Re: RC: [arab-l] Re: Bill Sheets

[Mickie Newnam <akela@peoplepc.com>]

Lif,
OK, as I read this over I realized I wasn't making myself very clear so I'll try
to clarify.  That's what I get for doing this late at night...


>
> We don't feed grain here so our young horses don't know what grain is by
> experience, either.  We feed hay, hay pellets, beet pellets and a
> supplement of blue-green algae.  Perhaps if/when grain was first placed in
> front of them, they might not be motivated right away to try it, either,
> but so what?  That's how jsut about any horse is with new food.  My point
> is that a youngster's not having ever been fed grain is not a indicator of
> abuse.

Very true.  The reason it surprised us, however, is that the humane society that
was coordinating the whole thing was begging for donations of and for grain (and
hay, of course) because they needed to get some groceries into these horses.  So
it was our assumption that the grain was going to be distributed to all of the
rescued horses.  Now they were at different farms and each obviously had its own
way of doing things, so it could be that this colt was at a farm where there was
more emphasis on hay -- and there's nothing wrong with that.  But he certainly
started looking better after a few months at our barn (I say "our"; I'm a boarder
but have been there for 20 years so I'm pretty much family).  Now he may have
looked a lot worse before the foster farm got him too, that's possible, but
having helped "fatten up" a number of thin horses it seems like after 6-8 months
more of them should have been farther along in their recovery than they were.
Does that make more sense now?

> It is a rare breeder these days who knows what all or even most of the
> recessives are in breeding animals.
>   You don't have to be a "breeder of papers" to wind up with less
> than perfect foals.

Granted.  Case in point, my gelding is the first out of 4 of a particular cross.
3 have good legs.  The fourth is weak up front.  Parents and grandparents have
good legs, so she's a throwback to somewhere though we don't know where.  But
most reputable breeders will also look at each individual, and from all I've
heard that was not the case here.  The club foot wasn't bad, didn't affect the
way he moved -- moved beautifully, as a matter of fact. (And as many of RideCamp
have stated, a club foot is not that great of a problem in itself, unless it is
severe enough to make the horse lame.) The rest of him was put together pretty
well.  The parrot mouth was definitely a problem, but since he is now a gelding
that isn't an issue.

>
>
> Of course, breeding by papers is a pretty common phenomenon.  Especially
> when the "papers" are accompanied by a National Championship ribbon or
> something.  Foals that were bred on that basis appear every year after the
> lastest flash-in-the-pan champion stallion is pinned at various breed
> national competitions.  People will breed to an AERC Jim Jones Stallion
> Award winner, too, even though winning that award doesn't *initself* make
> that stud right for a given mare.

Very tue.  It happens all the time.

>
> IAHA is not the registry of purebred Arabians.  Were these part bred horses?

Sorry, that should have read "the Registry".  I've been filling out IAHA
paperwork and had them on the brain, I guess.

> .  So - all I'm saying is be cautious
> when you post, especially an email that is critical of someone  - you never
> know how it will end up.

Very true, and thanks for reminding me.  I do tend sometimes to spout off without
thinking about the fact that not everyone I'm talking to has the whole history.
Hopefully this makes it more clear.  And as for Sheets, from the look of the
horses after 6-8 months at the foster farms, I'd have hated to see them before!
I had seen photos, and I do believe that the man needs to be banned from owning
horses.  At least large numbers of them -- don't know what would happen with just
one or two so can't comment on that!

Mcikie