Rowdy?

[JennyB]

Not sure if Shetlands have the dwarf gene-maybe, but it would seem more likey that because of the instense in-breeding using tiny Shetlands to develop Miniatures that is maybe were the dwarf gene started...just my view

As for Rowdy....I am sure that some hanky panky might have been in play here so we will probably NEVER know for sure who was his true sire and his true dam................. With that said, IF he was sired by Kewpie's Sun(which in both the ASPC and AMHR there is NO Kewpie's Sun), but Mr. Allmand was using a chestnut pinto stallion 100% Arenosa, but not bred by Mrs. Barrett, but by J.A. Stovall(whom she bought stock from). The reason he is "considered" 100% Arenosa is because of one mare who was sired by Kewpie Doll's Sun, which was Kewpie Doll's Sugar Babe-she foaled 9 foals for Mrs. Barrett who are/were 100% Arenosa....SOOOO if Rowdy was sired by Kewpie Doll's Sun and NOT Kewpie's Sun...then his sire is 100% Arenosa and 100% American Shetland Pony sired by Kewpie Doll's Oracle-black pinto out of Topper's Larigo Starlight-sorrel(Larigo's Topper-red sorrel and owned by Vern Brewer x Larigo's 2nd Starlight-red chestnut by King Larigo 2nd-black x Flora Silver-silver dapple by Silver Crescent-silver dapple x Priscilla-black by King Larigo-black)

As to Rowdy's dam....I have no idea, but if he was purchased by Mr. Norman of Lazy N Stables it may have been likely a 100% American Shetland pony mare was used. There are some lines who have sabino in them, but am not sure about the overo pattern or splash white pattern as we have NO picturers of what these so called pinto's looked like.

I imagine that maybe Rowdy's heritage was not fully explained because at the time he was purchased by NFC, the Miniature BOOM was on and the fact that they wanted NOOOO Pony Blood to be "typed down" on papers, that many, many, many Shetland pedigree's were dumped into the trash!!! I have NO DOUBTS about this... I figure there ARE folks who know but will not say, why I have no idea because it is pretty much a fact that all Miniatures come from American Shetland Ponies....

My views

yeeHaa...flame suit ON

Jenny

Lewella are you next???

 

[Sue_C.]

SueC-miniature horses are a height breed, unlike others. That means they have a lot of different ancestry and that is why there are SO many different types of minis. The reason you see the nice hooky necks and dainty heads are because breeders have incorporated different breeds and downsized. My great grandparents went out and bought backyard ponies-they were absolutely gorgeous but had zero pedigree and who knows what sort of breeding they had behind them and those horses started there miniature horse program. I absolutely loved what they did. They chose backyard ponies with qualities that they liked and downsized creating some truly stunning miniature horses. There are World Grand Champions with their breeding who can verify that.

The great thing about minis is that you CAN take those high action horses and try to downsize to be able to call the horse a miniature. You can get a drafty type, quarter type, arabian type, etc. It's all up to the breeder. YOU can breed whatever you want and others can breed whatever they want. THe minis have it all. There really should be no argument about whether or not people should breed high action into the minis. If the horse is conformationally sound and meets the miniature horse height requirements, why not?

Pretty much any breed has it's types, and they all started out from many other breeds. Heck, Quarterhorses were simply a horse that could do a quarter mile at a set time limit...they still get outcroppings of appaloosa and paints out of registered quarterhorse stock, but they kept the high stepping horses out of most breeds because, well, personally I thenk like myself, they found them less athletic...not more so.

I see Appaloosas that are very old type...those big bull-doggy horses, then you have the longer leaner race types...and that goes for quarterhorses too. They have now a foundation quarterhorse, which people are trying to build up...they are horses who haven't been touched by the "improvements" brought on by outcrossing with thoroughbreds. Many breeds who allowed too much outcrossing are finding out that the originals are getting lost...I just do not want this to happen.

BUT...as there are many who do want to change what we have, rather than go onward to a breed that already does what they want...we will HAVE to go to typews in the miniatures as well. I don't think it fair for the high stepping horses to take over the entire show ring just because they are popular...TODAY... Fads have ruined more than one breed...and it takes awhile to get back on track, I would hate to see this happen and lose that nice long sweeping ground covering trot that I so love to see in my little horses. At least if we too have a foundation miniature type, we can keep that.

 

[Minimor]

Sue, I think you misunderstood what I said. I meant that if breeders all took the attitude that there's nothing to improve...way back 20-30 years ago...the Mini of today would be quite different from what it is. Yes, there are now Minis with long necks and refined bodies & long legs & nice action....because breeders over the last however many years have been breeding for those things, improving their horses from what they started with, tweaking conformation to get that long legged "horse" look rather than the shorter, stocky sort of "midget ponies" that the registry started out with. 30 years ago there were a good many Minis that were miniature "horse" in name only--if they were grown up to 15 hh size they wouldn't have looked like horses, they'd have looked like overgrown pit ponies. And for movement--there's nothing wrong with long, sweeping strides, but at the same time there's a difference (at least in my view) between long sweeping strides and that stiff legged, short strided action that so many Minis have! Some Minis do still have that sort of action, but not as many now as years back--and personally I'm very glad that some breeders did improve their stock to have that better movement. I don't care if they're popping above level, but I do like to see good hock flexion and some knee action.

I don't care if my Minis aren't trotting above level, but I'd rather have that than Minis that just do the stiff legged trot. And yeah, for bigger movement I have my ponies...American Shetlands because they are generally prettier than the Hackneys, plus are smaller than the hackneys, and move good enough for my liking. I have to say the Shetlands aren't all about the high action--they can do long and sweeping very well too. <VBG>

 

[Minimor]

Sorry, I missed this in my earlier post:

At least if we too have a foundation miniature type, we can keep that.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Type is very subjective, and not everyone is going to agree on exactly what type any horse is. Look at the American Shetlands. Yes, they have a Foundation division, but there are often complaints that certain ponies that show and win in Foundation are not truly Foundation type and should not be showing as Foundation. Others insist that those same ponies ARE exactly what Foundation type should be, and so they most certainly do belong in Foundation. Minis will be no different. If there were Foundation Mini classes, there would be complaints about how it wasn't fair that the winning pony at some show was off type and still won...and then movement...keep in mind that in the Foundation ponies, "Foundation" does not mean that the pony has lower movement than a Classic--some Foundation ponies are very good movers, complete with knee action. So, it's entirely possible that a Foundation Mini class could have some Minis that have some knee action--too much knee action for what some would like.

 

[JennyB]

Sue, I think you misunderstood what I said. I meant that if breeders all took the attitude that there's nothing to improve...way back 20-30 years ago...the Mini of today would be quite different from what it is. Yes, there are now Minis with long necks and refined bodies & long legs & nice action....because breeders over the last however many years have been breeding for those things, improving their horses from what they started with, tweaking conformation to get that long legged "horse" look rather than the shorter, stocky sort of "midget ponies" that the registry started out with. 30 years ago there were a good many Minis that were miniature "horse" in name only--if they were grown up to 15 hh size they wouldn't have looked like horses, they'd have looked like overgrown pit ponies. And for movement--there's nothing wrong with long, sweeping strides, but at the same time there's a difference (at least in my view) between long sweeping strides and that stiff legged, short strided action that so many Minis have! Some Minis do still have that sort of action, but not as many now as years back--and personally I'm very glad that some breeders did improve their stock to have that better movement. I don't care if they're popping above level, but I do like to see good hock flexion and some knee action.

I don't care if my Minis aren't trotting above level, but I'd rather have that than Minis that just do the stiff legged trot. And yeah, for bigger movement I have my ponies...American Shetlands because they are generally prettier than the Hackneys, plus are smaller than the hackneys, and move good enough for my liking. I have to say the Shetlands aren't all about the high action--they can do long and sweeping very well too. <VBG>

I AGREE

Jenny

 

[Sue_C.]

I know we cannot judge what type a foundation would be...that is something that cannot be changed...but we could say foundation is a mini with no outcrossing in it's pedigree since "this date", and go onward from there.

I am not saying there is nothing to improve...

Yes, there are now Minis with long necks and refined bodies & long legs & nice action....because breeders over the last however many years have been breeding for those things, improving their horses from what they started with, tweaking conformation to get that long legged "horse" look rather than the shorter, stocky sort of "midget ponies" that the registry started out with. 30 years ago

but I DO think it posible to keep going as we have....improving within our breed. Why not? It has worked so far.
But...like I say, if there is something good to come from outcrossing...let it be done in such a way that there is a niche for all the horses to be competative. We would need to have our horses put into catigories such as the Shetlands, Welsh and probably many others have. Give us a section A-B-C whatever, and have like compete with like. I am only afraid that the big rage for the big lick will take over the showring, and our long strided minis will be left in the dirt. They don't deserve that, just because of a fad in type.

I know that you, Minimor appreciate the horses I am speaking of, but you know as well as I do how some will follow the leader into a fad and not look back at what they are losing...it only matters that they are catching up. We need to protect the breed from that, and making sections or catagoris NOW...before it is too late, is the only way I can see to ensure it.

 

[midnight star stables]

SueC-miniature horses are a height breed, unlike others. That means they have a lot of different ancestry and that is why there are SO many different types of minis. The reason you see the nice hooky necks and dainty heads are because breeders have incorporated different breeds and downsized. My great grandparents went out and bought backyard ponies-they were absolutely gorgeous but had zero pedigree and who knows what sort of breeding they had behind them and those horses started there miniature horse program. I absolutely loved what they did. They chose backyard ponies with qualities that they liked and downsized creating some truly stunning miniature horses. There are World Grand Champions with their breeding who can verify that.

The great thing about minis is that you CAN take those high action horses and try to downsize to be able to call the horse a miniature. You can get a drafty type, quarter type, arabian type, etc. It's all up to the breeder. YOU can breed whatever you want and others can breed whatever they want. THe minis have it all. There really should be no argument about whether or not people should breed high action into the minis. If the horse is conformationally sound and meets the miniature horse height requirements, why not?

Wow! What a post!

:yeah

Really, I couldn't have said it better myself!!!

Personally, I love the "extreme" minis, and that is just what I breed for! I have a FRAME OVERO mare being bred to a World Champion Harness Pony with "Shackney" bloodlines - because I can! How cool is that?? I can cross my two favorite things - Overo and Action - and still take pride in my registered show horse!

I also have a mini that looks just like a Thoroughbred, and another two like Morgans-(One a bit heavier style Morgan, the other more refined). And that's not it either! I have one that reminds me of a Mustang and another who is an Arabian style mare who has excelled in halter earning a HOF, National Top Tens and All-Star Top Tens. I ALSO have a 28 year old DRAFT type mini that was imported from Germany many many years ago! I like my herd, but what I like the most is how DIFFERENT it is! Some large breeding farms stamp their look on every horse/foal, (ex. Graham, Little Kings, Dun-Haven, Michigan, Establo, Buckeye, Rhapsody... just to name a few), however most farms have a combination of many bloodlines and have many different looks in there herd. I love how diverse our breed is!

On another note, I have a friend that has a minimal frame overo mare that is 100% pure falabella. The horse is a bay with a large star and snip, and has the classic blue eyes. This friend is all about the falabella bloodline, so has done her homework in finding good, pure falabella bloodlines.

What I don't get, coming from someone who loves frame, is why the confusion? Frame is just a colour, as any other. Both Shetlands and falabellas have pinto backgrounds, so why couldn't frame had been there from the start? Especially since frame is so very easily masked as a solid or as/with another colour. Just saying, But I think it's been there for a while, IMO.

Neat thread.

 

[midnight star stables]

After re-reading some of the last few posts, I was wondering if people really realize that there are FOUR "Types" of American Shetlands? Foundation, Classic, Modern Pleasure and Modern.

Only two of those types have horses that often break level/above level at a trot, and because they have hackney bloodlines in their past, they are usually larger in size. THESE ponies are NOT normally the Shetlands that are used to make ASPC/AMHR horses! I can only think of maybe 10, that are ASPC/AMHR and in the breeding pool. That is NOT going to kill the breed IMO.

Most ASPC/AMHR breeding farms are using Foundation and Classic lines, which I would say, on a whole, are VERY similar to our miniatures! There are a few farms that have extreme lines, but most classics are similar to minis.... And I wonder why? Somewhere, many many years ago, they all trace back to the same breeding. Classics and Foundations that I have seen, have strong movement with long strides. As a driving horse, they often have beautiful long, high set neck, which IMO makes them more "showy", however their strides are much more long then high. I really don't see much different in these Shetlands and the minis.

Also remember that not all Shetlands are "show shetlands", just as not all minis are show minis. Some of the shetlands used for breeding ASPC/AMHR look no different then AMHR/AMHA horses. And I have seen people buy ASPC/AMHR ponies that really look no different then any other plain mini. Just because it HAS ASPC papers, it doesn't make it an amazing mini.

The number of hundreds of minis that have poor conformation, glaring faults or ugly traits are out there EVERYwhere! There are many many many stallions that should be gelded. There are many mares that should not be bred. There are many unknowable people out there breeding minis, because they can. No, I'm not saying MY horses or MY type of horse is ANY better then anyone else - That is NOT what I am saying. But I love seeing the breed improve, as it does each year in huge jumps. It is so neat to see high headed minis with real movement(be it a long stride, or with knee action). I love the nice powerful hips and sloping shoulders that have a neck that ties in well. I like seeing good teeth. Whether it's from better breeding or new shetland bloodline, I don't overly care. I'm just happy to see our breed improve in Conformation!

 

[Sue_C.]

After re-reading some of the last few posts, I was wondering if people really realize that there are FOUR "Types" of American Shetlands? Foundation, Classic, Modern Pleasure and Modern.
Only two of those types have horses that often break level/above level at a trot, and because they have hackney bloodlines in their past, they are usually larger in size. THESE ponies are NOT normally the Shetlands that are used to make ASPC/AMHR horses! I can only think of maybe 10, that are ASPC/AMHR and in the breeding pool. That is NOT going to kill the breed IMO.

Well then, you should KNOW exactly WHAT I am trying sooo very hard to SAY... BECAUSE there are four types of Shetland that can be and are being infused into the miniature breed, WE TOO must designate types into catagories. WHY is that so difficult for me to get that across??

Shetlands that are used to make ASPC/AMHR horses! I can only think of maybe 10, that are ASPC/AMHR and in the breeding pool. That is NOT going to kill the breed IMO.

Right...only 10 YOU personally can think of...and everyone else knows of 5-10 more...or just Take half of that 10 you know of, and breed them, and thier foals...over 10-15 years...get my drift??

Isn't it better to be pro-active, than scratch your head in ten years and say..."Gee, maybe she had a point"?

 

[~Lisa~]

That is something that perplexes me...a lot. IF the mini is "nothing other than a small shetland"...with all that shetland blood...with supposidly no dwarfism in the shetland "breed"...where did it come from?

LOL I have said the same thing many a time I just do not see how it can be both ways Minis are Shetlands and have a majority of Shetland influence (which I do not deny) and love to listen to the OH NO NOT FROM OUR PONIES excuses LOL guess that dwarf gene just arrived on pixie dust sent from Queen Fairy and sprinkled on the minis

I have ponies and I love ponies but this myth that ponies are totally and only improving the breed is just that.

Sorry folks tons of crap being bred with ASPC papers simply cause they can get R papers as well.

Not every ASPC pony is wonderful and will add great things to the mini breed in fact far from it. LIke any other breed there is good and bad and the ponies are no different. There are plenty of ponies out there being bred that should not be-just like the minis so not everything will improve the breed it takes more then a set of ASPC papers to do that

 

[Minimor]

Sorry folks tons of crap being bred with ASPC papers simply cause they can get R papers as well.

Now this is so very true! So many people believe that the animal is superior just because it has that second set of papers—those ASPC papers ensure quality, and so they will spend a very large amount of money to buy that double registered horse. They figure that if they have two ASPC/AMHR horses to breed together, the resulting ASPC/AMHR foal will be worth so much money, far more than if that foal were AMHR only. They’re so busy judging papers that they apparently forget to consider the QUALITY of that double registered animal they’re paying so much money for!

Honestly, there are double registered horses out there that look exactly like many AMHR-only horses, and there are double registered horses out there that are far, far worse in conformation than a good many AMHR-only horses. An AMHR/ASPC horse with a poor croup and resulting poor movement—and yes, I could name quite a few of those!!!—is no better than an AMHR horse with that same croup and poor movement, and is certainly not as good as an AMHR-only horse with a good croup and good movement…and yet there are those who would turn down that AMHR-only horse with the good croup and good movement in favor of the ASPC/AMHR horse with the poor croup & poor movement.

I maintain that adding type divisions to Miniatures isn’t going to help anything or anyone. People complain now that it isn’t fair that their AMHR horses get beat by the AMHR/ASPC ponies. I assure you that if the type divisions were brought into AMHR, those same people would then be complaining that it’s not fair that their Foundation type AMHR horses get beat by the OFF TYPE ones that get to show Foundation because of their pedigree (the right number of generations without any “outside” blood) but don’t happen to LOOK right for Foundation type. And for sure those will exist—I’m sure there will be plenty of them!!! “outside breeding”….so Foundation would exclude all “grade” hardships, all AMHA hardships and all ASPC hardships? Yet Foundation would still include certain double registered horses that are 5th and 6th (or more) generation AMHR/ASPC…just because they have ASPC papers, they wouldn’t be excluded from Foundation because they’ve also had AMHR papers for 5+ generations back. I think that’s fair, but I’m sure others would say otherwise. Yep, I believe that making AMHR into 2 or more types would add few benefits to the breed, and would add a lot more complaining, a lot of squabbling and a whole lot more classes and expenses for shows that have to double or triple their class list to accommodate the various divisions.

I doubt there will ever be all that many Modern ponies that get AMHR registered--the Moderns do tend to be taller and most won't fit in. If some Moderns do turn out to be small enough to measure into AMHR, then I have no problem with them being registered AMHR. (As long as they are measured honestly and truly do fit into AMHR!)

What I'd really hate to see is the rule regarding no shoes allowed for AMHR. If ever that was changed so that Minis can be shown with shoes--that is something I'd be opposed to, because then you really have a playing field that isn't level. That would really be the kiss of death for showing as we know it now. I really have no worries about how "unfair" it is to show AMHR against AMHR/ASPC, and I say that as someone who has both AMHR and ASPC registered animals, but none that are AMHR/ASPC--my ponies are all too tall to be AMHR.

 

[~Lisa~]

I agree with Minimor I do not think it is unfair to show against ASPC/R horses I do however in the long run think it is very short sighted of our breed as a whole to try and mimick or copy or turn our horses into what is now seen in the classic and or Modern world of ASpc

It seems great now for that market in ASPC that is picking up and booming compared to years past but in the long run I do believe it will hurt the bread and butter of our registry AMHR

I hope I am wrong but I do see it changing who and how many decide to stay and play in a "smaller" ASPC ring

JMO though take it for what it is worth lol