Breed Standards

[Jenna]

Hey for my college class this semester (Topics in Veterinary Medicine) we have to debate a topic. My partner and i chose Breed Standards in Animals: Help or Hinder.

I know most of you guys are all involved in horses, but i would like to hear your opinons on whether or not you think they help or hinder domesticated animals.....please DO NOT make this a topic on whether Minis are an actualy breed and not a height registry

Thanks

 

[GrandmaC]

Sometimes they do both (help and hinder) Guess you don't want to add a third option to your poll do you?

When you think of 'breed standards' they cover many different aspects of an animal depending on the species,

such as weight and height, legs, head, the list goes on and on.

And depending on the species, a breed standard for say, height or weight may be one thing that hinders and the breed standard on say their top line or shoulders might help. In some species breed standards change over time sometimes to a point that the animal no longer looks nor can be used for it's original purpose and some call that 'improving' the breed.

And I'm not talking Mini's as I'm new to that world, I'm talking about many species in general (rabbits, dogs, goats, horses, etc)

Sometimes what one calls 'bettering the breed' actually ruins it's original design for it's intended purpose.

Added later, in dogs many breeds have color requirements in their breed standard and off colors are not allowed

and may times culled at birth. If an animal is 'quality' in every other aspect and we're not talking blindness nor deafness who cares what color the darn thing is. And dogs who use to be low to the ground are now bred to be taller than they were 20 or 30 yrs ago and

at times due to the additional height and lack of bone can't function for their intended original purpose.

This is a lay persons opinion as I am not a vet, nor trainer, nor handler.

And I find in todays society people want teeny tiny or HUGE disregarding the 'average'

And I am talking in general terms, not with Mini's.

 

[Katiean]

When you look at a poodle you can honestly say that is a poodle. When you look at a Clydesdale or a Shire you can tell the difference between them. Breed standards defiantly help. Our big problem with miniature horses, as a breed there is no "BREED STANDARD". The breed standard would make all miniature horses look the same. We wouldn't have draft type, Quarter type, Arab type and so on and so on. Until we get a breed standard we are not a breed but a size of horse. Either registry.

 

[GrandmaC]

We wouldn't have draft type, Quarter type, Arab type and so on and so on. Until we get a breed standard we are not a breed but a size of horse. Either registry.

Don't you think some do want a draft and a QH and an Arab type, people have different tastes.

Standards also change over the decades as peoples tastes and desires change.

Labs, shepherds, Rotties and Mastiffs don't look like they did 30 or 40 years ago.

Some consider it 'bettering' the breed others think it is totally changing the breed.

GSD were never meant to be these 100 to 120 lbs dogs.

Yet people like bigger (or smaller)

Take the Shetland, for their used purpose decades ago some of the ones now a day would not be hardy or small

enough to get the job of 40 and 50 and 60 yrs ago done.

In many breeds of different species the main thing I see is we're losing bone.

As things get more refined I often wondered, are we sacrificing bone for refinement?

 

[Michelle@wescofarms]

Yes, in a breed or species that actually has established standards. Not wide-ranging should-be-like guidelines.

Minis breed standard (IMHO) hasn't been established, we have guidelines but not a set look. When you say Clydesdale or Arabian or Quarterhorse we can immediately know what someone means. Mini's have not achieved a set 'look' yet.

As others have mentioned the standard does change over time, sometimes for the better some for the worse (I'm thinking some dog breeds here).

 

[GrandmaC]

Do Mini folks want a 'look'? (sincere question due to my newness with Mini's)

Mini Cattle have all kinds of breeds, colors and looks but they are still mini cattle.(yes I realize different registries)

Even in QH's last I was in it, it seemed QH's no longer had a specific 'look' of course I was a huge fan of a good foundation

bulldog QH . cutters were starting to have a more typy Arab look, more refined, loss of bone,

Working/reining cow horses a stronger more sturdy look and then your halter horses with a sometimes more Thoroughbred look.

Jenna great thought provoking poll.

 

[Jenna]

bumping this topic back up and reminding y'all that i dont want to turn this into a debate over mim/shetland "type" standards. Im looking for a public opinion for my debate....

thanks guys

 

[Minimor]

.

Minis breed standard (IMHO) hasn't been established, we have guidelines but not a set look. When you say Clydesdale or Arabian or Quarterhorse we can immediately know what someone means. Mini's have not achieved a set 'look' yet.

Well, that's true to a point. however, some breeds have multiple "looks". QHs have their halter type and their pleasure type and their running type, not to mention their working stock horses.

Morgans have several families, each with its own look--and of course there are the western types and the show types and the sport types... and as I've said before, even with the Morgan breed having it's woodcut of Justin Morgan, which is held up as being the ideal Morgan...no one can really agree on what the Morgan should or does look like. Over the years I've seen different people point out a different type of horse and claim that it matches exactly to the woodcut. People tend to be blind to reality.

 

[disneyhorse]

I've found that horses are not like other livestock, in that they don't always fit one specific mold. Especially when the breed is about "extreme versatility". Not that some breeds of horses are not versatile, but honestly watching a high-stepping black Friesian in a russet western saddle makes me gag. Some breeds are a bit more "rare" and "specific" and that's just fine... yes a Fjord always looks like a Fjord and not easily mistaken, but you don't generally have Fjord owners wanting to try to do dressage, Saddleseat, AND Western Pleasure with their horses. They buy them for a specific look and purpose, and that is what the Fjord will give them.

But some breeds, such as the Miniature Horse, want to be a do-it-all breed, that attracts horsemen from all walks of life. You find this with lots of the "very popular breeds" such as the Quarter Horse. SOME people who own them, want stocky/gentle ones that can hold up to their kids. SOME people want a beautiful halter horse that looks like a Breyer model. SOME people want a horse that can break level at the trot. SOME people want a little stock-type horse that does Western Pleasure driving. Unfortunately, you cannot wrap all of these attributes into the same mold. There are going to be conformational and temperament differences. But I think that's what makes the Miniature Horse breed so wonderful. They are simply "Small Equine" and I love the variety. One is not better than the other, they are just different. I happen to like cheesecake, I like fresh strawberries, too. They are NOT the same thing, and you can't compare and say one dessert should be the only one. Good horses are like good dessert... something to enjoy no matter what it is!

Andrea

 

[Anne ABC]

IMHO I believe this topic sometimes becomes confussing. I don't feel the breeds standard has anything to do with type. The standard only offers you a guide line so you can try to breed a correct horse, such as straight legs, correct angulation of shoulder , ear set, level topline, etc.. These correct features we should want in any TYPE horse.

 

[alphahorses]

Three thoughts on this:

1. Horses of any breed rarely meet their own breed standards anyway.

2. IMO our judges often do not judge to breed standards (really applies to shetlands IMO, not minis) or if they do, they concentrate so much on breed standards that they do not pay attention to basic conformation (e.g. straightness of legs, width of chest, size of hip)

3. Sometimes standards are not consistant with either soundness or performance. (Form and function are at odds)

Having been involved with both breed and non-breed competitions, I would say that in my opinion the better overall horses are found in non-breed competitions. The broader based of competition damands that your horse be more than just a good example of a breed - it demands that you be able to perform as well. I applaud people who get their ponies and horses out to non-breed competitions like open shows or CDEs where breed standard is not a question - only if they can perform or if their conformation is solid over-all.

 

[Jenna]

the question really isnt just about horses, its about all domesticated animals (livestock/pets) and its about whether or not having breed standards helps or is detrimental to them.

thanks again guys for you opinions

 

[Jenna]

bumping this back up. I need more opinons. please think of this as a broad question covering several different kinds of animals : cows, horses (in general), dogs, cats, pigs, etc

thanks guys

 

[Magic]

I voted that breed standards help, though I can see how sometimes a misguided breed standard can actually be detrimental. (how's that for decisive? LOL!) But, overall, in order for a Great Dane to look like a Great Dane, you've got to have breed standards.

I love how Andrea (Disneyhorse) stated it: " There are going to be conformational and temperament differences. But I think that's what makes the Miniature Horse breed so wonderful. They are simply "Small Equine" and I love the variety. One is not better than the other, they are just different"

I too think that is one reason why the miniature horse is so appealing, because there are so many different types to appeal to so many different people.

 

[Shortpig]

I believe breed standards is a good thing for showing to the best of breed. That being said there will always be mutts and someone with a vision to improve on those standards in their opinion.

I agree with grammar C that our animals are losing bone to satisfy those who seek refinement over strength and durability.

 

[Sue_C.]

I don't feel the breeds standard has anything to do with type. The standard only offers you a guide line so you can try to breed a correct horse, such as straight legs, correct angulation of shoulder , ear set, level topline, etc.. These correct features we should want in any TYPE horse.

Agreed. 100%

 

[maestoso]

I don't necessarily agree that a breed standard is required to envision the "perfect" miniature horse.

Yes, when someone says Arab, you have a picture in your mind, however, The Arab has a wide spectrum of looks, from the most typey to the extreme that you can barely tell they are arab, and that is the same in any breed. Not being "typey" does not exclude these horses from breeding, showing, etc.

Personally, when someone says miniature horse, I DO have a picture in my mind, and it is as clear as my "arab picture" or "saddlebred picture" or whatever. The problem with breed standards is that words are subjective, and that is all a rule book can offer, words. Tippy ears . . . . what does that mean to you? What does it mean to me? Upright neck . . . .well how upright? I think a paragraph describing what the mini should look like in the rule book is kind of silly. Personally, I'd rather see 6 pictures of the 6 most current world/national grand champions. These horses should be considered the breed standard and they change every year. Horses get better and better and better as time passes. And while we can see huge improvements, those are hard to put into a descriptive paragraph.

I guess I don't like the idea of a "standard" because it gets outdated too quickly. 20 years ago people might have considered the then current World Grand the "perfect" horse, but that same horse would be laughed out of the ring today. The breed standard, in my opinion, should reflect the current trends. Most people who breed the highest quality minis do so for the purpose of showing and then future breeding, and to get that, you need to try and be better than what is winning right now.

As far as requiring a standard to be considered a breed . . . . Even a breed standard will not make is a breed. I think I've written this a billion times, and of course, it is just my opinion. But look . . . we breed for height, we show by height, we classify by height. We are NOT a breed, we are a height registry, and what is wrong with that?

 

[Minimor]

I agree with grammar C that our animals are losing bone to satisfy those who seek refinement over strength and durability.

You do realize, I hope, that thicker bone isn't necessarily stronger bone--I know people that figure thick legs are good and fine legs are weak, but in truth sometimes the thick legged horses do not have the best bone. Coarse bone can have a tendency to be more porous, and thus weaker--while a horse with finer legs may have more dense bone, which is stronger. A horse can have refinement and still have good bone and sound legs, and be perfectly capable of standing up to work.

 

[rabbitsfizz]

I think that the only standard that is relevant to our horses is the height limitations for each category, with AMHR and the height limit with AMHA.

Surely that the horse has sound conformation is a given in any competition, and the Mini has no "type" specifically.

So really, IMO, writing out a standard is pointless.

The Mini is a horse, of any horse type, in Miniature, it should aim to be perfect (of course no horse is perfect, but that should be the aim)and that is really all we need to know.

 

[Riverrose28]

I think that you need to have breed standards, for instance I use to have kuchan chickens, (not sure I spelled it right) but anyway another breeder came over to look at my chickens he told me that when they are judged against each other that they should look round when viewed from above, like a paper plate. Also you need a standard when judging dogs to compare one dog to the rest of the breed. A good breeder will try to do their best to meet that standard or improve on it.