quote:

Originally posted by CardiGuard:
Kinzel...stop. Im not stupid about genetics, I promise! My comparing merle to HYPP is due to both being a DOMINANT trait. In that, they are similar. Thats all I was saying. And H/H is like a double merle...it will only produce merle or double merle...and H/H will only produce N/H or H/H. See, I get it! Im not stupid about genetics or modes of inheritance, when I KNOW what the mode of inheritance is, and dont assume that it is a simple recessive!

CG

When did i call you stupid? Or any name for that matter?
No HYPP is not like Merle, there is more to it.
You asked why I wouldn't want to breed the Impressive line at all, I tried to explain it to you the best way I possibly could, you asked the question and i gave you an answer, now you tell me to stop, then by all means please stop asking the question.
If you breed a dog with merle in its line but it will not produce a merle then you cannot by looking at the dog tell that merle is anywhere behind it.
But if you breed the Impressive line whether your horse is N/N or not you can still LOOK at the horse and tell it is Impressive bred, unless it is very very far down the line from Impressive, so it is very different than breeding a dog with merle in its line.
I have tried to explain that to you, but you are only talking about the disease and whether it can be reproduced, that is not my concern for not wanting to tap into the Impressive line, not my reason at all. I have said more than once that I am aware you can breed that line and not have the disease, I choose to not breed into it because of a different reason.
I'm still not sure you get the point of that.

I couldn't agree with you more about the QH horses, I wish they would bring back the stockier type too, which is one big reason I prefer the foundation lines, they had the bigger builds, not like the ones you see today. They are waaaay to lean for my liking.And its getting to the point where the ONLY stocky ones you see are Impressive bred. I hate that, the old ones could preform and look good at the end of a lead also.You can still get that stocky build, plus a great working horse using other lines.
I want to stay true to the breed, the foundation blood is pretty much the only way you can do that so thats why I prefer taking that route when breeding.
I am glad that you learned something about HYPP, its a very nasty disease that I wish was talked about indepth more.
About the merle/HYPP thing, genetically yes I see what your saying, I was saying its different in the way that with HYPP in the lines you can visably see a difference in the horse, I can just look at a horse and tell if it has Impressive in it if he is anywhere close in the line, that goes back to what I was saying about I consider it "cheating" . Even if the disease is not there you get that big muscle, that "Impressive" look.But with the merle gene there is no "visable" look, so I do understand what you are saying, when I said they weren't the same I was talking about the reason why I am against breeding that line altogether, its just the "look" for one thing.

But God there isn't anything prettier than an Impressive bred horse, they are awesome to look at.

I also want to breed for a horse I can "use". Impressive was a "for looks only" horse pretty much, so to get something out of him that can ride you really have to mix some good working blood in there.

Another problem I have with halter horses altogether. If they are the best halter horse then 99% of the time they aren't worth a crap under saddle. I don't get that, if they win at halter thats saying that it is the way a QH should be built , the way they should look.But yet if they look like that then you can't use them for the purpose QH's were bred for. It just doesn't make sense to me and totally pisses me off.
But anyway, I could fuss about that all day, thats something I just don't understand!!!

Merry Christmas to you too, and got any horse pics to share?

I like the Impressive bred horses too but have you noticed any disposition problems with them. I see alot of aggressiveness in MANY (not all) Impressive bred horses. I know a few that have caused serious injury to the owner or family members. I avoid the lines not just for the HYPP thing but the agressiveness too. But they are nice looking horses and do very well in the ring.

Well, keep in mind I've never owned one personally, from what i have heard and seen they just don't have the "brains" the QH are so famous for.
QH are one of the smartest breeds, they are loyal, they are patient,they are all around a smart horse,they are known for this. With all that and their versatility they are the most popular breed ever.
with the Impressive line I have heard that with the inbreeding and all, they have unpredictable dispostions. Like with other lines you pretty much know what your getting with a foal, but with Impressive you never know. Some are really smart, some are kinda slow, some are mean, some are really passive.So they range from real bad to real good, you just never know what its gonna be.
I have heard many people , even Impressive lovers comment on how dumb that line is, I think maybe its the more linebred impressive the prettier the horse, the less mind you get, IMHO.

So with that whole line there's really no way to classify them, smart,dumb, onary,willing,they just have no constistancy with theirselves.

Well, in 2007 the AQHA won't register N/H horses, so they are striving to eliminate it from the gene pool. There has been plenty of time to breed around it, and those who choose to breed it will screw themselves eventually.

As far as Impressive's temperaments??? I've never had an issue with them. I learned how to gallop racehorses on a granddaughter of Impressive, an awesome mare. But, growing up around a barn full of unruly(they were pretty nippy and light in the front) studs, not many equine antics phase me.

I can't exactly say agree with the appendix issue, for example, let's look at Impressive, son of Lucky Bar(TB) out of Glamour Bars who's sire was Appnedix as well. I know breeders can keep up with this, I hope evryone else can. Lucky Bar(TB)-(Three Bars(TB) x Fulfilment(TB)(Karimkhan) x(bred to) Glamour Bars (Lightning Bar(appendix) x Tonkawa Bar(Sugar Bars(TB)

Now Impressive was inbred Three Bars 2 x 3 x 4. That's tight by most standards. That's a LOT of Thoroughbred, and look at him! Quarter Horse Halter Champion. There are MANY Thoroughbreds that would fit Quarter Horse standards for conformation quite nicely, and most of them are sprinters. Large hip, well-rounded barrel, deep chest, the head throws it off.

As far as the Thoroughbreds that seem to be in the appendix program, most seem to be tall, LONG everywhere, and I agree, those do throw off the Quarter Horse appearance. Quarters are a very versatile breed, but if you look closely at all disciplines, there are most usually variations in type between all of them.

That's why an all-around title is AWESOME.



Impressive

Not that I'm saying foundation QH didn't have genetic flaws either.
I love KING , but even he produced a deadly gene.

Maybe my mind will change one day with the Impressive line.
God knows they are some awesome looking horses!!!

Rugged lark is a perfect example of the thoroughbred cross QH.
He won the all-around title 8 times (at my last count), i know he died in the past few years, but he was an awesome SUPER HORSE!!

I like Model's Go Man and the Go Man Go lines.

quote:

I couldn't agree with you more about the QH horses, I wish they would bring back the stockier type too, which is one big reason I prefer the foundation lines, they had the bigger builds, not like the ones you see today. They are waaaay to lean for my liking.And its getting to the point where the ONLY stocky ones you see are Impressive bred. I hate that, the old ones could preform and look good at the end of a lead also.You can still get that stocky build, plus a great working horse using other lines.
I want to stay true to the breed, the foundation blood is pretty much the only way you can do that so thats why I prefer taking that route when breeding.
I am glad that you learned something about HYPP, its a very nasty disease that I wish was talked about indepth more.
About the merle/HYPP thing, genetically yes I see what your saying, I was saying its different in the way that with HYPP in the lines you can visably see a difference in the horse, I can just look at a horse and tell if it has Impressive in it if he is anywhere close in the line, that goes back to what I was saying about I consider it "cheating" . Even if the disease is not there you get that big muscle, that "Impressive" look.But with the merle gene there is no "visable" look, so I do understand what you are saying, when I said they weren't the same I was talking about the reason why I am against breeding that line altogether, its just the "look" for one thing.

But God there isn't anything prettier than an Impressive bred horse, they are awesome to look at.

I also want to breed for a horse I can "use". Impressive was a "for looks only" horse pretty much, so to get something out of him that can ride you really have to mix some good working blood in there.

Another problem I have with halter horses altogether. If they are the best halter horse then 99% of the time they aren't worth a crap under saddle. I don't get that, if they win at halter thats saying that it is the way a QH should be built , the way they should look.But yet if they look like that then you can't use them for the purpose QH's were bred for. It just doesn't make sense to me and totally pisses me off.
But anyway, I could fuss about that all day, thats something I just don't understand!!!

HMMPH. And some of ya'll think Kinz is all fluff.

You go girl.

Although my breed doesn't have HYPP, I read a lot about it because all the local horse papers are primarily QH leaning. And, even though we won't be breeding Molly, we will test her, as we don't know the pedigree of her QH sire. Anyway, read an article in THE HORSE a couple months ago about how many horses that are H/N are still affected although not so badly, although a few have died from the disease. So another reason not to breed for carriers. Also, HYPP isn't just present in QH's but also in related breeds such as Paints and "new" Appaloosas.

Arabs have a serious genetic disease that kills affected foals, SCID. By the time it was understood to be genetic, it was in most lines. Today, it is considered completely unethical to knowing breed carriers and all stallions are tested for it. Of course, Arabs only register about 9,000 foals a year so it's lots easier to keep track of than the millions of QH born each year.

Yes with paints, and App's breeding more and more QH blood into the breeds HYPP has made its way into them.
And thats very sad.
But with paints and app's for so long people have only bred for color, they are now trying to "breed-up" by throwing some nice QH blood into them. I have noticed with the App's that more and more winners out there have little to no color at all.
Defeats the whole point of being an App., same with the paints,. although I don't follow the paints as well as i do App's and QH, I'm not sure how much their color has declined.

I don't keep up with all the Appy show rules but do know that the reason they allow non colored horses to show is that an Appaloosa has more than color to be a true Appy. That's the striped hooves, white sclera shows, mottled skin, and ratty mane and tail. So a horse without color that has most of the other characteristics is still an Appy. And the foundation Appys were not built like halter QH's. There's a movement among Appy breeders to get back to the foundation stock, just as among QH and Arab people. Still, after all the years of trying to "improve" the breed with QH and other breeds added to the bloodlines, there is known HYPP and who knows whatever else in there now.

Exactly!!!
Now see, thats what I don't get. They do want solids to be able to win and partcipate just as good as the coloreds, which is true, they should be allowed I think, buuuut when they say its to show they are "just as much an App." it is wrong, *if* they have no color because they have so much QH blood in them.
QH and App's really are very different, I think most people see an App. as a QH with spots, but they are so different, with different personalitys as well as conformation.

The breed has changed so much from what the Indians had orginally bred them for.
I know that when the cowboys came in and killed off then best of the best App stock so the indians wouldn't have as good of a chance in battle, and hunting that the App's took a nose-dive in their overall quality. The Indians weren't able to breed back-up to what they had had before because times had changed before they could even meet their goal again.
So for so many years App's were very poorly bred, and JUST for color. Now to do a "quick-fix" they just crossed them over with the QH, which is cheating, and not at all sticking with the true-App characteristics.

It sucks really, just to see what man can to do a breed when not breeding for the original goals and purposes of the breed.

I hate seeing a QH with the App color place first in the App shows, or a QH with no color, with only the basic App requirements place first at an App show.
Makes you wonder what the head of the ApHA and the judges in the shows even know about the App breed.

Breeding stock Appys shouldn't be allowed to show IMO. They fit all criteria and not the pattern, if I am correct and following what you are talking about.

The reason I feel they shouldn't be allowed to show is because they aren't a good breed representation(as far as the general ignorant public goes,) they are breeding stock, otherwise they'd have a different title if not solid colored, and I hate to say it, color is an all-important trademark in the breed. The breeding stock(solids) do not fit that criteria.

A HUGE pet peeve of mine are people who "breed Appaloosas" but have these half-breeds, and breed it to another spotted monstrosity and sell these horses as "Appaloosas" no papers.

You know Appys that aren't loud colored often don't get color until they're 4 or 5 years old. So I can agree with showing noncolored Appys up to, say, 4 years. But I agree that breeding stock color breeds should be just that. Of course, that often means they just end up at slaughter as you can get BS paint yearlings around here for $50.

I understand what you mean, especially in the Roans.

I think it's sad how lovely breeding stock horses are sold for so little to slaughter(but so are broken down racehorses), but people are greedy, it's a form of culling. It's not so easy to dispose of a horse, as it is a dog, cat or small animal. Limited options, I suppose. A breeding stock mare(I wouldn't agree with breeding a stud, unless extremely exceptional, few are, geld it)can be used around the farm, for trails, in fun shows, and as lesson horses, not to mention broodmare material/babysitter! It's a waste, but it's the way the business is, and if it's continually kept a dirty little secret, then that's how it will progress.