Befuddled and Bemused

26 December 2007 5 Comments

I’m not a breeder and I don’t play one on T.V., but I do read breeding forums. Not because foals are cute, but because buried in all the “what stallion would you breed this mare to?” and “what stallion do you recommend to improve the canter” and “tell me about this pedigree” posts is an awful lot of information on conformation, movement, and evaluation of the same. Everything has to be read with a grain of salt and a general understanding of the cast of characters (e.g. there are stallion owners who seem to think their stallion can improve everything from sickle hocks to the price of milk in China), but there’s information in there if you’re willing to read what people are saying, look at the pictures they are posting, and think a little.

So. In my random reading and such, I came across the Georgian Grande registry. You can google it, if you like. They have a website; I can’t say I’m inclined to link to it.

They are registering Saddlebred/draft crosses. I don’t really know enough about Saddlebreds to know if that’s a logical cross, so I kept my skepticism in check and went to look at some of the pictures.

And here is where I am befuddled and a bit bemused: what is the point in a registry where some of the horses look like Saddlebreds and some of the horses look like drafts? Even I can see there’s a huge difference between the sky-high head and hocks-out-behind stance of the Saddlebred and the big drafty horse with the low-set neck and hocks more-or-less underneath the horse. The only thing in common is the papers, as far as I can see.

If you’re a new registry, don’t you want some consistency in the horses you’re showing? Pictures that will illustrate your breed standard? I read the breed standard and looked at the pictures, and I’m still not sure what this cross is supposed to look like. Apparently, it can look like anything at all, as long as your papers say the horse is 25-75% Saddlebred and the rest is draft blood.

I’m still not sure why this registry was formed, which makes me suspect it’s part of the whole Labradoodle “designer animal” craze. With the exception of the jumping pictures (every jump I saw looked downright uncomfortable to ride), the horses look as suited to what they are doing as any other draft cross. The USDF breed results show year-end champions from 2007 generally in the low-to-mid 60s, which is respectable enough but not high enough to make me think of the breed as a likely pick for my next dressage star. 

I don’t know what to make of USDF having breed results, although from the USDF website it appears the breed registry (and not the USDF) is the one providing the year-end awards. Fascinating. Maybe I should scope out the year-end awards for each breed and limit my horse search to the breed with the best awards. I wonder what it takes to get on the USDF’s participating organization list. Could the Blue-Eyed Horse Association be added? Inquiring minds want to know.

I guess I don’t understand why Saddlebred/draft crosses are suddenly a breed unto themselves. I thought breeds were supposed to be consistent in type, with similar conformation. Am I missing something? I’m not saying it’s a bad cross, since most of the horses on the site look decent and willing enough, I just don’t get the “breed” part of it. Like I said: I’m bemused and befuddled.

Horses and Riding, Generally Horse Related

Comments

There are 5 comments for this entry. Add yours.

Rising Rainbow says 27 December 2007

I think that anyone who wants to start a registry can and they can make the criteria anything they want it to be. If you can get like minded people together and someone will do the work, they can print paper and keep track and you’re off.

Registrations of Anglo or Half Arabians is done with the Arabian Horse Association. The only criteria for a half to be registered is one parent must be a registered purebred, for the Anglo the horse must have at least 25% thoroughbred blood.

As for recognition with USDF I think if you come up with the money to sign your breed up with them, then you are covered. Money always talks.

I have no clue about crossing saddlebreds to drafts but I do know that other breeds are doing it for warmblood types. There is a good market for Arabians crossed with drafts if you know the market and how to promote that is. But there is a trainer in my town that makes her living mostly off of commissions from selling that cross. She’s doing better that I am.

Halt Near X says 27 December 2007

I have nothing against draft crosses, as long as people are saying they are draft crosses. It’s this apparently compulsive need to cross two breeds and call it a whole ‘nother breed that makes my head spin.

At least the Anglo Arab—and, for that matter, Appendix QH—registries are saying “these horses are Arab (or QH) crosses.” Not “they are a breed unto themselves, and lo, behold the feathers upon their fetlocks and how they swayeth in the breeze.” Oh, wait, sorry, that’s the Gypsy Vanner rhetoric.

Incidentally: “Irish cob.” Not “Fancy, $50,000-worth of horse flesh.” “Irish cob.” See what a name and marketing can do?

Sigh.

Do you know there’s a registry for spotted haflingers?

Double sigh.

If it helps, I’m equally on the fence about the American Warmblood Society. Again: consistency. Waiting to see it.

But you’re right—anyone with the desire to do so can create a registry, and, really, kudos to people for being passionate enough about their particular cross to want the headache of maintaining a registry.

The fact that it gives me a headache is between me and the bottle of Aleve on my nightstand. And this blog. And everyone who reads this blog. All twelve of you. Heh.

Oh Horse Feathers says 30 December 2007

HA~ Make that 13 who read your blog

It sure seems like there are a whole lot of people out there who have too much time on their hands creating “Designer Breeds”, or is that just my imagination there?

The only consistency I saw on that site (among others honestly,) was the INconsistency. Confused me more than anything….

Ah well- each unto their own right? At least “they” keep life interesting for the rest of us!

Halt Near X says 30 December 2007

Exactly. It’s the inconsistency that gets me, too.

If the photos had shown horses consistent in type, I probably wouldn’t have posted anything about it.

And, you know, honestly—I don’t think there was a horse pictured on that site that I would kick out of my barn. If I had a barn.

It’s the calling this cross a breed, at this stage, that escapes me.

Except for one other thought that needs to simmer for a while, and then I’ll post it as a follow-up.

McFawn says 12 January 2008

If you also notice at their website there are NO second generation Georgian Grandes.  Everything is a direct cross.  The real test of a breed is if it can stand up to second and third gen breedings…georgian grands to georgian grands and maybe more saddlebred/draft thrown in everyone once in a while to maintain type. ( like warmblood regristries throw in TB) 

And you’re right.  All the crosses are decent, but there is a big difference in the “heaviness” factor.  The ones I like have the appealing long “american” looking faces of a Saddlebred with just a little more roundness.  But then there are those that are pretty coarse and heavy-headed. 

It’s not a breed if you don’t have any second gens.

Add Your Comment

Remember me?

Notify me when others comment?