>I'm not saying you couldn't register all
Arabs, just that perhaps by having stallions, and even mares (since I am a firm
believer in the foundation MARE) judge approved for breeding that it could
help prevent bad breeding. I know that many people out there know when to
breed certain horses, and when not to. But there are also those who just breed
if they have the papers!
But you make my point. Inspection is just
another version of judging. Our show ring has "approved" judges who
supposedly know what they are doing. Horses who "score" the highest in
this "inspection" are the show champions. And they are some of the worst
specimens of the breed when it comes to utility. And breeding involves a
WHOLE lot more than taking horses that score high on inspections and breeding
them to each other. Successful breeding also involves the understanding of
how different lines cross, what the ancestors were like, and a whole host of
things beyond just looking at the horse in front of you and evaluating it.
Give me a breeder who has slaved and worked to garner a base of knowledge about
what he is doing and who has the self-confidence to trust his OWN judgment any
day of the week over a score-based, inspection-based breeding system.
Just had an interesting discussion on another list
about horses with good walks, and the differences in how the good walk is
generated in different family lines. This is the sort of diversity that is
healthy for a breed. And in that same discussion, several very competent
breeders who have been involved with sport horses brought up the fact that with
inspected breeds, one of those "styles" becomes the "norm" and the others are
weeded out, even though they are athletic and equally correct. That is the
very sort of thing that limits the gene pool in many sport horse breeds, forcing
them to go outside their artificially-limited gene pool to regenerate some
diversity.
Not angry with you--just trying to illustrate the
"box" that inspections cause for breeds.
