that ApHC doesn't have to deal with _Tobiano_ genetics, which comes with its own set of "qualities" that are difficult to breed away from, even _with_ outcross blood.


----------



## fuadteagan

I hate it , too ! It is so horrible! Why are QH bred with every breed ? I love QH in there own way ! My two fav horses are at least half QH ......... So of course i love them but appies are special in their own way they are not ugly ......... some of the horses are half QH and half Appy except one ........... of the appies ..... but thats not our fault ..... but they still have all the charistecs you could never tell .... I still think it should not be allowed


----------



## Katze

Ok appy not my fav breed, except the leopard ones look awesome lol, I did some "googling" and came up with this guy, Crystal DayDream:








"Crystal Day Dream is foundation breeding at it's best. With bloodlines like
5x Red Eagle, 3x Patchy Jr., XR's War Bonnet, Freel's Chico, Rodeo Day, and Duke Of Windsor. "

Here's his pedigree: 









Now is he considered a TRUE foundation appy?


----------



## wakiya

He goes back to Arab, Morgan, Saddlebred, QH, unknowns, and TBs, it depends on your definition of foundation:

http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/crystal+day+dream


----------



## KDW

I have a (Used to be) friend who has a reg. QH mare and she bred it with a leopard 3/4 app 1/4 QH and that little filly is the most ****** up looking horse I have ever laid my eyes on. Little head and feet like her dad, long legs, and a huge body, just completely disproportional. She is so proud of her though, thinks she is the best thing since slice bread, and even reg. her in the ApHC, she doesn't have any spots at all, I think she might have some mottling around her mouth and thats it. I totally agree that a true app was intended to have a sparse tail and be large and in charge. What they are doing is making QH's with App spots and full tails and they just are not what they should be.


----------



## wakiya

I think the problem is everyone has their own idea of what an Appaloosa is. Originally, the Spanish blooded spotted horses had full manes and tails, they were small, hardy and typey. Over time much draft blood was added giving a different appearance. Spanish blooded horses were crossed with everything under te sun to create a myriad of new breeds. These crosses not the Nez Perce horses (though a few may have been included) were used to create the ApHc and the Appaloosa breed. Adding QH and TB has been happening since the beginning it just seems like they're doing it more now because outcrosses to drafts, Morgans, unknowns and other breeds were eliminated.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## FTFOTB

The purpose of outcross blood is for *breed improvement*; otherwise, you could just breed Appaloosa to Appaloosa and never allow any 'outside' influences. The majority of the results of App to App crosses at each generation aren't competitive in today's tough performance world, and there is no breed improvement taking place with such matings (unless your only priority is all about the spots). Since the Appaloosa is considered a 'stock horse', they are expected to perform in the same disciplines and at the same level as other stock horses, such as the QHs and Paints. It has already been proven throughout history that the TB improved the QH, and the TB and QHs have improved the Paints. Appaloosas are no different in that respect, and they have benefited greatly over the decades from outcross blood.


----------



## wakiya

I have no problem at all adding TB, QH, or even some apaints because TBs and QHs carry sabino, splash and frame I would see an issue with tobiano being allowed just because Appaloosa are a color oriented breed and yet re trying to avoid large white patterns, but allowing minimally marked QHs and TBs is no difference to me than allowing minimally marked or BS paints
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## FTFOTB

Since QH x QH, TB x TB _or_ QH x TB can't produce Tobianos, that would never be an issue. I agree - Tobianos have no business being in the Appaloosa gene pool, if at all possible. Also, IMO, Tobianos should never be considered for 'breed improvement' to the Appaloosa anyway.


----------



## candandy49

FTFOTB said:


> The purpose of outcross blood is for *breed improvement*; otherwise, you could just breed Appaloosa to Appaloosa and never allow any 'outside' influences. The majority of the results of App to App crosses at each generation aren't competitive in today's tough performance world, and there is no breed improvement taking place with such matings (unless your only priority is all about the spots). Since the Appaloosa is considered a 'stock horse', they are expected to perform in the same disciplines and at the same level as other stock horses, such as the QHs and Paints. It has already been proven throughout history that the TB improved the QH, and the TB and QHs have improved the Paints. Appaloosas are no different in that respect, and they have benefited greatly over the decades from outcross blood.


I totally agree with this from FTFOTB. If outcrossing was not done on occasion the DNA would be of very close-up bloodlines. Causing even more genetic disorders such as HYPP and HERDA. 

The crossing of Quarter Horses and Thoroughbreds with Appaloosa is not a new development. It has been done for years now. Just down the road from us a few years ago an Appaloosa breeder was crossing his AppaloosaxAQHA stallion, Red Rock Dream with his Thoroughbred mares and most of them went back to Secretariat. Most theorized those off-spring were just Thoroughbreds with spots and hip blankets. 

I also as I have said before, I've known up close and personal an Appaloosa Stallion who is in the ApHA Hall of Fame along with his owner. Colida and his owner, Bill Cass is also on the Hall of Fame. Colida got his name from his sire being a Colorado bred on his topside and Idaho bred on his bottom side. Thus, Colida was his name. His parentage was both solid Quarter Horse Sire and solid Quarter Horse dam with no known history of having any Appaloosa ancestry.

ETA: I've also known some off spring of Patchy 314 and Peavy.


----------



## FTFOTB

Outcrossing is absolutely necessary to maintain breed integrity in horses such as the QH, Paint and Appaloosa. When close linebreeding is used with no outcrossing, you eventually lose size and substance (look at the modern cutters, for example), and other characteristics such as reproductive soundness, soundness of mind and body, etc. Linebreeding can bring genetic defects (such as HERDA) to the surface - linebreeding itself doesn't _cause_ the defects.


----------



## candandy49

I can't edit anymore to my reply above^^^^ so here is my Appy with my Granddaughters. Cody was his name and he was a sheer pleasure to handle and ride. He was a grade, because I didn't get his papers when we became each others. I had to let him go "over the bridge" when he was 21. He was totally blind and injured himself. Thus, we had to let him out of his suffering. That was 5 years ago.








.


----------



## Crossover

For the keeping out of paint lines... isn't the simplest way to simply test for the color gene? Those without the color gene are registered... those with aren't.


----------



## FTFOTB

candandy49 said:


> I can't edit anymore to my reply above^^^^ so here is my Appy with my Granddaughters. Cody was his name and he was a sheer pleasure to handle and ride. He was a grade, because I didn't get his papers when we became each others. I had to let him go "over the bridge" when he was 21. He was totally blind and injured himself. Thus, we had to let him out of his suffering. That was 5 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


He was a very nice looking horse who obviously had some quality outcross blood behind him.


----------



## FTFOTB

Crossover said:


> For the keeping out of paint lines... isn't the simplest way to simply test for the color gene? Those without the color gene are registered... those with aren't.


That sounds perfect, in theory. However, you would be eliminating many otherwise quality horses from the gene pool by doing that, which is detrimental to the breed as a whole. That would be like eliminating all QHs who test positive as carriers of any genetic defects, or eliminating all of the Frame Overos in the Paint breed because they are OLWS carriers. You'd eliminate half the breed and many of the legendary leading sires by doing so. Many of the early influential Appaloosa stallions were of predominantly QH blood, and many of them had Overo genetics, too. You're not going to eliminate it entirely, especially when the horses that possessed those genetics were important to the development of the breed.

Educated breeders must work within the guidelines and breed responsibly by working _with_ these 'undesirable' traits. Breeders can work toward minimizing the occurrences of these traits by testing all their breeding stock. Most any breed has genetic defects, and the Appaloosa is no exception. Those things are going to crop up periodically in any breed, especially when linebreeding occurs.

With any 'color' breed, such as Paints and Appaloosas, education about color genetics is crucial; with any breed, color or not, education about quality, type and conformation is also of paramount importance. When responsible breeders test their stock and are focused on breed integrity, these problems wouldn't be a big deal.


----------



## Crossover

FTFOTB said:


> That sounds perfect, in theory. However, you would be eliminating many otherwise quality horses from the gene pool by doing that, which is detrimental to the breed as a whole. That would be like eliminating all QHs who test positive as carriers of any genetic defects, or eliminating all of the Frame Overos in the Paint breed because they are OLWS carriers. You'd eliminate half the breed and many of the legendary leading sires by doing so. Many of the early influential Appaloosa stallions were of predominantly QH blood, and many of them had Overo genetics, too. You're not going to eliminate it entirely, especially when the horses that possessed those genetics were important to the development of the breed.
> 
> Educated breeders must work within the guidelines and breed responsibly by working _with_ these 'undesirable' traits. Breeders can work toward minimizing the occurrences of these traits by testing all their breeding stock. Most any breed has genetic defects, and the Appaloosa is no exception. Those things are going to crop up periodically in any breed, especially when linebreeding occurs.
> 
> With any 'color' breed, such as Paints and Appaloosas, education about color genetics is crucial; with any breed, color or not, education about quality, type and conformation is also of paramount importance. When responsible breeders test their stock and are focused on breed integrity, these problems wouldn't be a big deal.


 
Being that I'm just starting into the Appy's myself... how many Paint horses are in the breed? 
I am trying to undertand how testing current breeding Appaloosa's for the tobiano gene would not be a benefit. Is the LP gene a shootoff from paint markings? Or like the LP gene, just because a horse doesn't have the tobiano gene doesn't mean there is not still a pattern hiding there. I have been studying up quite a lot on my genetics but still working on the LP and pattern genes. Haven't looked into the paint markings as much but now I think I should.


----------



## FTFOTB

Crossover said:


> Being that I'm just starting into the Appy's myself... how many Paint horses are in the breed?
> I am trying to undertand how testing current breeding Appaloosa's for the tobiano gene would not be a benefit. Is the LP gene a shootoff from paint markings? Or like the LP gene, just because a horse doesn't have the tobiano gene doesn't mean there is not still a pattern hiding there. I have been studying up quite a lot on my genetics but still working on the LP and pattern genes. Haven't looked into the paint markings as much but now I think I should.


There's no way to know how many horses in the Appaloosa breed possess any Paint genetics. It's very much like the QHs - still no way to know there, either. The Tobiano gene doesn't exist in the QH or TB. They can't produce Tobianos. The only way the Tobiano gene would exist in the Appaloosa breed is from an unregistered source (which is entirely possible). Since the Tobiano gene is a dominant gene, (there is a test for it, too), all one has to do is _look_ at the horse. If the horse exhibits a Tobiano coat pattern, then it has the gene. If the horse is solid, then it doesn't have the Tobiano gene. The source of the Tobiano gene would not come from a QH or TB - it would have to originate from within the Appaloosa breed, again, from an unregistered source. The gene does not "skip" generations, so once it's lost (not received or passed on), it can't appear again in that line. All one has to do is test their Appaloosa breeding stock for Tobiano, and if it's not there, it will never appear in the foals from within that group. 

The Overo gene is totally different, and can be 'hidden' on a solid horse, only to appear down the line in a descendant. There is only a test for Frame and one of Sabino genes (there are several Sabino genes), but I don't know of a test for Splash. The Wiescamp horses, for example (probably coming from Old Fred), were Overo genes. Many of those horses had blue eyes. Overo genetics aren't always visible on the coat of a horse, so if a QH is used in an Appaloosa breeding program, it's quite possible an Overo color pattern would appear somewhere down the line. It would help to research the QH bloodlines to see which horses were known to pass on the extra white, if one wanted to avoid Paint genes in the Appaloosa when using outcross blood.


----------



## FTFOTB

Also, to clarify - "Paint" markings include Tobiano and Overo, but genetically, horses are classified as either Tobiano or non-Tobiano. The non-Tobiano horses can include horses with Overo genetics. Actually, the Tobiano horses can possess Overo genetics, too.

Genetically, Overo markings are simply white markings expressed beyond what the registries used to specify as 'acceptable'. For example, AQHA used to have a white rule that didn't allow horses to be registered that had white extending above the knees and hocks, or any body white. The registration associations' descriptions and the actual genetics of a horse don't always meet up with the same standards. LOL. Now that AQHA did away with their white rule, and since ApHC allows QHs as outcross blood, you're going to get the extra white occasionally. So, again, knowing your bloodlines and which ones tend to pass on that extra white will go a long way to keeping the extra white Paint markings out of your Appaloosa stock.


----------



## anndankev

Maybe smrobs will re-post pics of some Appaloosas her Dad trained, with a young woman on them. Really great looking horses. 
I'd rather see a breed registry stay true. If enough people want a Appaloosa coat pattern on another style of horse, they could name them something else and start their own registry.
I did not look for an Appaloosa but somehow have had 2, still have 1. He is not registered but I like to think of him as my Indian pony. What do you think, is he "all Appaloosa" or mixed?


----------



## aforred

Curly_Horse_CMT said:


> What do you guys think about the breed standards of the Appys right now? I think it is kind of rediculous that Quarter Horse/Thoughbred blood is being allowed to be in the Apaloosa horse club right now. Seriously, isnt such characteristcs as the sparse mane and tail, scelera around the eye, stripped hooves, ect a main point of the breed that the Nez Perce tribe bred into these horses? People put down this wonderful breed because the look "ugly and bull headed" so they started breeding them with the Quarter Horses to get the Quarter Horse look with the appy color. I dont want to start any fights, just wondering what other people think lol


I will have to find a picture of Goose and post it here. He was a national and world champion games horse with the UGLIEST head. But he got that head from his quarter horse momma, not his app daddy. 

I will say that my family bred apps for a lot of years, and we did outcross to QH. We also used breeding stock that had QH and TB. Our goal was to raise world-class performance horses, and that's exactly what we did. I have a picture of six horses at the National show in 1999 that were all by our stud, The Kersey Kat. Here's his pedigree: The Kersey Kat Appaloosa

http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx46/aforred/66498_1546005922948_1019036162_1502151_6573065_n.jpg

There is a national champion reiner, a national champion in barrels and poles, multiple reserve championships (not all of these trophies are from that show, but each of these six placed in the top ten at that show). The dams of four were QH (with two being out of the same mare).


----------



## aforred

I am sitting on Goose, the red roan (although you don't get the full effect of his head until you see it in profile). The two on the left are full sisters, the grulla and the very sweaty palomino on the end are full siblings, as well.


----------



## lilkitty90

i LOVE me some appaloose, and so far my favorites posted on here are the one Katze poted and anndankev, i believe there should be SOME foundtain appies still being bred, sure there may not be a big market but if we keept outcropping we wont have any foundations left and then thats what the people will want. it's kind of like taking a QH and making it look more Arabian like because it;s what the people want. it isn't right and there should be a new breed started instead of ruining a breed that has already been around, just because you don't think their gorgeous doesn't mean we should giveup the originality of the breed.


----------



## aneternalflame

Alice's pasturemate is a non-characteristic foundation App. She has thrown only LOUDLY colored foals, so I guess she does have the genetics for it, just not both sets (if I remember correctly a horse can have PaTN and not express the Appy coloring, but when combined with leopard it does? Or you need both to have a characteristic App? I got confused when her owner was telling me this.) Obviously she was bred to characteristic stallions, lol.






































(She's the bay, of course.. the DW or Max Sabino is APHA, the black is my Morgan)

I really like her. I've never intentionally photographed her, so these aren't the best shots of her.. but she is sturdy beyond all get out and she seems to have a great attitude!


----------



## Crossover

aneternalflame said:


> Alice's pasturemate is a non-characteristic foundation App. She has thrown only LOUDLY colored foals, so I guess she does have the genetics for it, just not both sets (if I remember correctly a horse can have PaTN and not express the Appy coloring, but when combined with leopard it does? Or you need both to have a characteristic App? I got confused when her owner was telling me this.) Obviously she was bred to characteristic stallions, lol.


Okay I'll try to explain it the way it was explained to me... and hopefully I won't confuse you more. 

The pattern genes and the Lp genes are two seperate genes. The pattern is what gives you your leopards, varnish, blankets, etc... The Lp gene is the lightswitch that shows the pattern. Now the mare my have a pattern gene but needs the Lp gene from the stallion to "light" up the pattern. 

What did the stallions look like? Did they all have pattern? If you bred to a snowcap then there is a good chance your girl has a pattern gene. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## aneternalflame

Crossover said:


> Okay I'll try to explain it the way it was explained to me... and hopefully I won't confuse you more.
> 
> The pattern genes and the Lp genes are two seperate genes. The pattern is what gives you your leopards, varnish, blankets, etc... The Lp gene is the lightswitch that shows the pattern. Now the mare my have a pattern gene but needs the Lp gene from the stallion to "light" up the pattern.
> 
> What did the stallions look like? Did they all have pattern? If you bred to a snowcap then there is a good chance your girl has a pattern gene.
> 
> Hope that helps.


She's not mine, hah. I'll have to ask her human (3rd gen App breeder/trainer) about it and let you know! I've always loved Appies, someday I might consider getting one..


----------



## GhostwindAppaloosa

I'll be honest... im suprised so many people have the impression that foundation appys are UGLY and bullheaded... a few of our "ugly" and "bullheaded" crew.... These horses have the best temperments you will every be able to find. Our stallion lives in the pasture with his mares and is gentle enough to be handled by a child.. THIS is what a foundation appy is about! 
Phantom








Perfi








Kansas








Stardust










that being said many of us are NOT happy with the ApHC and their determination to ruin the appaloosa breed by registering colored Quarter Horses.. it makes me sick. If they want to have a color registry it needs to be made separate... or not allow offspring from crosses to be registered.


----------



## Katze

I looooooooooooooove the coloring on that foal!


----------



## bubba13

Why are your horses so underweight?


----------



## reiningfan

We have 9 registered Appies here and 1 rescue that we were told is a POA. Of those 10, 1 is what is considered foundation bred. I also think he'll be the least competitive at open and breed show level competition. 
It's not that he is ugly or badly conformed. He just doesn't have quite the same "pretty" or movement that the others do. What he will do is make a sturdy all day trail horse and that's just as good a job as a show horse too. 
When the ApHC started registering horses, they were accepted based on pattern, not bloodlines. Therefore how is foundation a type? There were some with Tb, some with draft, other breeds were represented too. The original NP horses were taken from them and a lot of them killed. Others got into wild herds or into the hands of farmers who would have bred them for their purposes. The original NP horses are long gone and we don't accurately know what their conformation looked like, which I think is a loss. I suspect that the NP bred their horses to be sound and useful, it would have been nice to see a large cross section of what they produced. 

This is my Appy gelding Boots, who I think benefited from outcrossing. 









GhostWind, is that mare grey? Boots, the horse in my pic is a grey. He started out with a spotted blanket, but the grey had taken all his color by the time he was two.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## FTFOTB

_reiningfan wrote: "When the ApHC started registering horses, they were accepted based on pattern, not bloodlines. Therefore how is foundation a type?"_

This is a very good point! I think a lot of misinformation is being passed around out there, and some people buy into that and run with it. It's not just with Appaloosas. Some foundation Quarter Horse people are misguided through similar misinformation presented by those with a specific agenda. The proof of that misinformation is found in their breeding programs. Poor quality is justified in the name of 'purity of bloodlines', yet there was never any 'pure' bloodlines among the Appaloosa or Quarter Horses (or Paints). One of the simplest methods of breeding horses is breeding them based on pedigree alone. You don't have to know anything about conformation or type, and there are no responsible selection procedures in place. How easy is that? Almost anyone can breed color to color and get color. Putting color on quality is the challenge, but many don't know how to do that. 

The *pattern* is what makes a horse an Appaloosa, whether it is on a poor quality animal or a high quality type horse. Personally, I'd prefer the horse underneath that pattern to be of excellent type that would be competitive and hold its own against others of similar type. Quality QH and TB blood allows for that. Without quality outcross blood, the horses remain substandard.


----------



## GhostwindAppaloosa

bubba13 said:


> Why are your horses so underweight?


None of them are underweight. The mare just had her foal. I do not keep extra weight on my horses as I dont believe in over feeding. They all graze naturally on 20 acres and are round baled in the winter  IMO most people keep their horses OVER weight


----------



## GhostwindAppaloosa

reiningfan said:


> We have 9 registered Appies here and 1 rescue that we were told is a POA. Of those 10, 1 is what is considered foundation bred. I also think he'll be the least competitive at open and breed show level competition.
> It's not that he is ugly or badly conformed. He just doesn't have quite the same "pretty" or movement that the others do. What he will do is make a sturdy all day trail horse and that's just as good a job as a show horse too.
> When the ApHC started registering horses, they were accepted based on pattern, not bloodlines. Therefore how is foundation a type? There were some with Tb, some with draft, other breeds were represented too. The original NP horses were taken from them and a lot of them killed. Others got into wild herds or into the hands of farmers who would have bred them for their purposes. The original NP horses are long gone and we don't accurately know what their conformation looked like, which I think is a loss. I suspect that the NP bred their horses to be sound and useful, it would have been nice to see a large cross section of what they produced.
> 
> This is my Appy gelding Boots, who I think benefited from outcrossing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GhostWind, is that mare grey? Boots, the horse in my pic is a grey. He started out with a spotted blanket, but the grey had taken all his color by the time he was two.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


THe mare at the bottom with the black foal is a fewspot. She has been that color since the day she was born. The stud at the top phantom is also a few spot but has more blue roaning.


----------



## GhostwindAppaloosa

FTFOTB said:


> _reiningfan wrote: "When the ApHC started registering horses, they were accepted based on pattern, not bloodlines. Therefore how is foundation a type?"_
> 
> This is a very good point! I think a lot of misinformation is being passed around out there, and some people buy into that and run with it. It's not just with Appaloosas. Some foundation Quarter Horse people are misguided through similar misinformation presented by those with a specific agenda. The proof of that misinformation is found in their breeding programs. Poor quality is justified in the name of 'purity of bloodlines', yet there was never any 'pure' bloodlines among the Appaloosa or Quarter Horses (or Paints). One of the simplest methods of breeding horses is breeding them based on pedigree alone. You don't have to know anything about conformation or type, and there are no responsible selection procedures in place. How easy is that? Almost anyone can breed color to color and get color. Putting color on quality is the challenge, but many don't know how to do that.
> 
> The *pattern* is what makes a horse an Appaloosa, whether it is on a poor quality animal or a high quality type horse. Personally, I'd prefer the horse underneath that pattern to be of excellent type that would be competitive and hold its own against others of similar type. Quality QH and TB blood allows for that. Without quality outcross blood, the horses remain substandard.


I respectfully disagree. I believe it is pattern AND pedigree. a QH and an appaloosa who produce a leopard IMO do not have an appaloosa.. they have a QH/Appy mixed colored like an appy. If you breed a boxer and a labrador do you have a boxer? or a lab? NO! you have a mutt. no matter what color it is. 


While the ApHC originally allowed outcrossing to other horse breeds BECAUSE there were so few "appaloosas" available at the time... that is not the case anymore. they should of stopped allowing outside crosses after they got an acceptable gene pool and set in their "type" I just recently recieved the Apppaloosa Journal and I honestly thought I had the QH journal by mistake... plain brown horses or obvious QH type with spotted butts. It makes me sick to see my precious breed turned into this. I do not see how you can breed a qh and an appy and get a appy. It IS a breed... that has a color requirement.. same as QH does.. no high white is allowed on QHs as that is not what a QH is supposed to be color wise! There will still be the few who stay true to the Appy breed.... and hopefully more will catch on.


----------



## FTFOTB

GhostwindAppaloosa said:


> I respectfully disagree. I believe it is pattern AND pedigree. a QH and an appaloosa who produce a leopard IMO do not have an appaloosa.. they have a QH/Appy mixed colored like an appy. If you breed a boxer and a labrador do you have a boxer? or a lab? NO! you have a mutt. no matter what color it is.
> 
> 
> While the ApHC originally allowed outcrossing to other horse breeds BECAUSE there were so few "appaloosas" available at the time... that is not the case anymore. they should of stopped allowing outside crosses after they got an acceptable gene pool and set in their "type" I just recently recieved the Apppaloosa Journal and I honestly thought I had the QH journal by mistake... plain brown horses or obvious QH type with spotted butts. It makes me sick to see my precious breed turned into this. I do not see how you can breed a qh and an appy and get a appy. It IS a breed... that has a color requirement.. same as QH does.. no high white is allowed on QHs as that is not what a QH is supposed to be color wise! There will still be the few who stay true to the Appy breed.... and hopefully more will catch on.


I have never seen any uniformity of bloodlines or type that defines a purebred Appaloosa, past or present. The only identifiable trait that sets them apart from other stock horse breeds is the pattern and skin/hoof characteristics. They are a pattern/color horse, _not a specific breed based on type_. No one has ever been able to define what a purebred Appaloosa is, nor have they ever presented uniform conformation and bloodlines that defined them. Until they do, I will go with what I have researched. The old type Tobianos are the exact same deal - it was a color pattern on _various types_ until the QH and TB allowed for a uniform type and therefore, a defined breed at APHA, based on bloodlines and pattern. Appaloosas were never 'pure' to begin with. You cannot set a breed type in less than several hundred years' of breeding anyway, so disallowing outcrosses after only a few decades would be insane. There was no uniform breed type to start with.

Before they were crossed with QHs and TBs, they were subpar in performance and conformation and were not competitive with the modern day stock horse. It's a similar situation to the foundation QH breeders who believe they are adhering to original type, yet they disallow the outcross blood that was responsible for the type they admire. That never made any sense to me. 

And you are incorrect - AQHA doesn't have a white rule. They allow the extra white on a QH to QH or QH to TB mating. It would be invaluable for you to keep up with the industries that affect your breed, even if you don't like them. 

Your horses look thin and untidy to me as well, like others here have suggested. The mane on your stallion likely hasn't been touched in years, and all your horses are thin, with ribs and hip bones showing. Keeping horses in that condition in the name of 'breed preservation' is unacceptable to me. We've come a long way in horse nutrition and husbandry since the days of the plains ponies. Take a look at the Appaloosas on this website:

Sheldak Ranch - Appaloosa Horses

This is my mare after she foaled last year, so no, there is no excuse for a mare to be thin just because she's raising a foal.


----------



## bubba13

Yes, many people keep their horses overweight. Mine are heavier than I would like, too, which is why they spend a lot of time drylotted or muzzled. That doesn't change the fact that yours are still quite skinny and unthrifty, though. The third picture down shows a bad sore from a halter. The first stud is filthy (which I can understand; he's a white horse) but is clearly never handled from the appearance of his mane. Judging by his sunken shoulder, he is sorely lacking in weight and muscle. All the horses have obvious ribs but no muscle (not a good thing and definitely an indicator of poor condition). And then there are the dull, shaggy coats, indicators of poor health or worms.

I work at an Appaloosa ranch. They do have some outcrossing (mostly to Arabians with some TB), but a lot of good old "foundation" bloodlines, too. I attached two photos. The bay is the straight foundation stallion we just sold (and he is quite thin and unhealthy by my standards, looking a lot like the horses in the photos in question). But he has the "type" that a lot of people recognize when they think of what a FA should look like. Rangy, with a lot of endurance. Good disposition, too. And his conformation isn't exactly that of a stock horse. The black stallion is 1/4 Thoroughbred, but the rest FA. Nice, nice horse, with near-perfect conformation. He's at an ideal weight, too, and his coat just gleams with health and ripples with the muscles beneath it. *He is also for sale!*


----------



## GhostwindAppaloosa

well sorry for posting photos of the guys from this spring  yes they all do have what appear to be poor coats because they were in transition from winter to spring. The stallions mane does get touched quite a bit actually and that knot happened over winter. Shortly after the photo it was brushed out along with all the other horses

Proof  









Not that its anyones business on here either nor should I have to explain but the bay mare kansas with the halter "sore" has had that for the past four years. The hair will not grow back. SHe is just one of those horses who cannot wear a halter.. and while she was under my dads care he left a halter on her for a year with a fleece nose strap to hopefully prevent the rubbing but it didnt help. still had all the hair come out. She is ribby because at the same time she foundered on grass in the pasture and when she came bakc to me was extremely lame from the founder. She was kept very thin to get that hoof wall to grow back down. Which is an acceptable treatment for this condition as I'm sure you all know. She is now sound again and her hoofs have grown back out and repaired. 


My horses do not live in stalls. and they dont get brushed daily. THey are HORSES. they kick each other.. get muddy... and live in the elements (with a shelter of course) they will never look like they are covered in show sheen in a photo with perfectly trimmed fetlocks because thats not how I keep them. It is not cruel it is not inhumane and they live very happy lives and are very well socialized.


and FT... that is natural for a mare to look like that after having a foal. Your mare is EXTREMELY overweight. fat doesnt equal good care.


----------



## bubba13

See how sunken your white mare is behind the withers? That's not normal, it's not good, and it's not from having a foal. This may be of help: The University of Maine - Cooperative Extension Publications - Bulletin #1010, Body Condition Scoring for Your Horse

You can't possibly tell the weight condition of FTFOTB's mare from that angle. All stock horses will look HUGE in the 3/4 shot....that's why they shoot halter horse stallion ads that way.

I could care less if horses are brushed so long as they are otherwise receiving good care.

Why would you leave a halter on for a year (or any extended time whatsoever, and fleece-lined or not) if the horse has known skin sensitivity issues?

Also, I have never heard of keeping a horse intentionally underweight for the purpose of re-growing hoof. Sounds quite counterproductive, actually, as proper hoof growth depends on good nutrition....


----------



## corinowalk

Just move your eyes from momma to foal...that baby is big and built. Momma has some muscle too.


----------



## mom2pride

Those two horses that you posted Bubba, are by no means unthrifty...neither has ribs that show, and have decent muscle throughout...I don't understand how you can compare these with the others that were posted (who are a tad thin).


----------



## NdAppy

I don't think she was showing them as unthrifty, but instead what good weight looks like.


----------



## mom2pride

bubba13 said:


> I work at an Appaloosa ranch. They do have some outcrossing (mostly to Arabians with some TB), but a lot of good old "foundation" bloodlines, too. I attached two photos.
> 
> The bay is the straight foundation stallion we just sold (and he is quite thin and unhealthy by my standards, looking a lot like the horses in the photos in question). But he has the "type" that a lot of people recognize when they think of what a FA should look like. Rangy, with a lot of endurance. Good disposition, too. And his conformation isn't exactly that of a stock horse.
> 
> The black stallion is 1/4 Thoroughbred, but the rest FA. Nice, nice horse, with near-perfect conformation. He's at an ideal weight, too, and his coat just gleams with health and ripples with the muscles beneath it. *He is also for sale!*


 
Am I misunderstanding something here then? I'm just confused is, all since both of those horses look fine to me!! The bay has a hunter's bump and a high wither, but he is by no means "unhealthy" looking... *shrugs shoulders*


----------



## NdAppy

Derp. i missed the unhealthy looking part.


----------



## bubba13

You can't tell in the photo, but he was very ribby and sunken behind the withers, much like the gray mare with the foal at her side. I'll agree he looks fine in the picture, but in person he was at most at 4 on the BCS index, probably more like a 3-3.5.


----------



## GhostwindAppaloosa

bubba13 said:


> See how sunken your white mare is behind the withers? That's not normal, it's not good, and it's not from having a foal. This may be of help: The University of Maine - Cooperative Extension Publications - Bulletin #1010, Body Condition Scoring for Your Horse
> 
> You can't possibly tell the weight condition of FTFOTB's mare from that angle. All stock horses will look HUGE in the 3/4 shot....that's why they shoot halter horse stallion ads that way.
> 
> I could care less if horses are brushed so long as they are otherwise receiving good care.
> 
> Why would you leave a halter on for a year (or any extended time whatsoever, and fleece-lined or not) if the horse has known skin sensitivity issues?
> 
> Also, I have never heard of keeping a horse intentionally underweight for the purpose of re-growing hoof. Sounds quite counterproductive, actually, as proper hoof growth depends on good nutrition....


not all mares look the same after foaling. I assure you the mare was at a good weight prior to foaling. She is 15 years old. And many of the other horses are older also. The bay is 16 this year the stallion 18, and we have another mare (mother to the bay) who is 20. 


When a horse is laminitic it is VERY important that you keep them thin. THe extra weight is detrimental to the hoof wall. THe connective tissue that holds on the hoof wall becomes spongy generally from overnutrition but not always.. and starts to separate. The horse is purposefully dieted to be as thin as is healthy so that there is not an extra couple of hundred pounds putting pressure on that hoof wall. In the meantime bar shoes are used to keep the hoof wall together and supplements are given to encourage hoof growth. 

THe reason the halter was left on was because The woman taking care of the horses at the barn apparently required him to so she didnt have to take it on/off. Ive already had a big argument with him and the woman several years ago about it as Ive owned that horse for her full 16 years and knew she had that issue which was why she was never haltered other than when going to and from stalls/pastures and riding. Going to college is rough with a horse. She followed me to college and I had to send her back home for my last year there and that happened.. along with the laminitis and unsoundness. 


I know what proper horse care entails and I follow it. Ive owned horses for 16 years and have a BS degree in preveterinary medicine from the university of findlay with a minor in equine business management. While I appreciate everyones apparent concern for my dirty and unthrifty looking horses they are taken care of and given proper nutrition, vaccines and all around care.


----------



## Crossover

GhostwindAppaloosa said:


> not all mares look the same after foaling. I assure you the mare was at a good weight prior to foaling. She is 15 years old. And many of the other horses are older also. The bay is 16 this year the stallion 18, and we have another mare (mother to the bay) who is 20.
> 
> 
> When a horse is laminitic it is VERY important that you keep them thin. THe extra weight is detrimental to the hoof wall. THe connective tissue that holds on the hoof wall becomes spongy generally from overnutrition but not always.. and starts to separate. The horse is purposefully dieted to be as thin as is healthy so that there is not an extra couple of hundred pounds putting pressure on that hoof wall. In the meantime bar shoes are used to keep the hoof wall together and supplements are given to encourage hoof growth.
> 
> THe reason the halter was left on was because The woman taking care of the horses at the barn apparently required him to so she didnt have to take it on/off. Ive already had a big argument with him and the woman several years ago about it as Ive owned that horse for her full 16 years and knew she had that issue which was why she was never haltered other than when going to and from stalls/pastures and riding. Going to college is rough with a horse. She followed me to college and I had to send her back home for my last year there and that happened.. along with the laminitis and unsoundness.
> 
> 
> I know what proper horse care entails and I follow it. Ive owned horses for 16 years and have a BS degree in preveterinary medicine from the university of findlay with a minor in equine business management. While I appreciate everyones apparent concern for my dirty and unthrifty looking horses they are taken care of and given proper nutrition, vaccines and all around care.


I wouldn't worry too much. Your horses look fine... my girls look the same way before spring pasture fattens them up again and this is with feeding grain. Once the summer pasture kicks in my mares stop coming to eat their grain until early fall. As for the mane, everybody just got roached except the arab because of the ticks. I'm actually liking the look and just might keep it due to the ease of care.
My arab mare had her baby and was a high 6 before foaling and now more of a 4 despite the 6lbs of grain and unlimited grazing/ hay. Baby is starting to eat more grain/ grass and momma will improve. 
I think a lot of hoof/ founder/ lamintitis and other problems stem from horses kept too fat. I try to mimic nature as best I can though I can't quite let my horses get as thin as some of those wild horses do. 
Here's one of my girls in early spring and then again in summer and fall. (and yes she does look like crap in the spring photo, but doesn't she clean up nice)


----------



## anndankev

FTFOTB said:


> I
> Sheldak Ranch - Appaloosa Horses


These look like Impressive bred halter horses to me, wonder if they are HYPP.


----------



## FTFOTB

anndankev said:


> 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.


----------



## FTFOTB

anndankev said:


> These look like Impressive bred halter horses to me, wonder if they are HYPP.


Also, on this page, on their website:

Sheldak Ranch - About

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.


----------



## FTFOTB

Back to the original post and question...

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.


----------



## SeeingSpots

Impressive bloodline as in Impressive Proposal? My filly is his daughter, and she has no genetic disorders. In fact I have met alot of Impressive bred horses that have NO issues what so ever!


----------



## FTFOTB

bubba13 said:


> You can't possibly tell the weight condition of FTFOTB's mare from that angle. All stock horses will look HUGE in the 3/4 shot....that's why they shoot halter horse stallion ads that way.


Here is a different picture of my mare right after she foaled. She's not a halter horse. I don't breed halter horses. But I do like all around type horses with muscle and substance. 










And another:


----------



## MacabreMikolaj

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.


----------



## smrobs

anndankev said:


> 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.

Buster Who Appaloosa










Tumbleweed Devil Appaloosa


















Devilweed Appaloosa









Mighty Dialette Appaloosa (she set appaloosa history at the '78 National show)


















American Quest Appaloosa


















Winforme Appaloosa









Boston Moon Appaloosa


















Mi Velvet Touch


----------



## Alwaysbehind

Lovely horses, smrobs.


----------



## aforred

Alwaysbehind said:


> Lovely horses, smrobs.


Agreed. Gorgeous.


----------



## smrobs

Thank you .


----------



## FTFOTB

smrobs, _lovely_ horses. 

Here's another superb example of retaining the Appaloosa pattern while outcrossing to a _quality_ Thoroughbred. He has plenty of Appaloosa blood in his pedigree, too. This is what breed improvement is all about! The stallion belongs to a customer of mine from a few years back. I can assure you anything a foundation type could do, this one could do so much better, and look pretty good doing it, too. He's also a great example of what a healthy, fit horse should look like.


----------



## anndankev

I am not so competitive as FTFOTB seems to be. I do not expect my views or opinions to be of much importance or have any impact on what is happening. There is an old saying 'the meek shall inherit the earth' , once I saw an addendum to it which I cannot forget: 'the meek shall inherit the earth - then the rest of us will take it away from them'.

I agree more with Wakiya's posts: not wanting to turn the Appy into a QH or TB, or see them crossbred out of existence. She mentions going back to horses of ancestry to improve or widen the gene pool. And also another poster who said:

"The original NP horses were taken from them and a lot of them killed. Others got into wild herds or into the hands of farmers who would have bred them for their purposes. The original NP horses are long gone and we don't accurately know what their conformation looked like, which I think is a loss. I suspect that the NP bred their horses to be sound and useful, it would have been nice to see a large cross section of what they produced."

I've spent several hours here on my day off trying to make this post, when I need to be at the barn, or cleaning a saddle I have brought home. So it's time for me to stop. I'm only going to post this because I've been asked about my horse(s) pedigree. Here are some that I have owned but no longer have.













































Here is a pic of my son, I ran across it looking for the papers for this post.









And here are Elwood's "papers" :lol: 









Drawn by Benny a 7 yr old boy who would take lessons on no one but Lwood (as he called him).


----------



## Alwaysbehind

anndankev said:


> I am not so competitive as FTFOTB seems to be. I do not expect my views or opinions to be of much importance or have any impact on what is happening. There is an old saying 'the meek shall inherit the earth' , once I saw an addendum to it which I cannot forget: 'the meek shall inherit the earth - then the rest of us will take it away from them'.
> 
> I agree more with Wakiya's posts: not wanting to turn the Appy into a QH or TB, or see them crossbred out of existence. She mentions going back to horses of ancestry to improve or widen the gene pool. And also another poster who said:
> 
> "The original NP horses were taken from them and a lot of them killed. Others got into wild herds or into the hands of farmers who would have bred them for their purposes. The original NP horses are long gone and we don't accurately know what their conformation looked like, which I think is a loss. I suspect that the NP bred their horses to be sound and useful, it would have been nice to see a large cross section of what they produced."
> 
> I've spent several hours here on my day off trying to make this post, when I need to be at the barn, or cleaning a saddle I have brought home. So it's time for me to stop. I'm only going to post this because I've been asked about my horse(s) pedigree. Here are some that I have owned but no longer have.


Quoted so I could make the text big enough that I could read it.


----------



## FTFOTB

_Originally Posted by *anndankev*_  
_I am not so competitive as FTFOTB seems to be. I do not expect my views or opinions to be of much importance or have any impact on what is happening. There is an old saying 'the meek shall inherit the earth' , once I saw an addendum to it which I cannot forget: 'the meek shall inherit the earth - then the rest of us will take it away from them'.
_


When a breeder has passion (and vision), backed by decades of education, knowledge and experience, that's a very positive thing for a breed. To me, nothing will ever be accomplished if a person has _no_ passion and is _not_ driven. When it comes to the integrity of a breed, all these things are of vital importance. It's necessary to understand all the aspects that pertain to the breed. 

Yes, I'm very outspoken about breeding; I feel obligated to share what I have learned in my lifetime. I _do_ expect what I share to be taken seriously, and to have an impact upon those who care about the subject. It would be a waste of a lifetime of dedicated study _not_ to share it. Also, an _educated_, opposing opinion makes for a good debate, which can be a fantastic learning experience for all. 

Anything worth doing is worth doing well. It requires a person to be _driven_. _Passion_ is necessary in order to get it right. And getting it right dictates that a person is very well educated about their subject. It demands a level of education and an open mind that is well beyond the fluff and myths that tend to cloud the true history of these horses. 

One of my favorite quotes is, *"To escape criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing."*


----------



## gillwood

*No bad Appaloosas*

Lots of good information, the Appaloosa was not killed by the army it was slaughtered. The few that were left were breed with cavalry mounts as they were rumoured to be superior to those horses. I wonder if that was where that head came from? I would believe that the original Appaloosa may go back to the mustangs and Spanish horses. I have no concrete evidence of that but it would seem to make sense. Much of that is irrelevant if more horses don't show up at shows or competitions there will be no breed left to argue over.
It is easy to discount showing or competing but that is where the breed is defined and promoted. It provides the opportunity for those who enjoy the breed to get together and promote the breed.
As for out crossing, the gene pool is still far too small. If the pool is not expanded we will be looking at the night mare of the pure-bred dog. I am not a huge fan of TB crosses solely for the reason that the Appaloosa horses was bred to be ridden bareback and moving to huge horses seems to fly in the face of that, 14:2 to 15:2 seems like a great size for a working horse, cowboys had bad knees so that was the practical reason for that sizing of horse. That said, good blood is good blood.
If you like foundation, more power to you. If you enjoy the 'pretty' Appaloosas good for you, no one is wrong. Good conformation and movement is paramount to producing a lasting healthy breed. Groups like the NSBA may have it right and as Mr. Ed would say "a horse is a horse" we need to look for things we can agree on not things that separate us.


----------



## FTFOTB

I'm not sure I understand anndankev's post - first she says she agrees with Wakiya's posts about not wanting to turn the Appy into a QH or TB, and yet the majority of the Paints she said she once owned were mostly, if not 100% QH by bloodline. 

There is no difference between these two "breeds". With Appaloosas and Paints, we have horses whose origin is with a *coat pattern*. They aren't (and never were) breeds by definition. They are both from a variety of types and breeds at their origin. Both of them have benefited from outcross blood, namely QHs and TBs. You're not going to "crossbreed them out of existence" as long as you retain the coat pattern genetics. There isn't any breed improvement taking place in either breed if you don't outcross every other generation or so. Along with that, education about the genetics of color and pattern is necessary, combined with a good working knowledge about conformation and type. You have to know what excellence looks like in order to breed for it, and you have to be able to look past the color and pattern in order to judge the quality of a horse. You take the best of the QH and TB (which has proven to be superior to all other stock breeds), and strive to put your coat pattern on _that_.


----------



## MacabreMikolaj

anndankev said:


> These look like Impressive bred halter horses to me, wonder if they are HYPP.


This statement is truly beyond me. I don't see how the horses posted on that website look anything like the Impressive line, or even remotely close to a HYPP positive horse. They have the very large halter style behinds, but they don't have any typical HYPP diaper butt going on and they certainly don't have any trace of "over muscling" - they are splendidly well muscled, well toned and very fit good looking animals.

This is what HYPP does to a horse, I would advise studying more about the disease before accusing a farm with lovely animals of breeding genetic disease due to your own lack of research and education:












Same mare:


































And of course, my favorite example of all and my sincerest hope the people who own him burn in hell (they also own the mare I posted above with 3 small photos of her grotesque muscling):









I really don't see how you can POSSIBLY compare the Appaloosa's posted to these deformed animals.


----------



## anndankev

I so apologize for offending anyone and everyone with my posts. Although I have seen many HYPP N/H horses none of them were to the extreme of the photo's MM posted. One was a very successful WP gelding, another is a broodmare at a barn where I boarded with a very good show record, and the 3rd is the only one I have photo's of. Copy, an APHA gelding who is very brittle, or whatever they call it having the tremors, seizures, and attacks very frequently, and is on expensive medication. The owner is a close friend of my daughters and over the years I have learned to keep a bottle of Caro Syrup in my trailer.
















































Evidently I am not so good at making the meaning of what I say or write very clear. A comment I made about competiveness was about the person's interest in the breed not being competitive with the performance stock horses rather than about the person. I had spent some hours going back over the many pages of posts and found the reference to that repeated many times.

The remark about HYPP was more in line with "type" or common thoughts brought to most peoples minds when they see a certain "type". I guess I have no business trying to express such a thought as I only think like me, not like anybody else. I have been at shows where well-known national level Impressive bred horses were, and have come to wonder if a horse with a certain build and stance is Impressive bred, and I can't help but wonder if they are HYPP every time, I guess I've "typed" them.

HYPP has been discussed in this very thread earlier without bringing up anyone's hackles, I did not mean it as derogatory. Again I apologize.





The same poster who took the competitive statement personally also insisted the Appaloosa breed has no type (several times), and also placed the Appaloosa in the "stock-type" horse category (several times). There may be no written official type decription of the Appaloosa but certainly there is a general conception of the type, as described many times in the first 43 posts of this thread.

Please accept my apology, sorry for offending anyone, or thinking I have something worthwhile to input amoung such and educated group.

Ann


----------



## anndankev

The 3 registered APHA horses I have owned were given to me in lieu of separation pay by a former boss. I did not select them.

I had a boss who was on a roll for a few years and against my advice bought a stallion and some mares and started breeding them. When she went broke, naturally I lost my job/income and it was at the same time my husband was in a terrible car accident that left him an amputee. Hence, I had no income, and was under otherwise extreme duress at the time I was given these horses. Which of course meant I was receiving enormous monthly expenses along with them. I sold the stallion right away.


----------



## NdAppy

MM - Some of the Sheldak horses are Impressive bred, *but* they are all HYPP N/N.

anndankev - look around the site instead of jumping to conclusions and you would have seen the above for yourself. The Sheldak Ranch produces horses that are highly sought after around the world and produce many, many winners, not just in halter classes but in performance classes as well.


----------



## horsecrazy84

I'm all for improving a breed, but not turning an Appy into a QH with appy spots. I prefer the old type QHs, the bulldog built ones like King. I think everybody has their own preferences when it comes to what they like but those people who don't like the looks shouldn't try to change it to suit them. I hate Saddlebreds, I think they just look awkward and have psychotic personalities, but that is my opinion. I would never try to add a QH bloodline to mellow the personality or make it look less like a giraffe, I'd just not own one. 
Chanti is a Pintaloosa. Her sire is a black registered Appaloosa with a gorgeous blanket. He does have some QHs in his pedigree and he was built like a modern Appy, from what I remember of him. I only saw him once. She has a few great horses, World Champion Halter horses and such in her bloodline. Her dam is a chestnut sabino Paint and I know nothing of her bloodlines. 
Chanti seems to have gotten the Paint tail, high leg white and a few other characteristics of Paints but her personality has been more like an Appy. She has been a one person type horse ever since I got her. She isn't mean, unpredictable, or ornery. She's smart, willing, awesome with small kids and inherited her daddy's blanket lol.


----------



## FTFOTB

Is there anyone here who can intelligently discuss breed type, its history and bloodlines, breed standards and ideals, etc., instead of just what _you_ (collective _you_) personally like or dislike? There aren't even any reasons given - just that you don't like a particular type of horse. Sure, everyone has their likes and dislikes. Aside from that, in order for your opinions about breed standards and ideals to be credible, they should be presented with logical, rational theories, along with ideas of how breeding for the integrity of a breed can be achieved. I haven't seen any of that so far. Maybe no one really cares enough, or doesn't know enough about the subject to discuss it at a higher level. Is there anyone here that is a knowledgeable breeder with decades of educated experience and knowledge? Where is the presentation beyond "I don't like that kind of horse and look at my pretty horsey I used to own"?

The original question was, "Appaloosa Horses: Breed standards gone too far?" 

Is there (or was there) ever a breed standard? If so, what was it? Was that horse superior to what we have today, and if so, how? What was the original Appaloosa bred for that is different that what other stock horse breeds are bred for? I think many of these breeds (QHs, Paints, Appaloosas) reached their highest level of versatility and excellent type before specialization took hold (late 70s).


----------



## Fancy That

I personally like Foundation Appaloosas that are NOT QH/TB with spots. I'm glad they still allow Arabian blood.

I consider ApHC a studbook, not a pure breed. I consider AQHA, APHA and all European Warmblood STUDBOOKS, too (and not breeds)

They have an open book , even though it's limited....it still is open. For ApHC, that means you can have a spotted (or non spotted for that matter) QH, TB, or Arabian.

I just like the type and hardiness and build of the old-school Appies that don't look like a modern stock horse (aka - QH/PAINT/TB)

It's more and more rare to use the Arab blood that is still allowed in the registry, too. The ApHC circuit is basically AQHA/APHA with spots (or as mentioned...without


----------



## FTFOTB

*FTFOTB's responses below in bold:*



Fancy That said:


> I personally like Foundation Appaloosas that are NOT QH/TB with spots. I'm glad they still allow Arabian blood.
> 
> *I don't understand this part ^. You don't want to turn Appaloosas into QHs and TBs w/spots, but it's okay to turn them into Arabians w/spots?* *Arabians and Appaloosas couldn't be further apart in type. *
> 
> I consider ApHC a studbook, not a pure breed. I consider AQHA, APHA and all European Warmblood STUDBOOKS, too (and not breeds)
> 
> *I agree with this ^. Types aren't necessarily a breed**.*
> 
> They have an open book , even though it's limited....it still is open. For ApHC, that means you can have a spotted (or non spotted for that matter) QH, TB, or Arabian.
> 
> I just like the type and hardiness and build of the old-school Appies that don't look like a modern stock horse (aka - QH/PAINT/TB)
> 
> *The 'old school' Appaloosas didn't look like Arabians, either. And none of the 'old school' Appaloosas would be competitive on the same level with the best of the stock horses today. They never were, either. I asked what their specialty was that was different than what stock horses did, but no one has an answer.*
> 
> *When you cross Appaloosas with endurance Arabians, then you get Appaloosas that are excellent at endurance racing. Lots of people do just that.
> 
> When you cross Appaloosas with TBs and QHs, you have Appaloosas that are versatile performers; QHs and TBs are the ultimate in versatile performers.
> 
> When you cross Paints with TBs and QHs, you get Paints that are versatile performers.
> *
> It's more and more rare to use the Arab blood that is still allowed in the registry, too. The ApHC circuit is basically AQHA/APHA with spots (or as mentioned...without
> 
> *So, you think the ApHC circuit should be Arabians with spots? I don't understand your point at all. Please explain. *


----------



## Fancy That

I didn't mean that Appies should look like Arabians. I just feel like they have turned 100% into a stock horse breed (basically QH/TB)......I think Arabians have nice big round feet, good gone, short backs, high-set necks and some of the curvier more baroque type that you COULD see a trace of in the old Appies.

I think a drop of Arabian blood can provide some good qualities in the hoof, bone, leg, soundness department and also add a touch of compactness, curves and just a different "type" than a Pure QH/TB type.

I really just like the TYPE of the old Appies that almost look like chunky Morgans with jug heads and thick necks and smooth toplines, round butts, tons of bone and big feet. It's more of a nostalgic thing with me, that's all 

I agree with you - there is no good argument about form/function and performance. A QH/TB type stock horse can excel in all kinds of disciplines just fine. To me, it's just a "type" thing, and I tend to like "old type" with more of a substantial, round, smooth-bodied, bigger boned, bigger hoofed type with curvy necks..... IN GENERAL 

So really - I don't have a good arguement. Just stating my opinion



FTFOTB said:


> *FTFOTB's responses below in bold:*


----------



## FTFOTB

Thanks, Fancy That. Well, I think it's probably okay for Appaloosas to resemble stock horses if they are used in stock horse events. The most logical place to look when breeding for a horse that is suited for that is to the QHs and TBs.


----------



## FTFOTB

_Fancy That said, "I just feel like they have turned 100% into a stock horse breed (basically QH/TB)"

_I want to respond to this separately. Yes, they have turned into a stock horse breed. It was logical for that to happen since Appaloosa breeders wanted their horses to do cutting, reining, working cowhorse, halter, pleasure, racing, any and all of that. In order to improve the performance of their horses, it was logical to turn to the allowed outcross blood that allows for Appaloosa horses that could excel at those things. They wanted the quality as well as the spots. 

As long as they still have the Appaloosa characteristics and pattern, _they are still Appaloosas. _

If you go backwards, eliminating all outcross blood, and try to create horses that you _believe_ were the foundation, you are going to lose that versatility, conformation, and ability. The problem with doing that is, there was never a 'foundation' type to begin with. The only glimpse of a foundation Appaloosa has been what a few people have put forth, most of which is only theory, not based on historical fact. There is a lot of misinformation and 'embellishments' out there, based on the biased agendas of a few. 


​


----------



## Fancy That

I hear you  And it makes logical sense.

For me, I'm older, so I just have a nostalgic memory from childhood of Appaloosas with big crested necks, thick round huge barrels, big bone, big feet and the sparse mane and tail (and yes, not the prettiest heads)

Those types of Appies aren't "purpose-bred" for specific disciplines...they are more all arounders.

And yes, the TB and QH blood obviously did IMPROVE the breed in many ways, but also turned it into a 100% stock breed. I know - that's what they are used for (stock disciplines)





FTFOTB said:


> _Fancy That said, "I just feel like they have turned 100% into a stock horse breed (basically QH/TB)"
> 
> _I want to respond to this separately. Yes, they have turned into a stock horse breed. It was logical for that to happen since Appaloosa breeders wanted their horses to do cutting, reining, working cowhorse, halter, pleasure, racing, any and all of that. In order to improve the performance of their horses, it was logical to turn to the allowed outcross blood that allows for Appaloosa horses that could excel at those things. They wanted the quality as well as the spots.
> 
> As long as they still have the Appaloosa characteristics and pattern, _they are still Appaloosas. _
> 
> If you go backwards, eliminating all outcross blood, and try to create horses that you _believe_ were the foundation, you are going to lose that versatility, conformation, and ability. The problem with doing that is, there was never a 'foundation' type to begin with. The only glimpse of a foundation Appaloosa has been what a few people have put forth, most of which is only theory, not based on historical fact. There is a lot of misinformation and 'embellishments' out there, based on the biased agendas of a few.
> 
> 
> ​


----------



## 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.


----------



## GhostwindAppaloosa

MacabreMikolaj said:


> 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.


 
SHe did not founder on grass she foundered on a dumb barn owner feeding an 800-900 lb horse a giant coffee can of grain 2x a day. 

This happened 4 years ago. We tried many different options to return her hooves back to a normal state including natural trims along with soaking and oiling... and supplements etc etc before we (a DVM !!!! and I) decided to remove weight from her. the removal of the weight worked... everything else we tried did not. She is 100% fine and has been for the past two years.


----------



## FTFOTB

GhostwindAppaloosa said:


> SHe did not founder on grass she foundered on a dumb barn owner feeding an 800-900 lb horse a giant coffee can of grain 2x a day.
> 
> This happened 4 years ago. We tried many different options to return her hooves back to a normal state including natural trims along with soaking and oiling... and supplements etc etc before we (a DVM !!!! and I) decided to remove weight from her. the removal of the weight worked... everything else we tried did not. She is 100% fine and has been for the past two years.


It appears you've removed weight from the others you pictured, too, so how did _they_ founder? That's really unfortunate and I hope they're all ok now.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

horsecrazy84 said:


> Chanti is a Pintaloosa.


Pintaloosa is not a breed.
You mean Chanti is a grade horse that is a cross between an Appaloosa and a paint/pinto.


----------



## reiningfan

Alwaysbehind said:


> Pintaloosa is not a breed.
> You mean Chanti is a grade horse that is a cross between an Appaloosa and a paint/pinto.


That's getting a little petty. Sure, it isn't a breed, it's a cross, but really, did it require mentioning in this particular thread?

As to Appaloosas being a stock horse. If we look back a hundred and fifty or so years ago and think of what a spotted horse might have been used for, I think you'll find that they were pretty much jacks of all trades. They were likely used to hunt off of, pack belongings, the occasional match race, etc. Basically, the beginnings of most North American breeds. 
As the Appaloosa was developed, they were bred in the image of what people wanted. Which in general seems to be stock horses. 
As far as breed improvement goes, the infusion of QH/Tb blood has improved conformation, performance and aesthetics. This ought to be considered breed improvement. 
While the foundation Appaloosas were the start of a breed, horses should be bred to improve upon former generations. I believe outcrossing has done just this.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Alwaysbehind

reiningfan said:


> That's getting a little petty. Sure, it isn't a breed, it's a cross, but really, did it require mentioning in this particular thread?


Made up designer breed names happen to be one of my pet peeves. Pintaloosa is on the top of my list of annoyances. It happens to combine two breeds that I truly see no reason to mix. 

So, to answer your question, yes, it needed mentioning on this particular thread since this is where it came up.


----------



## bubba13

FTFOTB said:


> It appears you've removed weight from the others you pictured, too, so how did _they_ founder? That's really unfortunate and I hope they're all ok now.


Not to mention that regardless of the cause of founder, once a horse has had laminitis, it's still crucial to keep them off the green grass....


----------



## reiningfan

Alwaysbehind said:


> Made up designer breed names happen to be one of my pet peeves. Pintaloosa is on the top of my list of annoyances. It happens to combine two breeds that I truly see no reason to mix.
> 
> So, to answer your question, yes, it needed mentioning on this particular thread since this is where it came up.


For a lot of people, they use those terms for convenience sake. It's easier to say "pintaloosa" than appaloosa/pinto cross. Kind of like a lot of people use "don't" rather than "do not". The shorter version is generally easily understood.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Alwaysbehind

Pintaloosa is not a contraction.


----------



## reiningfan

and that matters how?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Alwaysbehind

You just said it was.


----------



## reiningfan

I used it as an example. Pintaloosa is a commonly used term. If it bothers you that much, I think you'll need to grow a thicker skin. 
While I 100% agree that pintaloosas are not a breed, I don't think it matters that people what to tack that term onto their grade horses. It gives them an easier way to describe the cross.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Alwaysbehind

reiningfan said:


> I used it as an example. Pintaloosa is a commonly used term. If it bothers you that much, I think you'll need to grow a thicker skin.
> While I 100% agree that pintaloosas are not a breed, I don't think it matters that people what to tack that term onto their grade horses. It gives them an easier way to describe the cross.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Laugh!

You are the one who got their panties bunched. I just commented. You got upset for me commenting.
Maybe you should consider a thicker skin. :wink:

Not sure why you have yourself all worked up about a comment I made to someone else.


----------



## bubba13

*ducks head out from under table*

I use the term Pintaloosa as a descriptor all the time. It's sort of an easy way to describe a cross and a color pattern. I think it may even be recognized in some registries, like miniatures. And how else would you describe GoldenHorse's Appy G the PITAloosa?


----------



## Indyhorse

I don't object to the term "pintaloosa" being used as a description of coloring, since there isn't another singular term out there to describe a horse that has both paint/pinto and appaloosa markings. (Which, for the record, Chanti does not exhibit IMO - she has standard appaloosa markings. High socks and chrome etc are not LIMITED to the paint world.)

I strongly object, however, to people using it as a breed term, as a phrase coined to delude themselves their horse is something other than what it is - a cross bred mutt. It's like the same kind of ignorance exhibited by those who think any draft cross horse is a "warmblood". 

I personally _have_ a horse that could be technically classed as exhibiting "pintaloosa" markings. But he's a cross bred mutt, and I adore my crossbred mutt. I don't need made up names, or to pretend that "Pintaloosa" is suddenly a breed of his own, or that he is anything else other than exactly what he is. 

So although I don't object to the term pintaloosa per say, 90% of the time I object to how it's used. It ain't a breed and it never will be.


----------



## reiningfan

I'm not worked up. I just thought you could have worded things differently. I could really care less what people want to call their horses. I just don't like to see people be rude because someone labels their horse in a way they don't agree with. 

Back to the originally scheduled programming...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## reiningfan

AppyG a has been a PITAloosa for so long that it has definitely stuck.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Indyhorse

reiningfan said:


> I'm not worked up. I just thought you could have worded things differently.* I could really care less what people want to call their horses.* I just don't like to see people be rude because someone labels their horse in a way they don't agree with.


I do. I care very much, and this is a very big pet peeve of mine as well. I think it's* incredibly rude and presumptuous* of people to call their crossbred whatever by some made up name. It is both offensive and extremely self indulgent to place yourself on the same level as people who invested serious time, effort, money, and research into carefully creating horses bred with a specific style, type, and job or discipline in mind. Horses that live up to an expected breed standard set by many people over many decades, horses that breed true to type and are therefore a positive reflection of their breeder's judgement and choices. If you did not breed this way, frankly you don't have the right to pretend your horse is anything other than a "mutt", or a crossbreed or a grade, if you object to the term mutt. Throwing two random whatevers together in the pasture, breeding your grade QH to the Amish guy's Belgian stallion up the road, is not making a new breed. Making up new breed names, with no breed standard, governing body, or outside inspections and inputs, _does not give your horse any higher purpose or class_. Stop trying to fudge it with fake names.


----------



## MacabreMikolaj

I have never in my life heard of someone using the term Pintaloosa to describe a breed. For one thing, a pinto is not a breed, it never has been a breed, it's nothing but color so right off the bat the term basically refers only to color. If you call it a Paintaloosa, you may be able to use it as a fudged up breed name. Pintaloosa has always been used to describe color. For example, saying "I own a 4 year old pintaloosa Miniature stallion."

I agree with IndyHorse wholeheartedly. It's just a pet peeve but it drives me nuts how people slap a silly name on a crossbreed and automatically think it's somehow a purebred or worth more money. My biggest pet peeve right now is the use of the terms "sporthorse" and/or "warmblood" to describe ANY idiotic mix of Draft blood. A Draft X Miniature is not a friggin sporthorse people!


----------



## MacabreMikolaj

GhostwindAppaloosa said:


> She is ribby because at the same time she foundered on grass in the pasture and when she came bakc to me was extremely lame from the founder.





GhostwindAppaloosa said:


> SHe did not founder on grass she foundered on a dumb barn owner feeding an 800-900 lb horse a giant coffee can of grain 2x a day.


Is it THAT difficult to keep your story straight as to why your horses are thin and unkempt looking? :roll:

And FYI, it doesn't matter if she foundered on grass or grain, both are a reaction to the sugar which means BOTH are most likely to cause a reaction regardless of weight since according to you she WASN'T overweight when the grain feeding began.


----------



## Jax

farmpony84 said:


> several years ago TB's were heavily introduced into the apps to give them more height, I remember when that was happening the "new" apps were really starting to get hot headed in nature and that's not what that breed is supposed to be, so then I think they started adding the QH's into the bloodline to bring them back to their original demeanors and body types... is that true?


Those could be potential reasons, but from my understanding TB's were added for appaloosa racing primarily. The QH has been added in many show arenas for the show quality of a QH and the color of appaloosas. I'm sure many had there own reasons for mixing those breeds, but Im not so sure it all turned out well. Anyways, don't forget that the breed almost went extinct and for a while mixing was a way to keep the breed alive.


----------



## Jax

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.


----------



## Faceman

FTFOTB said:


> 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...


----------



## MacabreMikolaj

^

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.


----------

