MBhorses
Well-Known Member
He is a very pretty stallion.I don't see dwarf in him. I am learning.
here's our dwarf
- Thread starter Relic
- Start date
Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:
Darkstar
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 110
- Reaction score
- 0
If that 1st dwarf needs a home, I'll take him! lol
The whole dwarf topic concerning miniatures is bordering on hysteria! People are seeing dwarves everywhere!!!! It's getting to be like the Salem witch trials. I wonder if dwarves float or sink in water. that sounds like a good test for being a dwarf. There must be some similar scientific test we can use! LOL
The whole dwarf topic concerning miniatures is bordering on hysteria! People are seeing dwarves everywhere!!!! It's getting to be like the Salem witch trials. I wonder if dwarves float or sink in water. that sounds like a good test for being a dwarf. There must be some similar scientific test we can use! LOL
L
Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis
Guest
I think for me and this is for me.. the issue as it was explained to me is simplified here but.. that say like in rabbits
Dwarf characteristics in there single form can produce a very desired effect, including size and look and of course doubled are not so desired.
The way I look at it now has nothing to do with size but again being very simplified (as it had to be explained to me that way)
If I look at a horse who has what I consider characteristics (which again in single form can be desired) I will go out of my way to make sure that the horse I choose to breed it to has none that I can at least see.
again that is pretty simple but really it had to be broke down to me like that for me to start to "get it" and then it made the rest of it easier to understand.
So that seeing some isnt always a "bad" thing or a breeding program or horse doomed it is simply one more way to try and make better choices in breeding which of course is all guess work anyway
I will say again I dont think a horse with characteristics should never be bred I do think that learning to see them will help us make better informed breeding choices
once I finally understood this and really not sure why it took me so long to "get it" but finally it clicked I could look at horses in my own program or wanting to purchase and really see if it was a chance I would take in breeding considerng the stock I already have at home.
If dwarfism takes 2 parents then saying parent A carries it isnt a death sentance for said stallion no different then LWO... it just helps to say oh ok then since Parent A is proven to produce a dwarf I sure wont breed him to Parent B who has also had one years ago.
Knowledge is a great thing and something I dont think will ruin the breed
We all take a chance any time we breed I just think anything that can move the odds a bit more in your favor is a great thing.
Dwarf characteristics in there single form can produce a very desired effect, including size and look and of course doubled are not so desired.
The way I look at it now has nothing to do with size but again being very simplified (as it had to be explained to me that way)
If I look at a horse who has what I consider characteristics (which again in single form can be desired) I will go out of my way to make sure that the horse I choose to breed it to has none that I can at least see.
again that is pretty simple but really it had to be broke down to me like that for me to start to "get it" and then it made the rest of it easier to understand.
So that seeing some isnt always a "bad" thing or a breeding program or horse doomed it is simply one more way to try and make better choices in breeding which of course is all guess work anyway
I will say again I dont think a horse with characteristics should never be bred I do think that learning to see them will help us make better informed breeding choices
once I finally understood this and really not sure why it took me so long to "get it" but finally it clicked I could look at horses in my own program or wanting to purchase and really see if it was a chance I would take in breeding considerng the stock I already have at home.
If dwarfism takes 2 parents then saying parent A carries it isnt a death sentance for said stallion no different then LWO... it just helps to say oh ok then since Parent A is proven to produce a dwarf I sure wont breed him to Parent B who has also had one years ago.
Knowledge is a great thing and something I dont think will ruin the breed
We all take a chance any time we breed I just think anything that can move the odds a bit more in your favor is a great thing.
Last edited:
I think nootka(Liz)put it very well. I would add that it appears to me,based on the photographs posted, that there are a couple of fairly serious conformational flaws that for me, would disqualify the horse for breeding--but the ones I am seeing are NOT part of the 'usual list' of dwarfism characteristics, and I would NOT label the horse as a dwarf, period-minimal or otherwise.
One thing I find very compelling in viewing the(lovely and professionally-done) two photos of the tiny stallion is the apparent combination,in him, of some really EXCELLENT conformational characteristics with some serious(to me, at least)conformational flaws. I believe that this only serves to 'point up' the challenge of achieving genuine overall conformational correctness in the very tiny--I certainly agree that it presents the highest degree of challenge to anyone breeding the smaller horses.(Though for my own USE, I prefer the taller horses because I love to drive and do other performance events, I am also fond of the very small. That said, I am a STRONG exponent of good, ATHLETIC, conformation and overall balance--and since those are features that are clearly more difficult to achieve in the tinier horses, I am honest to say that I do not see as many of them that I truly like...)
I do agree also that the '07 colt pictured does not appear to be 'up to' the overall quality of the sire, and that, to me, is a red flag--but on the other hand, one foal 'doth not a sire prove', one way or the other.
I would be glad to be specific about what I see, and what it means( both pros and cons,) as to the stallion's conformation--but as the OP only asked that people 'point out' why the horse would be called a dwarf, I would prefer to have the OP's permission before doing so here. Like TMR, when I was(and still am, actually!) learning to evaluate conformation, specifics helped!
Margo
One thing I find very compelling in viewing the(lovely and professionally-done) two photos of the tiny stallion is the apparent combination,in him, of some really EXCELLENT conformational characteristics with some serious(to me, at least)conformational flaws. I believe that this only serves to 'point up' the challenge of achieving genuine overall conformational correctness in the very tiny--I certainly agree that it presents the highest degree of challenge to anyone breeding the smaller horses.(Though for my own USE, I prefer the taller horses because I love to drive and do other performance events, I am also fond of the very small. That said, I am a STRONG exponent of good, ATHLETIC, conformation and overall balance--and since those are features that are clearly more difficult to achieve in the tinier horses, I am honest to say that I do not see as many of them that I truly like...)
I do agree also that the '07 colt pictured does not appear to be 'up to' the overall quality of the sire, and that, to me, is a red flag--but on the other hand, one foal 'doth not a sire prove', one way or the other.
I would be glad to be specific about what I see, and what it means( both pros and cons,) as to the stallion's conformation--but as the OP only asked that people 'point out' why the horse would be called a dwarf, I would prefer to have the OP's permission before doing so here. Like TMR, when I was(and still am, actually!) learning to evaluate conformation, specifics helped!
Margo
Last edited by a moderator:
angelheart
Member
Relic .. I really don't see anything about your horses that says " dwarf" to me ... in fact I think he's nice for a 27" horse. So often you don't see much leg when they are that small and he looks good there to me.
I also wish the first thread was still available as I find this to be a very educational topic. There is really so much to learn and so many different opinions on the subject of dwarfism.
I have a related question for forum readers. Do you consider the mini heads with a wider nose and more flared nostrils to definetly be dwarfish? I have seen this type of head on some minis and I had always thought of them as being more akin to the old version of the shetland pony head before the shetland was bred for more refinement. I remember the Shetlands of my youth being very pony looking with blockier wider heads and with more space between the eyes and more square cut noses with wider nostrils. I see that type of head on some minis who in all other aspects are straight and correct with good bites and no dome on the forehead and I have always thought of them as reflecting that old shetland type pony head than of being a dwarf.
Thanks
I also wish the first thread was still available as I find this to be a very educational topic. There is really so much to learn and so many different opinions on the subject of dwarfism.
I have a related question for forum readers. Do you consider the mini heads with a wider nose and more flared nostrils to definetly be dwarfish? I have seen this type of head on some minis and I had always thought of them as being more akin to the old version of the shetland pony head before the shetland was bred for more refinement. I remember the Shetlands of my youth being very pony looking with blockier wider heads and with more space between the eyes and more square cut noses with wider nostrils. I see that type of head on some minis who in all other aspects are straight and correct with good bites and no dome on the forehead and I have always thought of them as reflecting that old shetland type pony head than of being a dwarf.
Thanks
wwminis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,188
- Reaction score
- 3
[SIZE=18pt]Amen to this reply! yeah yeah [/SIZE]
Bill of W W Miniatures breeder of 30" and under minis and darn proud of it!
RobinRTrueJoy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2002
- Messages
- 2,441
- Reaction score
- 1
Darkstar, I love your post, you must have read my thoughts.
You know, there are many people on this forum that like the tinies and many that like the taller ones.Many don't like tinies and many don't like the B size. There are a lot of differences and that doesn't make tinies all dwarves.
Loving the tinies,
Robin
ps... send that "DWARF" to me!
You know, there are many people on this forum that like the tinies and many that like the taller ones.Many don't like tinies and many don't like the B size. There are a lot of differences and that doesn't make tinies all dwarves.
Loving the tinies,
Robin
ps... send that "DWARF" to me!
Last edited by a moderator:
please go on Margo...Either way l hope to come away with a better understanding. l did choose him because something strong pulled me in his direction but then thats all personal artsy fartsy feelings on my part..
wrenhart
Well-Known Member
Yea.... yes
Jill
Aspiring Cowgirl
One thing I really do not like about the way some things go on here is the OP has requested comments. People have posted their honest comments (correct or incorrect -- they shared their true thoughts). Then, there comes mindset to call people out for saying what they think -- when that was what they were asked to do Makes no sense to me and it happens a lot here.
While I am for sure not always right, I'm not going to "open my mouth" to say anything other than what I really think. Isn't that what people want when they ask for opinions? I mean, we all already know our own perspective on "things" RollEyes
A lot of times, I really think the peope have the best intentions and feel they're standing up for friends, but when someone asks what we think, I think they want to know what we think yes Relic's been a member long enough to know people will be blunt and that there will be a mixture of good and bad takes on her horse.
While I am for sure not always right, I'm not going to "open my mouth" to say anything other than what I really think. Isn't that what people want when they ask for opinions? I mean, we all already know our own perspective on "things" RollEyes
A lot of times, I really think the peope have the best intentions and feel they're standing up for friends, but when someone asks what we think, I think they want to know what we think yes Relic's been a member long enough to know people will be blunt and that there will be a mixture of good and bad takes on her horse.
Last edited by a moderator:
wiccanz
Well-Known Member
OK *gulp* I'm going to reply to this one. I haven't ever replied to this type of conformation thread before, I just see what I see and leave it at that. This is just my opinion on the day, a bit like going to a show really, you can take it or leave it, or even set fire to it if you wish (something I'd have liked to do to the judge on Saturday...!! just kidding) BigGrin BigGrin
What I see in this little guy is, from poll back through neck, shoulder, trunk and hind quarter, is pleasing. For me, the head is disproportionately large, and the legs disproportionately short. However, he is standing in grass up to his fetlocks, which doesn't help. So that may be deceiving. I don't think any of this has to do with height - proportionally correct can come in anything from 25" to 18 hh.
When I look at colts/stallions I ask myself "Would I use this horse over my mares?". In this case, I would say no. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be used over other mares, simply that he wouldn't suit mine.
Dwarf?? No, I don't believe so. Just a bit out of proportion here and there, something that can be seen in any size horse (I grew up with standardbreds, who are known for having large, square heads!)
Wish there was a dwarf test - but then I wonder how many would use it??
As a side issue, I have a problem with this whole nostril placement thing - perhaps someone could start a new thread and show examples of different placements and what their opinion is of them?
What I see in this little guy is, from poll back through neck, shoulder, trunk and hind quarter, is pleasing. For me, the head is disproportionately large, and the legs disproportionately short. However, he is standing in grass up to his fetlocks, which doesn't help. So that may be deceiving. I don't think any of this has to do with height - proportionally correct can come in anything from 25" to 18 hh.
When I look at colts/stallions I ask myself "Would I use this horse over my mares?". In this case, I would say no. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be used over other mares, simply that he wouldn't suit mine.
Dwarf?? No, I don't believe so. Just a bit out of proportion here and there, something that can be seen in any size horse (I grew up with standardbreds, who are known for having large, square heads!)
Wish there was a dwarf test - but then I wonder how many would use it??
As a side issue, I have a problem with this whole nostril placement thing - perhaps someone could start a new thread and show examples of different placements and what their opinion is of them?
I'm only learning myself, so all I can say that in the 1st photo of the stallion, his head seems to have an unusual/strange shape to it. Maybe it's just not head type that I find appealing. But, I wouldn't say that he is dwarf looking.
I already replied to that on page 2 and agree with Jill that it's not necessary to "call people out" over their opinions when that is what was asked for.
Last edited by a moderator:
rabbitsfizz
Well-Known Member
Nor is what your horses look like relevant.
I could, for example, own a string of truly "Fugly" horses, that I am well aware are "Fugly" but who I love nonetheless.
Does my ability to criticise realistically my own stock, to see their faults very clearly, to choose never to breed them and to love them anyway, mean my comments on someone else's horse (comments that were requested) are any less relevant or true??
No, to answer my own question, of course it doesn't and to suggest it does is a nonsense!!!
What Mininiks horses look like is totally irrelevant to her opinion of this horse, put up for criticism by his owner (and a brave gesture it was too, madame!!!)
I could, for example, own a string of truly "Fugly" horses, that I am well aware are "Fugly" but who I love nonetheless.
Does my ability to criticise realistically my own stock, to see their faults very clearly, to choose never to breed them and to love them anyway, mean my comments on someone else's horse (comments that were requested) are any less relevant or true??
No, to answer my own question, of course it doesn't and to suggest it does is a nonsense!!!
What Mininiks horses look like is totally irrelevant to her opinion of this horse, put up for criticism by his owner (and a brave gesture it was too, madame!!!)
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you, Relic. I deeply admire your willingness to ask for and 'hear' outside input in a critical evaluation of your horse.
I have to start by saying that I can ONLY go by what I am seeing in the photos posted. Even though these were professionally done, and 'better' in almost all ways than is often the case, they are still only photos, and may or may NOT accurately 'show' the horse--and of course, a full 'set' of photos-straight on, front and rear, straight and level from each side, of a horse in squared but natural-for-it stance,as a minimum, give the best opportunity to make any sort of valid critique based only on said photographs!
I will try to explain the 'whys' as I go along--keep in mind that some of this has to do with characteristics that are strongly related to either prospective soundness, and/or athleticism-which some might say 'aren't important' in miniatures(I would say that they are important in EVERY horse!), and some are more 'cosmetic', so therefore, perhaps not as 'vital'-yet still important in the overall picture,and part of any comprehensive conformational evaluation and description!
Pluses: a strong, short, back; strong and well-muscled through the loin('coupling'), with withers and croup even with each other, a level but not overly-so,croup,and tail well set-on, well-defined withers(all of these features, except the more-cosmetic tail set, are important for the ability to bear weight, perform work more easily, and 'hold up' to work/the demand for athletic movement).Neck is of a good length, in balance for this horse, overall well-shaped(I see a little hint of what I call 'windpipe bulge' on the bottom, but this is relatively common in miniatures, and as long as it is as slight as it appears, I don't consider it as a serious 'flaw'), with a clean and fine-enough throatlatch(important for a horse's overall balance in movement, and its ability to flex at the poll and maintain the ability to breathe well while doing so-a horse can't work for long if it can't breathe freely!)Short back with long underline--means balance, likely proper slope and length of shoulder AND hip -also, indicates adequate room for organs, esp. those most vital to stamina-heart and lungs.) Excellent length of hip(point of hip to point of buttock.)(Adequate muscling for the end of the horse that 'drives' it forward;see above re: balance.) Sufficient depth through the heart girth,and though I can't see the feet in the grass, it appears that the horse has excellent proportions of heart girth to overall leg length-especially impressive in such a tiny horse.(Heart girth depth=indicator of plenty of 'wind'-room for heart and lungs. Look at winning TBs and other successful racehorses! The proportion of top-to-bottom heart girth to leg length is another aspect of overall balance of the horse-I was taught that the OVERALL BALANCE is a major aspect of conformational quality, and I do believe it is.
Minuses: The most serious, and what,even if were the ONLY flaw as I see it, would lead me personally not to breed to this horse, is that he appears rather extremely camped out behind(when a horse stands square,and is viewed squarely from the side, a plumb line dropped from the point of the buttock should run right along the back of the hind legs, from hock down the cannon to the fetlock; in the photo of this horse-which admittedly is a SLIGHTLY 3/4 view, but only slightly-such a plumb line would fall IN FRONT of the closest leg to the camera! (This is a structural weakness of the musculoskeletal system, which is what enables the horse to MOVE! The seriousness of structural weaknesses is nearly always pretty directly related to the DEGREE of deviation from correctness that exists, although some examples can ALWAYS be found of exceptions-that is to say, there ARE horses that perform well, sometimes even extraordinarily well, IN SPITE OF possessing such deviations--for example, horses with mild to moderate cowhocks(hocks that turn in toward each other,and the hind legs from the hocks down, tend 'outward')may be able to do a sliding stop, or a big trot, as well as, and perhaps even better than, a similarly-built horse that is NOT cowhocked!)
It also appears that the horse is tied in below the knee in front(this is another weakness of the musculoskeletal structure, indicative of a poor tendon attachment down the back of the foreleg from the knee.) SIDEBAR: there is NO musculature below a horse's knees and hocks; basically,only tendons and ligaments, skin and hair-and of course, hooves! This is a reason why lower leg injury is often so serious---as tendon and ligament injury is very slow to heal....) It also appears that despite the long hip, there is a deficiency of muscling at the level of the stifle(again, good muscling means strength and power (drive, impulsion) in that area--I sometimes wonder if the tendency for lots of miniatures to be lacking in musculature in the stifle(breeching) area contributes to the stifle problems we often see and discuss...?)
I see a head that is too large/long overall, and especially from eye to muzzle.(A too-large head is VERY common in miniature horses, period, and ESPECIALLY in the smallest ones, IMO---you simply cannot easily 'shrink' a body part(the skull) that has to provide room for the TEETH, which CANNOT be reduced in size as quickly/easily as the rest of the body through breeding selection for small size,no matter how much we wish it could be!!) The ears don't stand up well, but are a bit 'lopped' off to each side(I saw the same apparent earset in the colt)-and yes, there is a bit more forehead 'bulge' than I wish to see in a mature miniature horse-but I hasten to say, I do not consider this to shout 'dwarfism' in this horse! I would say that IMO these are somewhat more 'cosmetic/eye-pleasing' issues than the ones I've outlined previously--yet, they ARE considered when evaluating conformation, and to some, hold a great deal of weight, right or wrongfully. I must add--even as LONG as this is, it really only skims the surface! One reason? Because there is no way to tell how straight the horse's legs are as seen from front or back, there is no way to tell whether it has well-sprung ribs, or adequate width in the chest(again, indicators of good room for the most vital organs!-or how correct the angle of the pasterns and hooves are-because we cannot see these aspects in these photos....and second,because,IMO, the more you learn about this subject,and the more you 'practice' your evaluation skills, the more deeply you realize you can 'go' into this subject! I am still learning, and I have been 'at this', seriously, for well over 50 years....
Overall, I see this little stallion as in many ways, a nice individual FOR HIS TINY SIZE. I have already outlined my position on him for breeding, but can certainly understand his attractiveness to his owner and others! I am very heartened by what I see as an increasing ability of many to participate in what I see as learning opportunities, for all of us! What I believe is most important is to try to learn enough to make well-imformed decisions about what, and at what level, deviations from the ideal(and ALL horses have deviations from the ideal!!)can be tolerated in the quest for improvement, and which ones may be 'riskier' to tolerate.
(Gosh, I hope I have spelled everything correctly--this has taken awhile, and my eyes and typing fingers are now weary!!)
With respect to all,
Margo
I have to start by saying that I can ONLY go by what I am seeing in the photos posted. Even though these were professionally done, and 'better' in almost all ways than is often the case, they are still only photos, and may or may NOT accurately 'show' the horse--and of course, a full 'set' of photos-straight on, front and rear, straight and level from each side, of a horse in squared but natural-for-it stance,as a minimum, give the best opportunity to make any sort of valid critique based only on said photographs!
I will try to explain the 'whys' as I go along--keep in mind that some of this has to do with characteristics that are strongly related to either prospective soundness, and/or athleticism-which some might say 'aren't important' in miniatures(I would say that they are important in EVERY horse!), and some are more 'cosmetic', so therefore, perhaps not as 'vital'-yet still important in the overall picture,and part of any comprehensive conformational evaluation and description!
Pluses: a strong, short, back; strong and well-muscled through the loin('coupling'), with withers and croup even with each other, a level but not overly-so,croup,and tail well set-on, well-defined withers(all of these features, except the more-cosmetic tail set, are important for the ability to bear weight, perform work more easily, and 'hold up' to work/the demand for athletic movement).Neck is of a good length, in balance for this horse, overall well-shaped(I see a little hint of what I call 'windpipe bulge' on the bottom, but this is relatively common in miniatures, and as long as it is as slight as it appears, I don't consider it as a serious 'flaw'), with a clean and fine-enough throatlatch(important for a horse's overall balance in movement, and its ability to flex at the poll and maintain the ability to breathe well while doing so-a horse can't work for long if it can't breathe freely!)Short back with long underline--means balance, likely proper slope and length of shoulder AND hip -also, indicates adequate room for organs, esp. those most vital to stamina-heart and lungs.) Excellent length of hip(point of hip to point of buttock.)(Adequate muscling for the end of the horse that 'drives' it forward;see above re: balance.) Sufficient depth through the heart girth,and though I can't see the feet in the grass, it appears that the horse has excellent proportions of heart girth to overall leg length-especially impressive in such a tiny horse.(Heart girth depth=indicator of plenty of 'wind'-room for heart and lungs. Look at winning TBs and other successful racehorses! The proportion of top-to-bottom heart girth to leg length is another aspect of overall balance of the horse-I was taught that the OVERALL BALANCE is a major aspect of conformational quality, and I do believe it is.
Minuses: The most serious, and what,even if were the ONLY flaw as I see it, would lead me personally not to breed to this horse, is that he appears rather extremely camped out behind(when a horse stands square,and is viewed squarely from the side, a plumb line dropped from the point of the buttock should run right along the back of the hind legs, from hock down the cannon to the fetlock; in the photo of this horse-which admittedly is a SLIGHTLY 3/4 view, but only slightly-such a plumb line would fall IN FRONT of the closest leg to the camera! (This is a structural weakness of the musculoskeletal system, which is what enables the horse to MOVE! The seriousness of structural weaknesses is nearly always pretty directly related to the DEGREE of deviation from correctness that exists, although some examples can ALWAYS be found of exceptions-that is to say, there ARE horses that perform well, sometimes even extraordinarily well, IN SPITE OF possessing such deviations--for example, horses with mild to moderate cowhocks(hocks that turn in toward each other,and the hind legs from the hocks down, tend 'outward')may be able to do a sliding stop, or a big trot, as well as, and perhaps even better than, a similarly-built horse that is NOT cowhocked!)
It also appears that the horse is tied in below the knee in front(this is another weakness of the musculoskeletal structure, indicative of a poor tendon attachment down the back of the foreleg from the knee.) SIDEBAR: there is NO musculature below a horse's knees and hocks; basically,only tendons and ligaments, skin and hair-and of course, hooves! This is a reason why lower leg injury is often so serious---as tendon and ligament injury is very slow to heal....) It also appears that despite the long hip, there is a deficiency of muscling at the level of the stifle(again, good muscling means strength and power (drive, impulsion) in that area--I sometimes wonder if the tendency for lots of miniatures to be lacking in musculature in the stifle(breeching) area contributes to the stifle problems we often see and discuss...?)
I see a head that is too large/long overall, and especially from eye to muzzle.(A too-large head is VERY common in miniature horses, period, and ESPECIALLY in the smallest ones, IMO---you simply cannot easily 'shrink' a body part(the skull) that has to provide room for the TEETH, which CANNOT be reduced in size as quickly/easily as the rest of the body through breeding selection for small size,no matter how much we wish it could be!!) The ears don't stand up well, but are a bit 'lopped' off to each side(I saw the same apparent earset in the colt)-and yes, there is a bit more forehead 'bulge' than I wish to see in a mature miniature horse-but I hasten to say, I do not consider this to shout 'dwarfism' in this horse! I would say that IMO these are somewhat more 'cosmetic/eye-pleasing' issues than the ones I've outlined previously--yet, they ARE considered when evaluating conformation, and to some, hold a great deal of weight, right or wrongfully. I must add--even as LONG as this is, it really only skims the surface! One reason? Because there is no way to tell how straight the horse's legs are as seen from front or back, there is no way to tell whether it has well-sprung ribs, or adequate width in the chest(again, indicators of good room for the most vital organs!-or how correct the angle of the pasterns and hooves are-because we cannot see these aspects in these photos....and second,because,IMO, the more you learn about this subject,and the more you 'practice' your evaluation skills, the more deeply you realize you can 'go' into this subject! I am still learning, and I have been 'at this', seriously, for well over 50 years....
Overall, I see this little stallion as in many ways, a nice individual FOR HIS TINY SIZE. I have already outlined my position on him for breeding, but can certainly understand his attractiveness to his owner and others! I am very heartened by what I see as an increasing ability of many to participate in what I see as learning opportunities, for all of us! What I believe is most important is to try to learn enough to make well-imformed decisions about what, and at what level, deviations from the ideal(and ALL horses have deviations from the ideal!!)can be tolerated in the quest for improvement, and which ones may be 'riskier' to tolerate.
(Gosh, I hope I have spelled everything correctly--this has taken awhile, and my eyes and typing fingers are now weary!!)
With respect to all,
Margo
maestoso
Well-Known Member
Sometimes when I read these posts I feel like people are hungry to find any excuse to scream, DWARF!!!! Also, the ones are posting post after post calling out other people's dwarfs, I too, would like to see some of your horses and I would like you to point out some of your own horses "dwarf" characteristics. Is it as easy for you to point these out on your own horses as it is everyone elses?
That said, I am not blaming you or critisizing you for posting, as the people who started these forums are asking for it, but I'd like to see someone post a horse where no one says... "I'd be concerned about breeding to that horses because it has a dwarfy this....."
That said, I am not blaming you or critisizing you for posting, as the people who started these forums are asking for it, but I'd like to see someone post a horse where no one says... "I'd be concerned about breeding to that horses because it has a dwarfy this....."
I ditto Wiccanz...... I'm not a "teeny weenie" breeder, but for being one, he is very pleasing.....NOT a dwarf.
I just don't breed for the itzy bitsy.
MA
L
Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis
Guest
I had a mare who produced a dwarf I no longer own her so wont post pictures of her. I will say that knowing what I know now...and looking at her it was so obvious that she was a carrier. Now that said she has had foals that were amazing and not showing any characteristics as well but my point is that knowing what I know now and what to look for the signs where there of what could possibly happen and I had I been open to seeing them I would have made some definate different choices in her breeding partners.
I dont currently own any but a gelding who could show some characteristics however I do currently own one quite fugly mare- now truth be told the majority of the time she doesnt pass her fugliness on but I know that it is always a huge risk I am taking. She has had a couple of foals for me and plenty for her past owner.
I dont own a perfect horse or anything close to it. I have a top halter mare who IMO is a bit to straight in the shoulder being her flaw I see first. Another with a low neck tie in she is correct but just has a lower neck set she would be a great west pleasure horse lol. Lets see I have another mare who is rather plain in appearence despite her color but a very consistent broodmare. I have another gelding who is cowhocked and toes out and is to straight in the stifle (which is why he is a gelding) A stallion (soon to be gelding) who has a low tail set and could have a better hip.
I could go on but my point here is I sure dont think my horses are perfect . I see them for what they are and love them anyway. I have to be able to see what is there to make informed breeding choices as the "foals" will already have some strikes against them that I see so I have to be prepared for that I dont see and what could happen.
IMO there is no failure in saying hey I see this and this wrong with my horses in fact in a breeder I think it is necessary.
I think we all need to be open to seeing things in our own horses and in others in order to keep learning that is the only way those before us and currently are improving the breed.
I dont currently own any but a gelding who could show some characteristics however I do currently own one quite fugly mare- now truth be told the majority of the time she doesnt pass her fugliness on but I know that it is always a huge risk I am taking. She has had a couple of foals for me and plenty for her past owner.
I dont own a perfect horse or anything close to it. I have a top halter mare who IMO is a bit to straight in the shoulder being her flaw I see first. Another with a low neck tie in she is correct but just has a lower neck set she would be a great west pleasure horse lol. Lets see I have another mare who is rather plain in appearence despite her color but a very consistent broodmare. I have another gelding who is cowhocked and toes out and is to straight in the stifle (which is why he is a gelding) A stallion (soon to be gelding) who has a low tail set and could have a better hip.
I could go on but my point here is I sure dont think my horses are perfect . I see them for what they are and love them anyway. I have to be able to see what is there to make informed breeding choices as the "foals" will already have some strikes against them that I see so I have to be prepared for that I dont see and what could happen.
IMO there is no failure in saying hey I see this and this wrong with my horses in fact in a breeder I think it is necessary.
I think we all need to be open to seeing things in our own horses and in others in order to keep learning that is the only way those before us and currently are improving the breed.
Dona
Well-Known Member
One must remember....NO horse is going to look the same to everyone's eyes. And, there are no perfect horses, regardless of what some may think. Isn't the whole goal of the American Miniature Horse to strive for the "smallest, most perfect" horse? Not just "most Perfect"...but the "Smallest, most perfect". Of course, a 27" Miniature...no matter HOW perfect, is not going to look as refined as a 34" mini of the same quality, let alone a 38" Shetland! And, I don't think it's fair to expect them to...or to insinuate they look "Dwarfy" because of it. Of course, there are specific Dwarf traits that can usually be seen pretty obviously. But, most of the photos that some people have "picked apart" saying they see dwarf traits in this or in that...are stating "their" opinons only. As there are no tests to define Dwarfism yet....no one can say for certain that an out of porportion head, or oddly placed nostrils, or small ears, or bit shorter neck are ALWAYS signs of Dwarfism. They may be, in many cases, nothing more than conformation faults. People may feel that from their "experience" this is what they believe....and that's fine, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. But, it doesn't make it so.
It would be very interesting to put up some Grand National Champions (natural fuzzy pics where they wouldn't be readily recognized) and I know that even THEY would be picked apart by some.
OH!NO....most of the smaller minis do NOT look as "in porportion" as the taller ones. But....they have come a looooong way the last 20 years since I've been into Minis, and that is a testiment to the dedicated breeders & their integrity in honestly trying to better the breed, and breed the best to the best. I have no doubt that the smaller Miniatures will continue to get better & better.... and there will always be people who love them, and those who will not.
nootka
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2002
- Messages
- 7,547
- Reaction score
- 0
My original point about those who breed for very small is that they have a bigger responsibility to choose more correct individuals, IMO, than those of us breeding for the taller ones.
There are more to choose from with less risk of dwarfism (though it DOES exist in the taller horses, too, I am quite sure and not in denial, there. I'm pretty sure I owned a 38" dwarf mare for a while. Knowing what I know now, she may well have been destined to BE much taller in her life).
Noone wants to eliminate the tinies, but to excuse certain obvious defects and indicators of a genetic disease that causes such debilitating problems just because they're "cute" is wrong. What we need to do is to be more aware of them and I'm quite sure that if you DO have a horse with one possible symptom or sign of dwarfism, and you want to breed her, you could find yourself a dwarf-trait-free stallion to pair her with, even an under 28" one. I saw a few at Worlds, for example. I was actually surprised at the size of the stallion class and if there are that many, there are surely more at home in paddocks.
Choosing the "stockier" type is no reason to overlook the fact that the legs are so short in relation to the body that they are most certainly a dwarf, nor the fact that their head is bulging even at full maturity. Just be careful, and keep your mind open to the possibilities.
Noone wants to control anyone else, or make them in any way "ruined" with their breeding program, we all just want to learn alongside each other. Not one of us is better in any way than any other person here, just some have been doing this longer, and have more real experience and observation, though with plenty of room for new learning.
Thanks, Relic, for sharing. I should find my pics of my filly and post them (I did sell her but have permission to use her for learning purposes to illustrate what I saw and why I culled her from breeding) on the Photo Gallery.
Liz
There are more to choose from with less risk of dwarfism (though it DOES exist in the taller horses, too, I am quite sure and not in denial, there. I'm pretty sure I owned a 38" dwarf mare for a while. Knowing what I know now, she may well have been destined to BE much taller in her life).
Noone wants to eliminate the tinies, but to excuse certain obvious defects and indicators of a genetic disease that causes such debilitating problems just because they're "cute" is wrong. What we need to do is to be more aware of them and I'm quite sure that if you DO have a horse with one possible symptom or sign of dwarfism, and you want to breed her, you could find yourself a dwarf-trait-free stallion to pair her with, even an under 28" one. I saw a few at Worlds, for example. I was actually surprised at the size of the stallion class and if there are that many, there are surely more at home in paddocks.
Choosing the "stockier" type is no reason to overlook the fact that the legs are so short in relation to the body that they are most certainly a dwarf, nor the fact that their head is bulging even at full maturity. Just be careful, and keep your mind open to the possibilities.
Noone wants to control anyone else, or make them in any way "ruined" with their breeding program, we all just want to learn alongside each other. Not one of us is better in any way than any other person here, just some have been doing this longer, and have more real experience and observation, though with plenty of room for new learning.
Thanks, Relic, for sharing. I should find my pics of my filly and post them (I did sell her but have permission to use her for learning purposes to illustrate what I saw and why I culled her from breeding) on the Photo Gallery.
Liz
