Blog
Political correctness is going to hurt horse breeding in the end
I saw a forum post recently where the poster said something like “I should apologize for stereotyping the entire breed…“
I actually laughed. Good thing I wasn’t at work. But seriously: breeds are stereotypes. That’s the entire point of a breed. It defines what the horses should look like, how they should move, sometimes even what their temperaments should be like. Breed requirements basically say, “When you think of an X horse, you should think of a horse like this.“
Of course every horse is an individual and no horse is going to exactly meet the breed standards, but when people reach a point where they are selling X breed horses and their marketing tactic is “these horses are nothing like what you’d expect of X breed!“... well, then what’s the point of calling them X breed? Similarly, when someone says “X breed typically does not do well in Y discipline,“ this is not mean or offensive when X breed’s standards and Y discipline’s standards are complete opposites. Really. It is okay for a breed to be good at one thing and not good at another. It is not slamming a breed to point out they are not built to excel at the highest levels of a particular sport.
Most gypsy vanners will not make great cutting horses. I am not a great, big meanie for saying that. It’s biomechanics. (Someone is going to go out and find a photo of a gypsy vanner cutting to prove me wrong. That’s nice. I’ll be more impressed when you can provide me with as many photos of gypsy vanners cutting as I can provide you with quarter horses cutting. Then we can start talking about breed suitability.)
I think a horse’s breed should tell you something about their conformation, movement, and temperament, and when it doesn’t, the breeder is not doing their job with respect to their breed organization. I am all for looking at the horse in front of you as an individual, and being open to the possibility that the horse in front of you may not exactly match the breed’s standards, but I still would not go buy a draft horse and challenge my Thoroughbred-owning friends to a race. Well, maybe I would; but I wouldn’t whine when I don’t win and then claim it’s because the racing officials are prejudiced against drafts.
(I realize I haven’t really gotten around to the post title, but I do think this insistence on never, ever suggesting X breed may not excel in every discipline it enters is going to hurt breeds, because people will lose track of the long-term goals with respect to the breed as a whole. You’ll end up with… Quarter Horses, as an example. Put a halter-bred QH and an English Pleasure-bred QH in the same ring and explain to me how a single breed is producing two such extreme types. Don’t you sometimes feel like the AQHA has become more of a bloodline-tracking registry than an actual breed with well-defined and adhered-to standards?)
« What is it with customer service? I am only going to get myself in trouble »
Comments
Your right on with this post. Although I’d love to see a gypsy vanner cutting cows. I don’t know why people are so sensitive about breeds being breeds. If I were to go buy a warmblood for a specific purpose then I would expect him to have the correct breeding for that purpose. Nowadays everyone has to be so politically correct instead of calling them as you see them so to speak.
A horse should be bred to be what his breed requires that he be, the end.
You are right about the QH example too. We have 3 QH’s at the moment all in jumping and dressage training. The only purebred QH/mare Dusty is the one I would use for any Western riding event if that’s what I did. She’s perfect for that discipline. My other two - Blue has some thoroughbred bloodlines and he is an excellent hunter/jumper, and Donnie is a QH/Percheron cross if you can believe that, he may do some hunters but would probably greain dressage too. There is not a chance these two would do cutting etc…
People say QHs aren’t good at dressage? Hmm. I know you have to be particular about the type of QH you pick (insert rant, again, on the plethora of types within a single breed), but I’ve always thought they were a great choice. You don’t get the showy gaits that are popular right now, but you can find correct movement and a lot of sitting power.
Interesting. Did I just fall victim to my own “stop excusing every breed” comments? Whoops.
greyhorsematters, you know, I went googling for a gypsy vanner cutter, but all I found was a reference on a gypsy vanner site saying there had been GVs who went cutting. See! I knew someone would claim they could do it! No pictures, though.
QH/Perchie crosses seem to be popular, actually. I’d assume something is working right in that particular cross.
On Aug 18, 2008, A Bay Horse said:
Thought provoking… Yes, I’ve observed that as well. I’ve seen posts online where someone suggests “Quarter Horses aren’t good at dressage.“ Then there will be many angry follow-ups with examples of QH doing dressage. I’ve known a few myself, and own a low-level QH. But I don’t think it’s their specialty, more like an anomaly. I wouldn’t suggest my warmblood would be a great cutting horse. It seems like people’s emotions can be more sensitive like that online.
And yes, I agree with what you said at the bottom. It seems like as the QH breed has gotten so large, it has become less distinct and there are different “types” of QH now.