Times They Are Achangin'....

Yesterday brought some very big news to Quarter Horse enthusiasts all over the world; the All-time leading breeder, Carol Rose, is set to hold a complete dispersal sale in mid August of this year.  This comes as a shock to many in the business, and is somewhat disconcerting, given the fact that so many large, well-known breeders have also had dispersal sales in the past 12 months.  People are wondering why, and also what this means for the rest of us.  Fear, worry, and sadness are common emotions when we see our leaders step down, but I pose to you that while the landscape of the horse industry is changing, it is also an exciting time to be a part of shaping it into its future form.

I have been looking up to Carol for a very long time.  When I purchased my first Quarter horse in 1992, I also got a subscription to The Quarter Horse Journal, and remember marveling at the impressive profile she cut in a male-dominated industry.  I felt that because she could do it, then there was room for me to do it too.  Carol has class, a no-BS sensibility, and a hard working focus that still inspires me to stick to my guns and keep going in the face of adversity.  It is no accident that she rose to the top, and I think all women (and many men, of course) in the performance horse industry are thankful to her for all she has done to produce, promote, and represent the American Quarter Horse the world over.  She is simply an icon.

Yet, she is a person too.  Who can blame her for wanting to cut back?  Breeding horses, even on a small scale, takes so much work, so much planning, so much time.  And she has done it year after year, maintaining the position of #1 in the industry, producing hundreds of horses who are consistently the best and most sought after in the world.  Her reach has been broad, as horses from her breeding program have excelled in nearly every performance category offered by AQHA, which takes an incredible amount of versatility and market savvy.  She has worked hard and done well.  Perhaps she feels that it is finally time to enjoy the fruits of her labor, to rest, relax, and maybe let others take over in driving the industry forward.


The question is, who will be the next leaders?  Will we see some large-scale breeders take the place of those who have left, or are we seeing a shift toward smaller, more specialized breeding operations?  My thought is that yes, we are witnessing the rise of smaller, leaner producers, though there will always be large players out there.  The economy is certainly playing a part in creating this situation; the overhead on keeping the large farms going can be crushing and every single thing needed to breed and keep horses has gone up in price.  In addition, the market has shrunk, as there are fewer people who are able have horses period, much less buy more horses, show and breed them.  It is a much harder thing today to keep a large facility going, with multiple trainers, multiple stallions, hundreds of mares and foals, vet costs, equipment to maintain, thousands of pounds of feed & bedding to buy, a constant show schedule, marketing and sponsorships, etc. than it was 10 or 20 years ago.  Smaller outfits are more nimble, can respond to market changes more quickly and can maintain a budget with greater ease.  Smaller breeders are also blessed with an intimacy and knowledge of their animals that will ultimately pay off when it is time to sell. These changes will likely result in more diversity among horses produced as well.

Change can be scary, but it doesn't have to be.  Rather than looking at our current situation and wringing our hands, we should see this as an opportunity to step up and take our place in carrying the industry forward.  Maybe we won't be able to ride the big farm's coat tails, but if each of us is doing our best with each and every horse we own, moving forward with enthusiasm, honesty, hard work, frugality, and class, won't we be carrying the torch for the next generation of horses and riders?  Won't we be doing Carol proud by not letting everything fall apart when she steps down?  It is time to go to her dispersal sale, buy her wonderful horses, and keep going.


On a personal note, I was lucky enough to have met Carol a few times at reining events, and she was so very gracious to me. Last year, when it came to light that she follows this little blog of mine, I was simply over the moon with joy and pride.  I would like her to know that her leadership and example has impacted me deeply, and that I wish her the very best as she moves on to new and exciting adventures in the next chapter of her life.  May she find peace, happiness and get to sleep in late.  :)

Passing the Buck?

Have you ever had a job interview where the hiring agent asks you a question meant to get into your mind, and see what kind of person you are? Something like, "What do you consider to be your Achilles's heel?" or "What do you need to work on most about yourself?" or "What is the most frustrating thing about your current job?"  Well, I have a confession to make....there IS something that I don't like and find very frustrating about my current job.  I hate selling horses.  Loathe it.  Despise it.  And I am not good at it, though selling horses is considered to be a huge part of being a horse breeder, trainer and instructor, which I have done as a career for many years.  The truth is, I don't even want to get better at it, even though instinct tells me that I should and that it is necessary.  I grapple with this conflict frequently.

Why don't I like selling horses?  I guess I have seen too much in this industry, and have been let down too many times, often with heartbreak that I carry forever.  While there are many good, caring, and knowledgeable people out there buying horses, those homes are few and far between, and so, so many buyers are anything but.  I know, with the keenest sense of truth, that once you sell a horse, you never, ever have care and control over that animal again, unless by some miracle you are able to acquire them again later.  People lie, cheat, steal, and abuse.  Absolutely anything can and does happen once that horse leaves your barn.

Nowadays, some sellers will try to protect the horses they are selling with contracts stipulating rights of first refusal, or some type of binding no-sale clause, to prevent the horse from being sold beyond the buyer.  But these types of stipulations are limited in scope, and are often dependent on the original seller's ability to retrieve the horse from a bad situation.  Contracts don't matter once a horse is dead and gone. I have personally used these types of clauses, and have still had horses end up in jeopardy, or deceased. We are living in an economy where people can lose their personal wealth, which allows them to have a horse, very quickly, and unfortunately, we are living in a culture that doesn't place emphasis on keeping animals throughout their natural lives.

We'd all like to think that this only happens to young, untrained stock, or old, unusable animals, but even horses that have won accolades in the show ring, won races, and have spent years faithfully and quietly toting kids around can fall through the cracks.  All it takes is for a breadwinner to lose their job for the horse to be pulled out of training, the feed to come less frequently, and for their feet and health care to be ignored. Or maybe the owner has a life change that causes them to neglect the exercise/training needs of their horse, and the animal that had been a potentially successful working horse is deemed nearly useless, or worse, 'dangerous.'  It only takes a few months for a horse to be down-graded.  I have seen the same people that came to me, pledging to love the horse dearly, promising to keep them forever, blame the horse for the predicament, and just throw up their hands before consigning them to a local auction or horse dealer, effectively sealing their fate and placing them in the slaughter pipeline.

I, of course, acknowledge that in order for the horse industry to continue to exist, there has to be breeders and they have to sell horses.  The vast majority of horses that I have produced or have bought and resold have ended up in excellent homes (and I do doggedly pursue them as they move from place to place) and I am lucky in that regard.  But for the few times that one of my horses has met a sad fate, it has hurt me so deeply that it can wake me up in the middle of the night in tears.  I feel personally responsible for each animal I own, and I carry that responsibility even when they are no longer mine. I do whatever I can to keep tabs on them, and let new owners know they can always come back to us.

I recently saw a graphic that claimed that less than 1% of all horses live in a forever home.  How tragic!  For those of us that truly love horses, and make a living off of them, we should be ashamed of this state of affairs.  I can't even tell you how many times I have seen people get rid of an old horse that they rode for years, but began having health problems or lameness issues, and was no longer 'useful.'   They claimed they loved the horse, and 'found a home for it' but the truth is, once that horse is off your property, you have passed the buck.  The person that loved this horse the most, who knew it the best, appreciated the best parts of that horses life - YOU - has passed off the most important part of that horse's life to someone who doesn't have the deep connections with it.  The most important part being the end of life care, allowing a horse a dignified retirement, and being the the person who knows when it is time to put a horse down humanely.

Anyone who knows me knows that my horses live in a forever home.  I have several old and no-longer-productive horses that will live out their years here, with the people that love them most, my husband and I, ready to give them a quiet, dignified end if necessary.  The decision to do this for my old horses has made it so I am not able to breed a ton of horses every year, or buy new, younger horses to show.  I have limited space, and a limited budget, so we can only have so many.  This isn't always an easy decision; in fact, right now, we are trying to figure out what to do with a gelding whom we can't keep sound.  And it may be that putting him down humanely is the right thing to do, rather than sending him to live with someone who may not care about him as much as we do. I would rather live with the sadness of putting him down than live with the guilt of causing him more suffering because I didn't want to deal with it, or wanted to make money off of him..

I can by no means offer solutions that fit every person's situation.  I can only share what is in my heart, and how we choose to care for our horses.  I am not aiming to preach, only to implore that readers ask themselves that if they really love their animals as much as they say they do, why not love them through the tough times too?  It does take sacrifice, it does take commitment, it does require making difficult decisions, but what relationship doesn't?  Making a personal decision to be committed no matter what is the first move toward putting this 'throw away society' label behind us.

There are a couple of new ways to ensure your horses have a forever home.  One is the American Quarter Horse Association's "Full Circle" program, where owners can enroll their horse, and be available should the horse ever become unwanted.  Another is to add your name to the Humane Society's "Responsible Breeders List" which is basically a pledge that you will always take a horse back throughout its life, and that you are committed to producing horses in a responsible manner.  If anyone has any similar solutions or ideas, I encourage you to share them in the comments section.  Thanks!

Just Because You Can, Doesn't Mean You Should

On April 23rd, a lawsuit was filed against the AQHA by one of its members, Jason Abraham, along with two of this member's companies, Abraham & Veneklasen Joint Venture, and Abraham Equine Inc.  The subject of this suit is that the AQHA is violating anti-trust laws by not allowing the registration of clones.  AQHA rule 227 (a) states: Horses produced by any cloning process are not eligible for registration. Cloning is defined as any method by which the genetic material of an unfertilized egg or any embryo is removed and replaced by genetic material taken from another organism, added to/with genetic material from another organism or otherwise modified by any means in order to produce a live foal.

 The subject of cloning has been brought up repeatedly to the AQHA Stud Book Committee as well as the Board of Directors, and each time, it was voted that clones should be banned from registration.  Polls of the membership have also been taken, and the vast majority of members are not in favor of including clones in the registry.  Yet, Dr. Gregg Veneklasen and his cohorts have persisted.  Why?  Because they stand to make a lot of money cloning horses if they can get the stamp of legitimacy that registration papers provide. Anti-trust laws are meant to prohibit anti-competitive behavior (monopolies) and unfair business practices, and are intended to promote competition in the marketplace. Anti-trust laws also help protect both businesses and consumers from unethical practices and actions intended to cause harm. This suit assumes that AQHA must legitimize a practice that its members overwhelmingly do not want to include within its business practices, and could force a change that would only benefit as very, very small number of members.  I would also put forth that the inclusion of clones as registered Quarter Horses is in itself unethical and will cause harm to the breed's integrity.


As of right now, there is no way to discern the DNA of the original horse from that of its cloned copies.  And if a horse has been cloned more than once, there is no way to discern the parentage of the offspring, whether it came from the original, clone 1, clone 2, etc.  There has been talk of the fact that a very small amount of mitochondrial DNA may be present from the donor egg, but at the present time, the standard parentage DNA test that the AQHA uses to verify parentage cannot make these distinctions.  Allowing their registration could mean that if these clones began producing foals year after year, we would end up with hundreds and hundreds of horses that are genetically identical to each other.  How would this affect identification from horse to horse within the clones progeny?

Quarter Horses are already so closely bred that it is hard to find true outcrosses.  Certain lines are used over and over, which dramatically reduces the gene pool and increases the chances of replicating serious genetic abnormalities.  The clones already produced by Veneklasen have some serious genetic defects, and even the ones that don't have not lived up to the original's brilliance under saddle.  Why on God's green earth would we want to shrink the gene pool even more?  Genetic diseases that aren't even around yet could easily pop up with cloning to shrink the gene pool; you may be able to test an embryo for known genetic problems, such as HYPP or GBED, but what about physical deformities, like those that some of the Smart Little Lena clones have?  What about the fact that new genetic diseases can arise when a gene pool is artificially shrunken?  Genetic diversity is the key to producing stronger, healthier horses as well as finding new crosses that work better than those previously used.


I do not buy the argument that the resistance toward cloning is similar to previous resistance toward excessive white or toward embryo transfer, and that once cloning is made legitimate by registration, everyone will get on board with it.  This rule benefits only those who have a LOT of money to clone horses, access to DNA from horses famous enough to make it profitable, and the inclination to relive the past.  Embryo transfer is nothing like cloning.  Each foal produced by ET is a unique individual that is verifiable with DNA testing.  In reference to the excessive white rule, given the fact that AQHA is not a color registry, and that AQHA papers for the foundation horses of the breed were handed out fairly arbitrarily in the old days, it makes sense that some horses that are registered Quarter Horses are going to have genes that produce markings that are wilder than what some deem as typical of an American Quarter Horse.  Both the white rule and the ET rule have enhanced our breed, making it better and more inclusive and more profitable.  I think trying to lump cloning in with these two completely unrelated subjects is a way to slip it into our 'acceptable practices' while patronizing the public.  Do they think that we are all just too stupid to understand the difference between breeding clones and using embryo transfer?


Why not breed FORWARD?  Why not put all that money into developing unique genetics, rather than producing the same thing, over and over and over?  Every living stallion gets their shot to be great; yeah, some stallions have better odds by being born into the right barn, but the horses that are being cloned are horses that are proven, not underdogs with obscure bloodlines that 'might have made it, given different circumstances.'  Smart Little Lena, a horse that has been cloned several times, was undoubtedly a great horse. He earned over $743,000 in the cutting pen, he was one of only three horses to win the cutting triple crown (the Futurity, Super Stakes and the Derby), and sired 550 money earning offspring, who earned over $27,000,000 in the show pen.  He sired many, many great stallions who went on to be great sires themselves.  Aren't his accomplishments enough to be proud of?  Why is it necessary to try create another SLL?  Why?  Greed.  I bet there are plenty of folks who want a piece of that legacy so badly that it doesn't matter to them what the consequences are of cloning him.  It doesn't matter that 2 of the original clones have serious genetic abnormalities, 6 of them are nothing special and only one shows any promise under saddle.  And it doesn't matter what the long term effects of shrinking the gene pool would be as long as they get to make their money now.  The fact that this is an anti-trust suit is an admission that it revolves solely around the claimants desire to make money, not because it is the right thing to do, or because it would benefit the entire membership or the breed itself. 


Nothing is stopping cloned horses from competing in cutting, reining, or rodeo events, but the fact that very few have only proves that these horses are not as good as the original.  And the real money for those that own clones is in breeding them, so why would they tarnish that potential by showing them, and letting people see that they aren't as good as the original?


I understand that this is a free country and there is no law saying that people can't spend truckloads of money cloning their horses.  But they aren't Quarter Horses.  The AQHA is a member driven association, whose most important purpose is to protect and promote the breed.  It has been clearly and emphatically stated that clones are not welcome in the registry.  It is a privilege, not a right, to be a member, as well as to be granted papers for a horse.  There must be standards to which we are all held, and there must be some thinking being done as to what inclusion of clones will mean to the breed, not just in five or ten years, but in twenty or fifty or a hundred years. Cloning crosses a line that most people do not want crossed.  It seems to me that if the AQHA caved in to the lawsuit's demands, they would be violating anti-trust laws for most of their members.  I also think that now that this is a lawsuit, the case will be decided by a judge, and most likely a judge that is not a horse breeder, and doesn't necessarily understand that good horse breeding requires a long view of the future.  It isn't just about a person's right to make money now, it is about what we want our breed to look like down the road, what kind of horses we want our grandkids to ride, and what kind of quality of life we want for those horses. 


If you can't tell, this subject makes me quite angry.  It makes me sick that a very small group is forcing this issue through a lawsuit, forcing AQHA to spend time and money to defend itself over an issue that the majority of the membership does not want to accept. The greed driving this lawsuit to ruin the breed disgusts me.  That said, I do recognize that others have different views, and I'd love to hear them.  I'd love to hear someone give me a reason - other than money - that would convince me that registering clones is a good idea. 

What do you think about registering clones?  What effect do you think it will have on the Quarter Horse breed in the long term?

Shopping For Nice Genes

Equine genetic disorders. Nothing gets horse people fired up quicker than a debate on genetic testing, and in recent public social media forums, the topic has been a hot one lately. We have been there before; we've seen HERDA in the Poco Bueno's, SCID in Arabians, HYPP in the Impressive's, JEB in draft horses, and others, so we shouldn't be surprised that this topic has come up yet again, with the call going out demanding mandatory testing of all breeding stock. The nasty culprit this time is GBED, as well OLWS, both of which have become more prevalent in recent years.

Genetic mutations that cause disease and/or birth defects have always been around; DNA is no more a perfect system than any other within a living being. What has changed in modern times is the speed at which these flawed mutations can spread. Prior to the development of artificial insemination and embryo transfer, stallions could only breed so many mares, and mares could only produce so many babies. The odds were much lower that a stallion who was a carrier of a disease gene would meet a mare who happened to be a carrier of the same recessive disease gene and produce an affected foal. Of course, veterinary medicine evolved along with these diseases, so that many years ago, vets might not be able to connect all the dots in tracing a genetic defect, but now they have the capability to know without a doubt what is wrong with an affected foal, and trace the origin of the gene. Another factor that has increased our exposure to genetic diseases is that many modern breeders follow trends in which stallions they choose for their mares. If Stallion X has made a ton of money in the show pen, or has sired horses that have, everyone has to breed their mares to him. This dramatically reduces the number of animals in the gene pool, and accelerates the distribution of diseased genes.

These disorders are pretty horrible. If you have ever seen a horse suffering an HYPP seizure, you know what I mean. When a horse has HERDA, their skin and underlying tissues fall off and cause terrible scars. PSSM sentences the horse to a life of chronic pain and the owner to providing the horse with a special diet to control symptoms. Foals with OLWS, GBED and SCID are doomed from birth, and they have no hope for survival or any quality of life. It would seem a foregone conclusion that we want to avoid these scenarios at all costs. Yet they persist. Why?

To find the answer, you have to look at the problem from both the mare owner's side, and the stallion owner's side.

Stallions can produce many more babies than an individual mare can, so a genetic disease is often statistically found faster in a stallion's breeding career than through a mare's, since mares only average a few foals in a lifetime. I think this gives some mare owners a false sense of security. They (wrongly) assume that a stallion owner would know if their stud is a carrier, and they (wrongly) expect that this information would be made public.

I have also heard mare owners state that since she has not produced an affected foal yet, that chances are she won't produce an affected foal next time. This is a fallacy based in ignorance. If you put any two sets of recessive genes into a Punnett square, you will come out with the same odds for every breeding; 25% of the foals will be unaffected, 50% will be carriers, and 25% will be affected foals. Each breeding is statistically independent – each roll of the dice carries the same odds. You could breed two carrier horses to each other twelve times, and you might see 12 unaffected foals, 12 affected foals, or distributions from all three possibilities. If you firmly believe that you will get lucky every time because you got lucky before, I bet the dealers at the craps tables in Vegas love you!

I think many people don't know what resources are available to them for genetic testing, or understand how easy it is to have done. This is fairly new, and since registries and horse associations haven't pushed it – after all, who wants bad publicity – many don't test because it is just too much of a bother to figure out this new-fangled technology and seek out help. However, both the American Quarter Horse Assn.* and the American Paint Horse Assn. have begun to provide kits for people to use, and there are also several private labs that can do the tests quickly. The tests aren't exactly cheap, but certainly compared to the cost of having a dead foal, testing looks pretty inexpensive.

Now, the tricky part....getting stallion owners on the genetic testing bandwagon. I have heard many times that this is a taboo subject, that demanding industry-wide testing will never go over with the heavyweights in the business, and that bringing it up will get you blacklisted from the industry. The source of this resistance is fear. People are naturally afraid of change. Individuals who have reason to believe their stallion is at risk of being a carrier resist that knowledge, fearing the stigma that will be placed on their horse, the loss of income and the smearing of their horses', and their own, reputation. When this fear is put under the hot lights of debate, the result is often a vicious lashing out against the knowledge, and the people responsible to bringing the knowledge to light. Some stallion owners have more to lose than others, and as they say, the bigger they come, the harder they fall.

My response is that the truth always comes out. Stallion owners – wouldn't you rather disclose something like that yourself, where you have control of it and can even spin it in a positive way, since you will look more responsible to the public? Or would it be better to wait, constantly worrying about it, risking the loss, whether it is your foal that dies or a valued customer's, and having the truth get out? What if it is found out that you knew your horse had a problem but you chose not to disclose it, and then are hit with a lawsuit? Won't that have a worse effect on your reputation and your horse's legacy? Willful ignorance makes not only the individual stallion owner look bad, it damages the entire industry. People don't want to be associated with a group that clings so tightly to the all-mighty dollar that they are unable to be ethical.

I do have a couple of caveats to my arguments for genetic testing. I have heard people say “There oughta be a law...” I do not think this is something that should be legislated by the government. The government has no business in horse genetics, and even a registry doesn't have much legal authority over how people breed their horses. Can they strongly encourage it, and make it easier for people to do? Sure, but I doubt they could require it. Since there are only a small percentage of horses out there that are carriers, and only a percentage of them will mate, and then there is only a 25% chance that the pairing will result in an affected foal, it doesn't make financial sense to require it of everyone. And if registries require one disease to be tested for, shouldn't they require all those diseases that can be tested for to also be included? Where would that end? I have to wonder if required testing by a registry would open them up to some type of lawsuit; after all, simply putting a sticker on a horse's papers does not imply that the registry is then responsible for people's breeding decisions. I am sure that there are people out there who will breed to Stallion X anyway because they believe it won't happen to them. It might better serve the public if more effort was put in to education versus legislation and more rules.

I also do not feel comfortable 'outing' any horses out there. It is completely up to the owner to seek out that information and disclose it. Unless I personally pull hairs out of a horse's tail, send it in and see the results, I do not really know what that horse's genetic make-up is and if I make a supposition without knowing for sure, I am committing slander against that horse and owner. We have to understand that in this business, it pays to spread rumors about your competition, and people who point fingers at others often have their own agenda. I don't want to be part of a witch hunt, I am just advocating for better business ethics that lift up our industry, rather than diminish it. If we have widespread, mandatory testing, it may then become a possibility that there would be pressure to ban those animals that test positive as carriers, and I am not sure that is right. First, it would further shrink the size of the gene pool, perhaps making other disorders more prevalent, and second, it would remove some very successful and popular bloodlines from public use, which does not necessarily push our efforts forward. The object is to control the spread and try to prevent affected foals from being born.

The only way things will change with the current attitude toward genetic testing is if it makes more financial sense to test than to not test. If mare owners feel strongly about this subject, then they should test their mares, and they should breed to stallions that test and disclose. And many will do this! If there is an added benefit to all the fighting going on over this subject, it is that more people will find out the facts about genetic disease. It is my hope that mare owners will educate themselves and that stallion owners will see the changes on the horizon, and become more proactive in their planning. Perhaps if we all did this, we could avoid yet another scandal.....

*I have been told that AQHA has started making genetic tests for all possible diseases available, but I could not find anything on their website referring to an expanded test.  Currently, all Quarter Horses seeking registration must be parentage verified through a DNA test, and if the horse is a descendant of the stallion Impressive, the horse must also be tested to establish its HYPP status. 

What Have We Learned Here?

The World Reining League debuted last fall with lots of flash and bang; press releases, articles, a TV commercial, an extensive website, and several youtube videos of 'trash talking' between the competitors (insert eye roll). But barely a whimper was heard when the WRL cancelled their first event, which was to be held January 21 in Oklahoma City.  Only 284 tickets were sold for the event, and according to Michael Miola's statement, several leaders in the reining industry "without exception agreed that canceling the event was the right thing to do."  I cannot feign surprise; when I blogged about the WRL twice last fall, in "Let's Make A Bet..." and "World Reining League Pt.2", I honestly did not see how it was going to work. 

I do not take pleasure in anyone's failure, rather, I see it as unfortunate that so much time and resources has gone toward this project.  Mr. Miola's statement goes on to say that he was given faulty information, has formed a new management team to figure out what went wrong, and that he intends to 'fix it' and try again.  In other words, the time and resources allotted to this project will continue to distract from other avenues for promoting reining. I'm sure we haven't heard the last from the WRL, but maybe its cancellation will delay having to watch the NRHA turn into the PBR for a little while longer.


I have two thoughts, little seeds of my own personal theory, if you will, on growing our industry.....


First, growing UP isn't the only way to grow, we can grow out and down and in every direction.  The reining industry has enjoyed tremendous growth for many years; and has focused on promoting the top 10 % of the business - the biggest shows, the largest jackpots, the trainers and horses with the largest LTEs.  But those heights are unreachable for most people.  Most people can't afford the $1,000 a month that the top trainers charge.  Most people will never come close to earning a million themselves in the show ring, or own a horse that has made over $100K, and the sticker shock for getting to either of these places would run them off before they even tried it!

We need to focus on SMALL too.  We should be looking at more grassroots, local promotion that gets people excited to show, excited to bring their kids and show.  I have some ideas, some of which I have put forth here, and I know that some of my readers have ideas.  I certainly have heard over and over that people are tired of the politics that favor the powerful within the show pen, they are tired of seeing trainers override their horses and still boast huge sums won, they are tired of paying large membership fees but still feeling powerless within their organization.  I have heard more people say that they were going to get out of reining, or that they intend to stay away from it in the first place, than ever before. They are people who love their horses, so they aren't getting out, just staying away....from all the drama, unfairness and pie-in-the-sky promises.  They are looking for somewhere to go, and spend their money, where they are appreciated.


Second, growth is relative to your starting point.  The NRHA has not been around that long compared to other horse associations; it was formed in 1966.  The American Quarter Horse Assoc. was established in 1940, the Arabian Horse Club, which later became the Arabian Horse Assoc., was founded in 1908.  Morgan horses have had their pedigrees recorded since the mid 1800's, though the first official register wasn't established until 1894 - which happens to be the same year that the Jockey Club was founded.  These older associations have seen their ups and downs, boom and bust, growth and correction.  Stability and sticking to their mission statement has helped them endure as much as any promotional endeavors.  Yes, you can have great years, and grow a bunch, but you can't do that every single year without losing something else.  In other words, if you worry only about growth, and growing BIG, you are going to fail to keep the people happy that you just recruited into the sport.


My dad used to tell me, fast changes aren't necessarily good changes; usually, when something changes really quickly, it often isn't for the better.  It is the changes that take more time and are gradual that hold the most positive changes.  Slow and steady wins the race.  My dad sounds pretty smart right about now....

Extending a Warm Welcome

How diversified is your barn?  Do you own horses from several breeds, or are they all of the same breed?  I am wondering this because I myself love all breeds of horses, but have seen that not everyone is as accepting of breeds outside of their chosen one.  And I often wonder why there aren't more horses from 'other' breeds competing within associations that aren't breed specific, like in the NRHA.

I believe part of being open and accepting, not to mention knowledgeable, of other breeds is about where a person is raised.  I was raised in Southwestern Michigan, and when I was growing up, there were many breed associations that thrived there, and a person might see literally any breed being shown at the local fairs and horse shows.  Through 4-H and showing at open shows, I had friends who showed Morgans, Saddlebreds, Quarter Horses, Hackneys, Drafts, warmbloods, and everything in between, and because sportsmanship was something we were raised on in 4-H, we didn't treat someone differently because they rode a different breed or style. We were all horse lovers, and held a common thread.  And if there was a reining class offered, people would give it a shot, whether they rode a Quarter Horse or a mule.

Another truth is that I was raised on the conviction that a good Arabian could do anything - I believe that it was even the Registry's slogan in the 80's...."The Versatile Breed."  My horses all rode English, western, sidesaddle, did halter, trail, jumping, and the list went on.  At around the age of 12, I fell in love with riding western, and set out to make my purebred gelding into a western pleasure horse, which he happened to love.  From there, I met a trainer who introduced me to reining, and I was blown away.  It became my obsession, but it was obvious that my hard-working little gelding was not cut out for it.  It was difficult for me to take, and stands out now as the moment when the budding trainer inside me realized that in order to do really well at any given equine sport, you have to specialize, in both your breeding intentions and in your training regime.  You can do a lot of different things decently, even well, but if you really want excellence, you have to focus your energy.

It was around this time, in my early teenage years, that I rode my first QH reiner, and it was apparent to me right away that the horse fit his job perfectly.  For me, it was akin to the feeling that a race car driver might feel when they first experience a superior vehicle on the track; I instantly knew that I had to have one to continue to experience that rush.  Even though I showed my Arab for several more years, and loved him very much, I couldn't shake the feeling that I wanted more.  Eventually, I sold my Arab reiner (to a great home) and bought my first Quarter Horse.  I learned quickly, though, that I shouldn't tell people that I came from Arabs, because a lot of the QH people I met looked down on them.  And they treated "Arab people" differently.  I knew the bloodlines, the maneuvers, the trainers and the training techniques so I was able to "pass" as a Quarter Horse person, and eventually, it became that I was a Quarter Horse person.

That was 20 years ago. I have never regretted going in that direction; I love and admire Quarter Horses, especially reiners, and my life has been an interesting journey because of them.  I have met wonderful people, made great friends, and enjoyed watching reining become a world phenomenon. I am proud of every reiner that I have bred, and hope that the NRHA, and the horse industry as a whole, remains viable and relevant.  But I have kept up with other breeds too, and I have to speak up and say, why aren't we seeing more participation in reining events by breeds other than Quarter Horses?  Arabians and Morgans have come a really long way in breeding for better reiners.  They have learned, as I did, that in order to obtain excellence, you must focus your energy, and they have been breeding horses with bigger, rounder rear ends, more angulation in the hind legs and thicker stifles/gaskins, all of which enhance the horse's stop.  It is in the stop where you see the most discrepancy between a lighter breed and a Quarter Horse - they simply are heavier behind and can plant their butts easier.  A light breed can spin, circle and change leads as well as a Quarter Horse can, given their natural agility, so it is the stopping power that breeders have focused on.  And trainers can now access and share training methods so easily, so the playing field is getting more and more even.

Yet, rarely do you see other breeds show at NRHA events.  The NRHA is, after all, a performance association, and should want to attract anyone into their competitions.  To me, attracting people from other breeds is an easier endeavor than attracting people who have never owned a horse before, which is what many activities seemed aimed toward, like the WRL.  And by "attracting," I don't mean trying to get them to abandon their previous breed and just buy Quarter Horses; if they choose to buy a QH, great, but that doesn't need to be the goal.

What I mean is, finding a way to celebrate and reward participation in NRHA events by other breeds.  I am not a show manager, nor have I sat on any show committees, so I am not going to try to lay out exactly how that would be accomplished.  Counting points earned in NRHA events toward a year end participation award might give people from other breeds an incentive.   NRHA should understand, they now cut a pretty big, important profile in the global horse industry.  It is one of the biggest, most powerful horse associations in the world; the sport of reining has taken the world by storm, and is one of the only associations that hasn't lost money and numbers in recent years.  There is a lot of prestige associated with earning money with the NRHA association, and other breeds see that and want a piece of it.  Surely we can find ways of embracing what they can do and how far they have come. The first step, I think, is just being nice, and making people want to be there.  Then, give them a way to participate.

I mentioned all this in a chat room not too long ago, and while a couple people said that they knew a person that showed an "other" breed at NRHA events, not all the feedback was positive.  One person said, "The Arab people have their own shows, why would they want to come to ours?" and another said, "Oh, those poor little Arabs aren't even allowed to show against the Quarabs!'  Wait a minute....Isn't the goal to show reining as something that is fun to do?  An event that emphasizes control of the horse through maneuvers?  Something that has been described as Western dressage?  In dressage, huge-strided Warmbloods dominate the Olympics, but do you think that a local dressage trainer turns away a new customer because they don't ride one, or worse, tells them that their horse isn't good enough, and that they need to buy a Warmblood?  No, or at least, I hope not.

And think about it...the dressage people are doing it pretty well.  There are far more dressage instructors in this world, far more people who ride dressage than reining - even though there is less money in showing it!  The reason is that dressage is seen as something any horse can do - maybe not all are able to do it equally well, but they are rewarded for what they CAN do.  Progressing and besting your own score is valued.  This is absolutely the driving force in my participation in the Western Rider Development Programme - an organization that celebrates and rewards individuals as they progress in training their horses to do western/reining maneuvers.  I think this is part of a grassroots movement to make reining more accessible. Check it out!

Do you have any ideas on how to open up reining to other breeds and associations?  I'd love to hear them.

Mind If I Vent A Little?

Mondays are typically NOT my favorite day of the week; I usually feel grumpy and can never get enough coffee.  I might be a little bit picky, snippy, or *GASP* bossy on Mondays, at least more so than on other days.  ;) So, in reflection of my Monday mood, I want to vent a little about a pet peeve I have: horses that are "hip high."  This conformational fault is one that I can't abide, and I can't understand why anyone else would either!

To be clear, we are talking about a horse whose point of the hip is higher (sometimes MUCH higher) than the point of its withers, causing the horse to move downhill on its front end.  This trait is often associated with a long back, another fault that bothers me to a high degree.  You must always take into consideration a horse's age when evaluating his hip-to-withers height ratio, as horses grow unevenly, and you can't be completely sure of exactly where they are until the age of four or five.  But don't be blithely dismissive though - many three yr olds are so hip high that it is a real gamble that their front end will be able to catch up.  If they also have a long back, you probably are looking at a permanently hip high horse.  There are a lot of them around.

What is the problem with a hip high horse?  First, they are AWFUL to ride.  They tend to take pounding strides with their front legs, the concussion of which then runs up their leg to you in the saddle, jarring every bone in your body.  At the lope, their overly long hind leg coming up under their body causes an additional 'bump' to you in the saddle.  They are very difficult to collect, since rounding their back can be anything from mildly uncomfortable to downright impossible.  They are often very hard to fit a saddle to; the saddle slides forward, pinching the withers and jabbing the shoulders.  Worst of all, these horses are more prone to injury and pain, from the concussion to their joints, to strained tendons and ligaments to back problems.  A younger horse might be able to get by with this physical limitation, but by the time a hip high horse is aged, they are going to be hurting somewhere.  Being hip high shortens their useful lives.

Where are these horses coming from?  There is no doubt that this conformational fault is present in all breeds, but I sure see it A LOT in the Quarter Horse breed.  I attribute this to several factors.  One, QH cutting horses are bred to get low on a cow - to get down with its elbows in the dirt to look a cow right in the eye.  Having a long back and a high hip is an advantage here.  The problem with that is that those young cutting horses are only actually used on cattle for a few short years.  They may be taken out of training due to injury, or because the cost of training them on cattle outweighs the potential earnings in the show ring. [Keeping a cutter on fresh cattle is expensive, and so cutting training is a big investment in a horse.]  So a young, hip high cutter will inevitably have to transition to a new career, since opportunities to work on actual cattle ranches is also a shrinking percentage.  That career, if they are lucky enough to find a good home, will most likely be as a pleasure horse.

The high hip trait also comes from the infusion of Thoroughbred blood in the QH breed.  Being hip high is an advantage to young racehorses too, and since almost all QHs have some Thoroughbred in them, the trait was passed in this way as well.

Hip high horses might achieve a lot in their young lives in the competitive arena, before injury sets in, and so their name might carry a very high profile in the breeding shed.  This is when people begin to ignore the obvious fault, or even count it as a positive.  Have you ever heard someone brag about how big their horse's rear end is, how they 'have a huge motor back there,' or go so far as to attribute the horse's speed or prowess to the high hip ratio?  While it may be true in the short term, I always add silently in my mind, "Ugh, and I bet he is a pain in the butt to ride...." 

Who wants to ride a horse that is so rough you worry that you will seriously damage your spine?  Who wants to have to pay for bute and injections and cortisone to get your horse just barely rideable?  And will need to be euthanized at an early age because they are so crippled up you can't stand it anymore?  We cannot breed horses for careers that they will only have for less than 25% of their lives!  We have to balance the need to create an animal that can compete as a young horse with one that can have a vital, active, comfortable life beyond the competitive arena.  We need to breed fewer horses that have such a limited shelf life.

And for goodness sake - - we need to breed horses that are comfortable to ride.  Think of your horse's poor trainer's back, would ya?!?

YUM! Horsemeat!!

One of the most divisive issues within the horse industry these days is slaughter.  The debate over whether the US should allow horses to be processed, who is responsible for the care of the horses prior to being processed, how the slaughter ban has affected the unwanted horses situation are all topics that have been burning up Facebook, Twitter, chat rooms and magazine editorials.  The anti-slaughter people are militant in their quest to save horses from being killed and eaten, the pro-slaughter people are equally as zealous in their advocacy that slaughter will restore the horse industry and is "more humane than starvation."

I have made my slaughter views public here on this blog;  I am firmly against it because it is wasteful, unregulated, and removes any consequences or responsibility people ought to face for their breeding and training practices.  I am well aware, though, that those who stand in favor of re-instating slaughter in the US are numerous, especially among those who are members of the American Quarter Horse Association. 

On September 6th, I received an email from the AQHA Public Policy office regarding the Agriculture Appropriations Act.  It urged members of the AQHA to put pressure on their Senators to vote it down, saying its, "...unintended consequences include a sizeable negative economic impact on the horse industry and incidents of inhumane treatment of horses has risen.  The facts are in, the restriction is hurting industry and hurting animal welfare."  When I received the email I was dismayed; since when does a horse association, tasked with registration, show approvals, and breed promotion, get involved in politics?  It makes me uncomfortable.  The fact that AQHA promotes slaughter as a reasonable alternative to more responsible breeding practices (registering fewer horses per year) makes me uncomfortable too.  Their willingness to throw their weight around in the slaughter debate make me wonder who benefits from slaughter being passed, both politically and economically.

AQHA declared, "the facts are in."  Well, guess what....new facts are in!  An article came across my desk this morning that may make the AQHA, and every other pro-slaughter proponent, step back and reconsider.  This article discusses the real and potential risks of human consumption of horse meat.  An Irish research study of horse meat has found that Bute (phenylbutazone) is extremely toxic to humans, especially in children where it can cause aplastic anemia, a condition where bone marrow does not produce sufficient new cells to replenish blood cells.  Researchers have found that even a trace amount can cause these health problems, and that the compounds of Bute can remain in the animal's tissues indefinitely.   The European Union has made it a requirement that by 2013, all foreign entities shipping meat to Europe must comply with their traceability standards, in an effort to keep these dangerous drugs out of the food chain.

Americans tend to aspire to be mavericks, embracing a don't-tread-on-me attitude of independence.  We don't want to be regulated, nor do we want "Big Brother" to watch what we do, or have a hand in how we run our businesses and make a profit.  This has made it so that every time the governmental powers-that-be have tried to institute a national animal tracking program, the constituents of the horse industry have shot it down.  Every program was deemed to invasive or too expensive or impractical.  So we have no way of knowing where any of our unwanted horses came from, what they have been treated with and how safe they are to be consumed by humans. 

The Europeans have deemed that any horse over six months old must have a passport that details a completely clean drug history in order to be processed for slaughter.  Here in the US, nearly every horse over the age of six months has been wormed, most receive vaccinations, and, given that Bute is the most popular drug prescribed by veterinarians, a vast majority get Bute at least once in their lives.  How can we be sure what ANY of these compounds do to humans over time?  What about all the other drugs our horses get that we haven't studied yet?  We do not farm horses exclusively for slaughter here,  we breed them to perform, for pleasure and companionship, so almost all the horses that we send to slaughter are probably in violation of the standards that the EU is proposing.

Do we care - above and beyond our bottom line?  I know that there is a segment of our population that will continue to ship our horses to Mexico and Canada for processing, with the attitude that they matter less than us or that out of sight is out of mind.  But what if those neighbors of ours start to refuse the meat as well, taking a stand for their own public health?  I can only imagine what kind of liability nightmare this would bring to our country; given that we have refused to regulate and refused to track the industry.  What is ironic is that I bet the same crowd that refused to go along with governmental tracking of all horses in the US a few years ago are the same people that are proponents of slaughter. 

So let this be a wake up call to the horse industry.  We are being faced with a new reality.  Slaughter is not the way that we are going to save the horse industry.  We have to take responsibility for all the animals we produce; we need to breed fewer horses, we need to breed better horses. We need to educate people better so that they understand the implications of horse ownership, the consequences of breeding more horses, and how to give their horses basic skills that would allow the horse to be usable, and thus, saleable.  We need to consider our neighbors and our allies in other countries, and treat them as we would want our families treated. 

The horse industry has faced many eras of growth AND contraction, and it will survive, but we need to tailor our expectations of growth.  Growth at any cost has no place in an industry where lives, both of the horse and of those who consume them, are at stake.  Slaughter used to be an artificial corrector to the downward skew of quality vs quantity in the horse industry.  In other words, what we lacked in quality, we made up for in quantity, knowing a certain percentage of our horses bred would be high quality competition horses where money was to be made, a large percentage would be pleasure horses with a sliding scale from show horses  down to the undesirable horses that for whatever reason are deemed unusable.  Slaughter took those bottom horses out of the equation, erasing our mistakes and artificially painting a rosy picture.  Until we see our situation for what it truly is, and find proactive ways of solving it, we will continue to fight each other, and continue to risk poisoning ourselves.