Breeding and philosophy (and brag at the end!)

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/21/00 3:43:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
JANUSTUDIO@compuserve.com writes:

<< >I myself stopped breeding for sales 3 years ago.
 
 We stopped breeding for sales about the same time.  Lif & Paul<
 
 Hey, I've got you both beat.  I stopped breeding for sales nine years ago!
 Jan >>

Well, I've got you all beat.  I never did breed for sales.  I breed for me, 
and always have.  Sure, one tries to be as business-like as possible to make 
ends meet.  But my horses cost me per month about what it would cost to be 
making payments on a brand new Ford Powerstroke and a brand new Featherlite 
trailer, so I make my choice and drive an '85 truck and pull an old trailer 
with home-made LQ, and feed a bunch of horses.  Yep, I always have a few 
"for" sale--and as a breeder I thank heavens for endurance where geldings are 
what is wanted, because all but one's best colts SHOULD become geldings, and 
obviously geldings have no place in a breeding program!  Besides, the merit 
of any breeding program SHOULD be the calibre of the riding geldings it 
produces--credit Bazy Tankersley with putting that concept into words.

Endurance is the love of my life as a sport--but it is not the reason why I 
breed horses.  I love the classic Arabian horse, who was the optimal 
generalist.  The traits that make him that are also the traits that make him 
a great endurance horse--agility, stamina, good temperament, solid 
conformation, athleticism, etc.  So by selecting for "classic" Arabian 
traits, one is also selecting for traits that help horses become great 
endurance horses.  It also makes them great ranch horses, family horses, 
dressage horses, cutting horses, etc.

OK, the twelve-step part--I am a preservation breeder.  That does not mean 
preserving names in pedigrees.  It means preserving classic traits from 
classic sources--in essence, preserving the Arabian horse that has the traits 
listed in the paragraph above, even if that is not the market trend, even if 
it does not keep the program in the black, etc.  I happen to be a CMK 
preservationist--that is not the only worthy preservation game in town, but 
it happens to be the one that has meaning and relevance to ME.  And I believe 
that to be a successful breeder, one has to define WHAT it is one is trying 
to breed, and within what parameters--otherwise one runs willy nilly hither 
and yon and never accomplishes a thing.  I can admire and applaud the 
successes of breeders with other successful lines and programs--but that does 
not mean that mixing it with my program will ensure success--I have to 
research what works with my own horses and my own lines.

Regarding research--many have been doing research on family lines and their 
occurrances within the breed, etc. for quite some time.  The list that Salim 
put on RC is an interesting one--and looking at it in view of sampling work 
done by Bowling and less formal research done by others, it holds no 
surprises, as those are horses that those of us who have been comparing 
pedigrees of consistent competitors vs. those who come and go (and some of us 
have been doing that for upwards of 25 years) have found those horses to be 
recurrent even in less organized studies.  And although Michael has not 
compared the list to his random sampling to date, I hope he does--in some way 
that has some statistical control, etc.  Yes, many of us are interested in 
research...

But back to the breeding--I really doubt that Lady Wentworth, the Blunts, 
Homer Davenport, WR Brown, WK Kellogg, Dickenson, Albert Harris, etc. were 
concerned with the market when they set about to breed the best Arabs they 
could from the sources they had.  They did it out of enjoyment of the breed 
and a sense of achievement in breeding the best horses that they could--not 
unlike taking the raw material and giving it the training, conditioning, etc. 
to produce an endurance winner.  The effects of such programs and the 
qualities of their efforts are apparent in the descendants of their horses 
yet today.  Their example of dedication to breeding to their goals is lacking 
in far too many "programs" today that are primarily concerned with meeting 
current market demands.  I hope I can continue to help to offset the costs of 
my breeding program by selling quality endurance athletes for whatever good 
riders will pay for them.   However, I'm in it for the long haul--no matter 
what the market of the moment may happen to be.  I know I'm not the Lone 
Ranger in this sort of philosophy--as years go by, I find more and more folks 
out there who are learning to understand what breeding is all about and who 
have similar long-term goals.

Heidi

PS:  And yes, a brag--we just came home from our FIRST ever dressage show 
(the Pas de Deux in Vancouver, WA), where we also showed in the Sport Horse 
In Hand classes.  Paul rode our stallion Aur Bold Tribute (half-brother to 
1999 Tevis winner, and who started his own endurance career 3 years ago at 
age 15) in Intro Test 2 and Training Level Test 1 on both days.  This was 
Bo's FIRST time ever in a big public arena, and his scores reflected the fact 
that he was a rank beginner at his first show--but after some rough spots the 
first day (still 4th in the Intro class) he improved his scores considerably 
the second day (2nd in Intro class and just missed the ribbons due to a 
grouchy bobble about his left lead in the Training Level class) he got 7's 
for gaits, and NICE comments from both days' judges.  Fillies were 3rd and 
4th in the 2-year-old In Hand class the first day--only showed one filly the 
2nd day and was 2nd.  Mare was just out of the ribbons both days, in a HUGE 
strong mare class.  Bo was 5th in the mature stallions In Hand the 1st day 
with only 2.7 points separating the first 5 stallions--the second day, he and 
another horse tied for high score, and the judge split the tie in the other 
horse's favor--so he ended up 2nd and Reserve Champion Sport Horse Stallion 
In-Hand!  Not bad, for an 18-year-old endurance geezer!!  Although anything 
judged by a judge is a less objective yardstick than sports such as 
endurance, dressage is nonetheless a valuable yardstick with fairly 
repeatable judging standards, and the Sport Horse In Hand classes are 
interesting in view of the fact that the judge has to give a score and a 
written critique of each horse--can't just say "I pinned that horse because 
he has a FREAKY head and neck and gives me goosebumps!"  It is always 
interesting and edifying to see one's horses through the eyes of others.  

Back to breeding again--no, I don't breed horses for endurance--it's the 
other way around.  Endurance horses need the traits that I (and others with 
similar goals) as a breeder am trying hard to put at the forefront of my 
program.  To the extent that I am successful in carrying on those traits, my 
horses should (and have in the past) by and large make good endurance 
prospects.  And as a breeder, I consider endurance to be one of the better 
yardsticks for measuring how well I am preserving those traits.