This message is from: Lori Puster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Admittedly, I'm new to horses, but I grew up in a kennel (that explains a lot actually), and I've bred dogs and Angora goats for years now. So I do know a bit about breeding.
First, I think people should always breed with the health and temperament of the animal as the foremost consideration. Looks, above and beyond sound conformation are secondary. Breeding for recessive colors is always risky because recessive colors are often linked to other recessive traits such as blindness or hearing loss--these may not be obvious, or may not show up for several generations. Or, the desire for "rare" colors often causes people to overlook the animal's other shortcomings. Second and I think more important to the discussion at hand, you cannot breed a "better" animal. Ever. That belief is better termed eugenics. You can breed for taller animals, darker coats, etc., but that does not make the animal better. Especially since that short, light colored horse you gelded may have had the gene that prevents cancer, or some other valuable trait that you can't "see" and will never, ever know about. Certainly animals with similar conformational faults should never be bred to each other, but it's my experience that they often pair exceptionally well with an animal that is especially prepotent in the trait they lack. With such a small number of Fjords in North America; we would do well to keep the gene pool as large as possible. Our animals will be less standardized, but we will breed fewer animals with negative recessive traits. And, as the winds of fashion change, and they will, future generations will have a variety of traits to choose from to create the types of horses they want. Fjords are generalists, not specialists, lets keep that in mind. And give thanks, that in an era of "custom" horses, our predecessors had the foresight to keep them that way. Respectfully, Lori Puster MoonWise Farm
