>I don't know if you have ever been to an
inspection, but I have so that is why I am saying something. Inspectors
have specific guidelines to follow and it has nothing to do with taste. It
has to do with correct conformation and movement of the
horse.
Yes, I've been to inspections. And I've also
judged based on a score sheet such as are used by inspectors. That said,
and as much as I enjoy judging and try to be knowledgeable and judge to the most
wholesome breed standards possible, IT STILL BOILS DOWN TO MY OR SOME OTHER
JUDGE'S OR INSPECTOR'S INTERPRETATIONS OF THOSE STANDARDS. People are not
robots. And personal taste comes into play NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY NOT
TO LET IT. That is why the gene pool still stays healthier with a LOT of
different people "inspecting" their own breeding stock, never mind that some of
them are incompetent.
Just to use a couple of examples of extremely competent
and knowledgeable breeders--you could stand Bazy Tankersley and Michael Bowling
side by side, and while there would be a lot of overlap in what they like,
because they both stress breeding good riding geldings (and have both been
tremendously successful at that task), they would NOT generate identical
scores. I've listened to both of them speak, and have shared the podium
with both (as well as other knowledgeable people) and while we have all had good
things to contribute, we do not SEE or PRIORITIZE the identical same
things. And that difference in vision is a GOOD thing.
If any one of us had the jurisdiction to choose what is
and isn't breeding stock in the others' herds, we would lose that difference in
vision, and over time, our herds and our breed would become a homogenous blend,
with strengths AND FAULTS that are uniform and nowhere to go to correct the
latter.
I'll gladly suffer the mediocrity of the uneducated for
the wealth of variety and health of breed that genetic diversity
brought forward by the GOOD breeders of vision has to offer.
