Volante Volare E.L.

[cristy]

Volante Volare E.L. This beautiful seal bay is 15/16 Puerto Rican. He is PPR 5 generations back. He has flawless conformation, and is a vision of the Pure Puerto Rican horse today. He has the potential to better the next generation. His gait is natural, even and flawless. He is the product of 20 some years of carefully planning and selectively breeding. I feel with all my heart this horse needs to be recognized as a PPR horse and bred, bred alot. He has so much to add to the gene pool!

Tell me how you feel.
http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q310/cristy5513/zonapics321.jpg
http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q310/cristy5513/volante.jpg

[Kerry W]

If he's not PPR, he's not PPR. Doesn't mean he's not a great horse, just means he's not PPR. You can't change that reality. He is stunning! :D

[Candice Burger]

Actually, I think this is a topic worth discussing about what is "pure".

Afterall, there is NOTHING that says a PPR is a PPR except pedigree and pedigrees have been made up. I can list several influential "PPR" horses with this type of background. And whenever a particularly spectacular horse comes on the scene his pedigree and ancestry is questioned.

Cupido has no verification about his pedigree. Myself and others are working on this.
Cibuco, Jr.
Botafogo

Cuentas Claras lineage was questioned and still is
Privilegio is currently questioned
Labriego is questioned
Replica de Majestuoso is questioned

I think Cristy makes a great point. If the horse looks PPR, acts PPR, produces like a PPR, has the phenotype, gait, genetics of a PPR--is it or isn't it a PPR?

[PasoJoy]

I don't know anything about genetics, but I also owned a horse once that was 15/16th Arabian....she couldn't be registered as pure because in her pedigree back so many generations, What, 7 or 8, there was a bloodline that was only part Arab....well....this horse was an Arab. No matter what it said on paper, and I always thought it was kind of stupid to say that no matter how many times this horse was crossed with a 'purebred' that the offspring could never be 'pure'.....
I totally agree with Candice and Christy....the horse should be registered as a PPR... ;-)

[Kerry W]

I doubt PPRPF breeders who have passed up good mares with non PPR bloodlines, because they breed PPRPF horses would agree. There is a difference between the horses listed with "questionable" heritage, and a horse that has a known Colombian horse in the pedigree.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen horses for sale that were listed as PPRPF, only to check their pedigree and find Hilachas in there somewhere...sometimes more than once! Wouldn't it be a bit misleading to tell people he is PURE Puerto Rican, when he's got a Colombian line?

He is what he is....if he produces well, then isn't that enough? Would he produce better if you could call him PPRPF? No. He produces what he produces. To some it doesn't make any difference, but to those who have put all that energy into preserving the PPRPF...it DOES matter. ;-)

[LynnG]

Purests will say 100% blood. I have a 15/16 Colombian, but she still has Marichal way back there..and is not a full Colombian. Its not relative to what the quality of the horse actually is by % of this and that country of origin. That is record keeping. Phentotype can eb of a Puerto Rican type or a Colombian type...but generally there are multiple phenotypes and lumping all as one or th other is not the best way....but characterizing as per bloodline strain phenotype.

[PasoJoy]

But how can the 'purists' be sure about the 'pure' blood when some of the pedigrees are questionable????

[Blair]

Well sometimes there can be more to it when questions arise about the PPR or nonPPR. My mare is 7/8 PPR and the 1/8 is a mare, Morning Star, from another island (DR or Cuba - can't remember now). There was some discussion that most of the horses from the island were actually imported from PR but there is no trackable registry so no luck! Zona helped me with working on this and pointed out that we are able to bring horses in from PR with only 2 or 3 generations on paperand/or many questionable horses in the backgroun yet they are automatically PPR but horses with 6-8 generations and one question that far back are not included.

I understand it is a daunting task to run a registry and I don't begrudge those that have to draw the line in the sand and make the calls. It is just food for thought.

[Heidi]

I think it comes down to the use of the word "pure".

PPRPF is 100% Puerto Rican Paso Fino. My filly Q is 7/8 PR and 1/8 Col. She is what she is, and she is not PPR.

Take a glass of water. It is 100% water. Add some milk. It is no longer "pure", is it? No matter how much water you continue to add for dilution, there will always be that bit of milk in it.

[JennLM]

I can kind of relate it to our wolfdogs. No matter how much wolf is in them if there is any dog blood in them, they are still wofdogs of a high content but not, a wolf.

[Candice Burger]

Kerry, I'm not talking about a piece of paper that "says" a horse is from Hilachas. Without substantial proof and there is NONE, it could be any horse from any breed.

Look at Capuchino. Ochoa was also known to take a mare to several stallions in her heat cycle and then "claim" the sire as a particular horse based on what?

Then the rumors abound about PPR horses used in Colombia and about Colombian horses used in PR with offspring claimed/registered as PPR. It happened and is happening. There's more to this than a piece of paper or DNA parent verification, which is not that old. Policy and practice dictated what was registered as what NOT a pedigree. The deception of who's who in deep and very entrenched in folk lore NOT facts.

How did the "breed" start? How old is it really? Today PPR breeders of well-renown reputations say today's PPR phenotype is not the same as it was in their day, which hasn't been more than 30 years ago.

Kerry what you fail to recognize and most PPR breeders do in the United States is those so called PPRs had made up pedigrees too. ;-) Some of the same people claiming "preservation of the breed" are the same that contributed to the deception of what was "pure" to begin with. Many of these horses were NOT considered PPR and now they are? Why? A piece of paper? Come on, no on can be that naive to believe a "breed" is founded on that.

That is one of the issues with breeding today. I'm supposed to look at a paper to say the horse in front of me has the phenotype of a PPR? Look at Replica de Majestuoso, a BF champion in PR, with a phenotype that is NOT typical of PPR. Neither is Labriego. Cristy's horse, I bet has better phentoype for a PPR horse than either one of these two horses.

So then comes in the question of variability from the standard phenotype. It's ok to have a horse not look like a PPR because the paper says he is. I mean isn't that what USA PPR breeders are doing? Are they going to PR to see the phenotype of the horse or basing it on word of mouth, a few pics and a few minutes of video? Common lore says don't trust a PPR pedigree (in PR) beyond the 1970s. And why is that? Because many COLs were used and then the horse claimed to be pure Puerto Rican with no documentation. The simple fact that horses from Colombia were imported and used makes any horse after a certain timeline questionable about his heritage.

But then can't that be said for Dulce Sueno? As a "purist", wouldn't the person want that question answered too before proclaiming a PPR?

For all those who depend on putting all of their eggs in the "pure" basket, better know the breed pretty darn good. ;-)

[Linda Y]

What a beautiful horse. He LOOKS PPR. Which horse has the Colombian?
He has my favorite bloodlines in the world. And he looks like a big boy, too. How tall is he?

[Candice Burger]

Go all the way back to the Eblis daughter, Promesa

http://pasoregistry.com/db/Tree.asp?ID=92755

Rey Rojo has a dubious pedigree; Dije is a male not a female. However, the rule of thumb is a horse born before 1970 can be presumed "pure" or more properly, "native" to that country. So, Rey Rojo would be considered a Puerto Rican horse. The question of purity is an arbitrary decision. If Rey Rojo cannot trace his lineage or didn't display good phenotype then he could have been what was called a criollo and not a Puerto Rican paso fino. Again, the distinction is NOT about gait nor country of origin but what was considered the correct phenotypic expression.

This goes back to what I said about Cupido and his lack of pedigree. Inspite of this, he was received as a great example of Puerto Rican paso fino, competed, won, and bred to "pure" PR mares. Promesa de Cupido is an example of this. http://pasoregistry.com/db/Tree.asp?ID=75155 Here Yegua Eastern is dubios because she is a mare from Eastern sugar plantation that imported horses from the USA for riding mounts. Popular story has it, the farm manager began breeding Nochebuena to some mares to help "improve" the stock and the owners went ballistic about using a paso fino stallion on the mares. So who knows? And WOW look at all the "blank" spaces in that "pure" pedigree, hmmm.....

After much research and questioning, no one can verify Cupido's pedigree, yet in the last inteview by Don Cunda, he said Cupido was the BEST horse he had ever trained and ridden. Cupido's phenotype represents one that is "typical" but not predominant for a Puerto Rican Paso Fino.

Pedigrees were slapped on horses as a method of convenience and to provide creditibility for showing or breeding (for profit). It's not unique to Puerto Rico. There's plenty of stories of horses stolen of great quality that "disappeared" with no record of production. Then suddenly horses appear with great attributes tracing to horses "on paper" that many question the ancestors' ability to produce a horse of that quality.

When talking about "pure" one can only go a few generations where good documentation and parentage verification has been performed. Then skip a few decades back to the late 1960's before import/export became common place. And with that, don't go by a pedigree to determine ancestry. Pedigree study in paso finos remains mystical and serves as an intellectual excercise not as a document of fact.

[Candice Burger]

The more I observe the changes in metrics that determine phenotype the more I'm convinced that the genetics of the COL and PR horses are more similar than less.

I'm seeing expressions in COL horses particularly in the rear mechanics that I didn't think they would ever acquire and same goes for some PR horses. Although still not exactly the "same", the response has been extremely quick, just a matter of generations.

So, I'm less convinced about purity in genetics and more convinced about purity in the sense of phenotype.

As TerryW puts it more aptly, type to type breeding to get true type offspring seems to be more critical than if the horse is from a particular country.

[Kerry W]

Hellooooooo!!!! We're talking about the real world here...not that perfect "should be" place, where all of the bones have been dug up and DNA'd, the pedigrees have been verified and documented, the registries all changed, and all of our registration papers replaced with the correct versions. Is this thing on???? :shock:

Maybe they should change their name to "Close Enough To Pure Puerto Rican Paso Fino To Call It Good". Sort of takes the "Bling Bling" out of it, but that way more people can own one, and the prices will come down. :lol:

Don't forget your shovel!! :D

[cristy]

First of all he is not my horse, I have nothing to gain in promoting him, he belongs to Jim Thomas, and is boarded at Rocky Top Stables.

secondly pure? Didn't all the horses in the world come from the Arabians? If you say no matter how much water you add to the milk it is still water with milk who can you call any horse pure? at least you can look at his papers and know they are all Paso Finos which is more than I can say for others in question.

thirdly I know a few different PPR breeders who have been working hard to preserve the breed for DECADES who would be very happy if you could register his offspring PPR.

I believe this horse has the potential to do great things for the PPR breed, that is what difference it makes. He will better the next generation. He is the kind of stallion you can breed okay mares to and get GREAT offspring. The Volare bloodlines are strong and he has a strong concentration of them to pass on. There are some PR mares out there that desperately need to be bred to stallions like him.

[motorgypsy]

Our horses came from Barbs- another very ancient breed- who originated in the country next door - the Barbary coast of Africa .

We have one of those "almost PPR" paso finos - all PPR but Hilachas. But to me she is very different from other PPR's I've seen. But then there appear to be at least two quite different phenotypes - probably more - but what I've seen are the very large boned, massive, powerful PPR's and the small, refined, almost delicate strain like Frio Viento. We trail rode with one who couldn't have been more than 13 hands. Our PPR mare is a BRUTE. It does seem that today's show PPR's tend to be more similar to the larger boned type but since I haven't seen them in person in Puerto Rico I really don't know for sure. Candice???

And actually I saw a stallion at nationals a couple of years ago I would have sworn was a big PPR and his owner said he was pure Colombian. So I have to agree - both strains very likely have very similar genetic makeup.

Regarding PPR's - since we do now have DNA testing, assuming there are certain traits PPR breeders value, the only thing I can see that makes any sense at all is to try to concentrate those traits to retain a gene pool that makes these traits available to both PPR breeders and all paso fino breeders who want them in their breeding program regardless of authenticity of pedigree because we must have a starting point.

There are many PPR's I really don't like. They have no largo, no range of gait, are rawboned, the gait is not particularly smooth and they aren't very attractive to look at. They really shouldn't be used in breeding PPR's unless they have something else very special, like a genius IQ or live to 100. Just because there aren't a lot of PPR's available does not mean we should breed to anything because it's a PPR.

And there is no reason one cannot advertise a 15/16 th's PPR as "having those traits that make a PPR special" and go on from there describing him. A good paso fino stallion is a good paso fino stallion regardless of the country of origin.

[Candice Burger]

I understand what you are saying Kerry. The presence of the mare, Promesa, a mare imported from Colombia, means that Volante is not "pure" for registration demonstrations. He cannot be registered as a pure Puerto Rican paso fino. My point in this exercise is for people to start thinking out of the box instead of hiding in the box. My world is way more realistic than to suggest that a piece of paper determines "purity".

Let's do this instead, let's do what many are doing now and that is leaving horses OFF the pedigree purposefully so that they can say a horse is "pure". Like Joyero III, Vitral, and others that have trotting horses in their pedigree. Heck their phenotype and gait expression should have been enough to raise eyebrows but instead they are embraced as "pure" paso finos because of a pedigee full of pot holes.

So if "Promesa" was a blank instead of present or if the parents of Promesa were missing, would the horse be "pure" or not? How many Promesas are there?

Or how about just making up some crosses using popular horses like Kofresi, Cibuco, Siboney el Brujo. Or slap together a pedigree like Cupido's that makes absolutely no sense when carefully examined. Was Cupido "pure"? With the idea of using only a piece of paper, Cupido would never compete, never produce. Why do you think I starting asking about Cupido? His phenotype didn't match his pedigree and he had tradmark production that wasn't similar to his family line.

The Puerto Rican mares would never be given an ounce of credibility. Mare pedigrees were not recorded nor any attempt to remember their background. Mares weren't even shown until the late 1970's and then barely. I had to ask a PPR breeder why mares were shown now. It was simple. They needed the numbers in the show ring.

Before this time, breeders simply picked "good" mares for breeding. Look at the mare "La Copita" in Kofresi's pedigree. http://pasoregistry.com/db/Tree.asp?ID=102614
No one knows who La Copita was. I'm still trying to find out. The pedigree here is totally incorrect. We can say with some assurance La Copita was a mare that existed in Puerto Rico. That is not proof of purity. It only says the mare resided in Puerto Rico. She could have been an Andalusian for all we know about her. La Copita is accepted as "pure" because of Kofresi, who is legendary as the producer to modernize PPR horses.

Horses like La Rucia, Rubi, Manchado, Mosqueada (Dulce Sueno's dam) are considered pure not because they were but because their progeny were accepted as "pure" based on phenotype and production not on their pedigrees. Dos de Mayo, Pisaflores, Piel de Seda were all probably direct descendants of imports. Who knows for sure? Piel de Seda is one the most instrumental mares in PPR history.



And yes, I understand the purpose behind the pedigree is to provide "proof" that the horse standing before me with good phenotype has the genetics of his ancestors. And that where his ancestor came from contributed to the traits that is expressed in this individual. And I understand that it is these traits/phenotype that influences the "type" or "breed" of animal. I undestand the efforts to preserve these traits.

However, my question to those who arbitrarily dismiss an animal that has the genetics, has the phenotype, has proven production, because of the low percentage of "unpure" blood, is why reject the animal when he displays everything that you have determined to be the qualities of a "pure" animal? Explain to me how a piece of paper trumps the genetic probabilities of production and proven production for desireable traits.

For those that want "purity", again, I'll say you better know your breed. There's still plenty an animal that is being used as "pure" Puerto Rican paso fino with made up pedigrees. Using that piece of paper as the ONLY substantive argument for breeding "pure" is way more fantastic. Just ask the PPR breeders about this when they used only paper to design breedings and they started losing brios, size, conformation, execution.

I'd rather live in my world, knowing that pedigrees are bunk. In my world, I study the animal not the paper.

[cristy]

THANK YOU CANDICE!! You argued my point perfectly. Especially the last part about the ppr breeders that learned what happens when you follow the pedigrees alone.

I agree completely with you motorgypsy/KyleS about the mares out there being bred that are not broodmare quality, it shouldn't be done. But you tell their owners that. :shock:

I just feel for those of us who want to preserve the PPR breed, if his offspring could be registered it would help the breed. With the limited number of quality breeding stock out there is it doing the breed an injustice not to accept him into the genepool. As Candice said if ther were a blank in his pedigree everyone would welcome him with open arms.

[Candice Burger]

MGs, Stella wrote an excellent to response to this once, but here's the short version.

Yes, PPRs have several sub-types within their phenotype. Typically, the Andalusian type--larger boned, bigger, barrel, broad, well sprung, were the Bellas Formas types. Salamero is a fine example of this as is the PR Plebeyo. Beautiful lines, substantial horses. Salomero, Plebeyo are good examples of this phenotype.

The more delicate, refined animals, tended to be slender, narrow, long, angular. More Berber in some styles usually were slotted for riding competitions. The "finura" of gait expression highly prized. Controversia de Labriego is a superb example.

My recent visits are seeing these lines blurred and I'm seeing a change in phenotype because of this. Replica de Majestuoso is a response to this. His production was prepotent as well and I am trying to understand this. Cuentas Claras is another example of a horse with a trademark phenotype and production.

My thoughts tend to agree with the oldtimers when talking about the changes seen in phenotype. I'm not willing to wholeheartedly embrace this as all positive. My comments aren't aimed specifically about Replica but about the general trend I'm seeing. There's allot of variability in the paso fino gene pool, so it's not so simple as to list a small number of individuals and say this is the way it should be. Rather take the time to look at enough to know how to recognize the variability, so that what is "pure" is better understood.

That is why San Mateo Mako has garnered so much attention. His phenotype not his pedigree is causing a stir. There is no doubt when looking at San Mateo that you are looking at a PPR. He is very "pure" with his phenotype, so much so, I'll wager, it wouldn't matter a whole heck of beans if he had a "Promesa" residing back there somewhere. His phenotype and expression was very typical in PR. Now it's so rare many say it's extinct. So, breeding away based on the faddish pedigree of the day (winner) isn't always so wise sometimes.

And so, my reason to shake the tree when discussing "purity" based solely on pedigree.

[Kerry W]

But it ISN'T a blank. It's a KNOWN Colombian horse. That is MY point. If it were unknown, that would be different, but it isn't. You can't change the rules to suit your breeding program...well, you can, but is it okay to fudge the truth just one more time? Hasn't it been done enough?
No one is suggesting that this horse be dismissed. From all I have read, the comments about him have been complimentary. Why would he suddenly be "more" if he were called PPR?

Cristy...sorry my thoughts are not in accordance with your own, but you DID ask for them. If purity does not exist...why is it so important that THIS horse be deemed pure?

Again...he will produce NO better due to the PPR label. He is what he is. If not for the Eblis in his pedigree, he would not exist. Why the pretense? Why not just be proud of what he is? Honestly, it sounds as if you think he would be suddenly transformed into something "more" if he were to be called PPR. I don't understand how that works. :shock:

[Candice Burger]

I understand Kerry really I do. I understand the necessity to preserve traits and the way to do that is to limit the gene pool. In other words select horses that provide some assurances of carrying the trait whether it's seen or not. I undestand one method, but it is only one way, is to look at a pedigree and from that descern if the horse qualifies.

What I'd like everyone to think about is that pedigree verification is only one way, not THE way. It started slowly and now with DNA verification rapidly becoming THE way, I hope I am not the only one to stand up and challenge this. Let me clarify, in no way am I suggesting that pedigrees don't serve a purpose and should not weigh in for breeding decisions. And I'm not suggesting to just open the flood gates and let everyone play the paso fino breeding game with their horses.

According to registration requirements he would be "more" without Promesa according to the purists. That kinda bothers me. Without Promesa, people looking for traits from a rare gene pool would readily access him. With Promesa, because he's not "pure" lots of people won't inspite of anything fantastic he may offer. This from people who don't know if the pedigree of their own horses are really "pure" or not.

For me personally, nope, I could care less if Volante is "pure". I don't have enough understanding about how paso traits are inherited to know whether it really matters or not. I know some traits are lost when outcrossing, but I'm not convinced that it's a real physical genetic loss. Observing the phenotype changing in both PR and COL to become more similar and yet both claiming "purity" has opened another barrage of questions.

So, I understand and am 110% in agreement that traits should be preserved. I love the beauty that each "type" has to offer and enjoy the differences. I am questioning how to go about doing it. Purists are all pointing to pedigrees as the only way preservation can be assured. Yet time and time again, the paso fino horse has demonstrated the genetic strength to absorb outside introductions. Not in great numbers, but they are still there. The greatest number was when the military shipped up horses with false papers and questionable quality. And STILL the paso fino population survives genetically.

After all it was only 30+ years ago that APF/PFOBA "inspected" horses for registration qualifications. And everyone can just paint a target on my back because I'm here to tell ya, some of those horses weren't desireable to use as the genetic foundation of the paso fino breed in the United States. And YET, these horses responded positively and the population of paso finos didn't suffer horribly from by the activity.

I'm not even suggesting to "remove" horses. The point behind those comments is let's stop pretending we're playing the "pure" game when we can't trace a horse back even to the 1900's. This from a breed that is supposedly centuries old? I can't even begin to express my anger and frustration behind trying to perform serious pedigree studies. Not even a smilie can work!

People claiming "pure" whatever are pretending pedigrees are the sole source for determining quality and breeding potential. It is only a piece of information to assist not dictate the outcome.

I WANT Promesa there if that is where she belongs and everything behind her. It's THAT important! Because with Promesa and the knowledge of Eblis, I can observe what happens next. I want ALL the blanks filled for good reason. I want the Thoroughbreds, Lusitanos, Morgans, Saddlebreds, Andalusians, I want it all. Only then can we begin to understand what is "pure".

[Kerry W]

Well, I hear what you are saying Candice...and for me, it's about a quality horse...not about what country the ancestors came from. I do however respect those who strive to preserve the pure lines (to the best of their abilities with the information avaialable)...and I think that most SERIOUS breeders know which lines to use, and which not to use in order to maintain that integrity. Some just say PPR and go with that, but some know the lines well enough and care enough about the preservation, to use lines they are relatively certain are "pure". That is a challenge that not many are willing to take on, and those that do, deserve to be recognized for such.

If this particular horse were to be deemed PPR, then what happens in 30 years and someone new to the breed discovers that they've invested time, money and all those good intentions, only to find out that he isn't really PPR? Is it fair to them, to put them in the same boat that we are in now, or do we have a responsibility to do better, when we know better? I guess this is the sort of thing that defines integrity, to the breed, and to those we hope will cherish it when we're done.

It doesn't mean he isn't "quality"...it doesn't mean he doesn't produce a Puerto Rican "type" of horse...it just means that we need to be honest about his bloodlines, to the best of our knowledge. If I were looking to produce that "type" of horse, and wasn't wrapped up in the title game, he'd be a great horse to use. If that designation defined my breeding program, I'd not use him even if he were somehow allowed to be deemed PPR, because I would know that he isn't. I would support the PPRPF by using horses with PPRPF lines, because if those are not supported now, they'll be gone.

[cristy]

Thought I'd mention Volante is standing at Rocky Top Stables in Lemont Furnace, PA Incase anyone is interested. I have to tell you I spent 2 months riding him early in his training and he is an all around awesome horse! He is smooth, drop dead gorgous and as sweet an can be. His stall is open from about the chest up, he is content socializing with all the people, dogs, cats and other horses that go in and out of the barn. I would take him home in a heart beat! ;-)

[sporthorse]

is there not the federation standard Like 31/32 or was it 63 /64 /I have no idea :-? just thought that I had heard at one time( I think) .i.e don't you find when DNA was not there and checks of blood was rare that broodmare stock was snuck in.Already been discussed......Possible by backdoor propinas or slid in with a bribe....well a certain Piel de Seda mare was an andalusian I thought I heard disclosed secretly ??? and Dominican horses that were allowed to be federation if paso finos but Cuban paso finos and criollos, andaduras,even if from PR were rarely if ever introduced in the registry.when they imported some to USA from PR and were registered then the APF and our registries here may have legitimized some otherwise forgotten lines /Yes out crosses can be allowedand like the PUREBRED arabians and the TB half arabs that diluted down and become "arabians" by several generations are not known as purebreds isn't that the way it works??? I think perhaps a few generations of breeding to purebred stock then a dilution of the Colombian may not be an issue or provisions may be included as a special outcross classification would help the gene pool/Just some thoughts to saving/increasing a great breed's numbers with little compromise for the already controversial purity.I admire the traits of PPR stock and sacrifice is not my issue since I watch as a non participant at this time.
gracias,
Jose Eduardo Casillas Harris

[motorgypsy]

So THAT'S where all those huge arabians came from???? That snuck in thoroughbred blood! :roll: :roll: :roll:

Since PFHA doesn't care about the country of origin we can at least breed the best and hopefully those who know and love the PPR phenotype/s will concentrate on reproducing it.

We read Stella's info about PPR phenotype with great interest but there seems to be even more to it. Besides the big beautiful ones (Guamani) and and more slender, narrow types (Batalla, kofresi) there are also big ugly ones, rawboned and no range of gait and there are very tiny but nice bone, not narrow, well proportioned, beautifully gaited PPR's. So that's a problem with breeding PPR's - they aren't all alike. And of course they really aren't all PPR either. So we read, look, ask questions and hope we're picking the right sire for our PPR mare - who's probably not all PPR - but we love her anyway. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

[cristy]

I thought that at some point (like 63/64) It was diluted enough to be registered as pure. I thought I had heard that it takes 5 generations to get back to pure but I have not been able to find any research on such. I agree, it would help by opening up the gene pool a little bit.

[Terry Wallace]

It takes six gens minimum to get back to "pure"...BUT...the horse would still never be registerable as "pure" due to registration rules. I don't know of any association that would do it. It would be breaking their own rules and opening the door to many "would be" registrations. Most members would not want or allow it to happen, once stud books are "closed" as they are in all but very new registries.

[motorgypsy]

If you think of it in dog terms - if you breed a poodle and a beagle, how many generations would it take before the offspring, bred back to beagles, looked like and acted like a beagle??? Well it really depends on which of the offspring you continue to breed because in each breeding if you keep and breed the one that is most poodle-like to a beagle, you could still have poodle like characteristics after many generations.

Which is exactly why breeders will outcross - to set certain characteristics they think are desirable but that they can't find within the breed. For example the white color in German shepherds supposedly came from an outcross to samoyeds. Today's white shepherds do indeed look and act like shepherds but there may be other characteristics of the white shepherd besides the color that is more like the samoyed.

Before DNA testing people could sneak in a horse that had what they wanted that was lacking in their gene pool even if the horse wasn't registered, but not anymore. Don't know if this is a good thing or a bad one but it's the way things are. So if PPR's need something that is missing in the gene pool the registry would actually have to open up to allow individuals that can provide this missing characteristic.

[Cindy]

Terry, QH books are still open. If a thoroughbred/QH runs fast enough it gets QH papers. You could breed a Paso Fino to a QH and if it ran fast enough they would give it papers.

[Terry Wallace]

Are you talking about the appendix registry? They still get appendix papers... not AQHA papers...at least all mine ever got was appendix papers when it was a TB cross.

[Cindy]

No, they get QH papers.

[Kerry W]

Terry, QH books are still open. If a thoroughbred/QH runs fast enough it gets QH papers. You could breed a Paso Fino to a QH and if it ran fast enough they would give it papers.

And look stylish while doing so! :D

[Carol Nelson]

I was told my half QH half Paso Fino could not be registered...have things changed?

[Terry Wallace]

I can't say Carol..I haven't had any QH in over 12 years...but I had not heard of it, that they can get AQHA papers, as the part breds I had were all appendix...like the "pink-paper" paint that got no color...which also could not get AQHA papers if it had one AQHA parent...

[Linda Y]

Terry, QH books are still open. If a thoroughbred/QH runs fast enough it gets QH papers. You could breed a Paso Fino to a QH and if it ran fast enough they would give it papers.

Not quite true!
The books are still open to Thoroughbreds, who are registered as appendix. They don't allow any other breeds. They are taking Paint (crop out) horses that can verify by DNA that they are out of registered QH parents.

[Cindy]

That could be, Linda. The only ones that I know of that get QH papers are the Thoroughbred crosses. But it was a fun idea, wasn't it?

[motorgypsy]

I had heard the same thing - that if a horse could run fast enough it could be AQHA registered but I read the entire 30 something pages on AQHA registration criteria and could find nothing that indicated that this was true. It does say that horses who registration number has been revoked usually because both parents have thoroughbred blood, that if the horse is declared a superior performance horse that it can be reinstated or if its offspring are superior performance horses that the parent can be reinstated so perhaps that's how the idea got started that ny horse could be AQHA registered if it could run fast enough?????

[Terry Wallace]

Welll...a long time ago....Three bars....a Thoroughbred, was used in AQHA breedings...but it was way back... and yes there has almost always been TB blood in QH.... but to be able to register a TB / AQHA cross as being pure AQHA...is news to me.... I had a son of Lightning Bar..and he had only appendix papers....same with my Truly Truckle offspring...it was over 20 years ago....that I had those bloodlines.

[Cindy]

OK, here is the skinny straight from a QH breeder's mouth. A horse that is born from a Thoroughbred and QH cross can get appendix papers when registered. There are two ways that they can get QH papers. 1- The horse must prove itself in any discipline be it racing, cutting, reining, showing, etc. If it qualifies through that venue it is given QH papers and a new registration number. 2- Say the horse has been injured and cannot compete but is a good enough horse to be granted QH papers, they will come out and look at the horse and if it meets the qualifications of conformation and such to be granted QH papers it is granted QH papers and issued a new registraion number. This can only be done with Thorougbred crosses, no other breed. If the horse remains appendix and does not get QH papers, it can still be bred to QH mares and the offspring will be registered as appendix and can then qualify on their own for the QH papers. However, the offspring if the horse remains appendix cannot then be bred back to a Thoroughbred. They must be bred back to QH to remain appendix

An example, A son of the thoroughbred Hennesey out of a First Down Dash mare was sold at the Ruidoso QH yearling sale this year for around $400,000 and then immediately syndicated by the new owner to ten other owners. This horse currently has appendix papers. However, asumming he races well enough, which he should, QH papers can and will be applied for and he will now be a registered QH even though he is half Thoroughbred and his offspring will be Quarter Horses (assuming their mothers have QH papers that is).

That is how it works, folks, in the QH registry.

[Terry Wallace]

Did they say when this came to be? Was it around the time the Foundation (FQHA) QH came to be? I seem to recall that might have been part of the controversy...the split from the AQHA to form the FQHA?
Been too long...I don't remember... I might have a very old rule book around here somewhere.....

[Cindy]

Not sure when. It has been this way since I have had any invlovement with the race horses but she did say that the rules have been changed over the years and lightened up from what they used to be. My involvement has been about 18 years and I have not known it to be any other way. But that does not mean that it wasn't and I was just not paying attention yet. :D