This message is from: Janet McNally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jamie,
thankyou Jamie for taking this on as a level headed debate :-) Steve, I do hope you will allow this one last post through, especially since there are a few (incorrect) accusations being thrown at me that you did permit to go public. I wish to clarify my possition. This message is from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Well, first off, preserving the purity of the breed means not crossing >it. If it means something different to you please enlighten me. Crossbreeding is done for many different purposes. I have not yet heard anyone on this list, me or otherwise suggest that new genes should be put into the Fjord breed. Merely making crossbreds does not mean those crosses will be used to perpetuate the Fjord. What is so very important to realize, is that it is not -making- the cross that changes a breed, it is the decision to accept the crossbreds into the purebred registry that changes them. I whole heartedly agree that encorporating crossbreds into the registry would destroy the Fjord, I am in no way advocating it, and I am absolutely dead set against it. But outcrossing is a totally different purpose. Outcrossing is where a -purebred- is used to produce a cross on another breed or grade. Usually this is done with the rarer breed stallion as presumedly the mares of the other breed are either lesser quality or more plentiful. This has been done throughout history where either the half bred is the desired product, or where improvement (grading up) is needed in the other breed. Outcrossing does -not- change the purebred used for outcrossing as the crossbred animals are never incorporated into the purebred gene pool (by not being permitted into the registry). There are many expamples (in other species, and in history, with the horse) where the demand for the use of a pure breed in outcrossing actually strengthened the support to safeguard the purity of that breed, as the breed would not be very prepotent if it was not pure. The best example I can give is the bluefaced leicester sheep, which exists soley to produce crosses on hill breeds in the U.K. If there was not demand for this breed in crossing, it would not even exist. Yet the breed does exist and thrives soley for its use as a crossing sire, and for that purpose its purity is guarded just as much as the Fjord breed). So there is an example where there are vast numbers of crossbred offspring produced, yet the purebred is kept pure and is viable as a breed. In the horse world, there have been breeds which, due to their demand for grading up or outcrossing, were greatly strengthened and kept pure just for that purpose. This is the kind of crossbreeding I am referring to as not harmful. >After all, >any foal resulting from a Fjord bred to a non-Fjord is *part* Fjord, and >therefore is NOT PURE. Do you expect people to just ignore those horses' >existence because their Fjord parent hasn't been changed? What are you suggesting? I guess I don't understand the question. The crossbred Fjord is not of interest to the purebreeder in his breeding program. It is an end product produced presumedly for a reason to be used for a certain purpose (work or pleasure). I cannot guess all the reasons why people might produce crossbreds, some of it to be sure may be misguided and should be discouraged. But I guess the needle that has been sticking me in the side here, is that there may be a very good reason someone might wish to make a Fjord outcross, and who am I/you/anyone to condemn them so long as their stock stay out of the purebred gene pool? Not too long ago, when horses were much more comonly used for work, nearly every farm work horse was infact a crossbred referred to as a 'farm chunk'. These horses fed and developed America. Purebred draft breeds flourished supplying genetics to make these crosses and the purity of those draft breeds was not lost by this use. It was not until later, when the draft breeds were no longer used for crossing, but instead were used as 'purebreds' in show hitches that they changed dramatically. Just one example that it is the use of the horse that poses the greatest power in shaping the breed. Times are changing and today most of us do not depend upon our horses for work, and the availability of purebreds have increased But there are still people who use horses for work (we do) and will have specific needs. It -might- be that a Fjord cross would give them that blend they are looking for. Personally, I have found the purebred Fjord to suit me perfectly and have no desire to change it, but I choose not to speak for other people. > Secondly, if anyone doesn't understand the history of horse breeding >as it's relevant to Fjords, it's you. The breed is over four thousand years >old. Sorry for being blunt, but who are you to come waltzing in saying it's >okay to cross them? I understand the long purebred history of the Fjord 100% AOK. But I'll go on to wager that somewhere in that history, purebred Fjord stallions have been used on grade mares to make work or 'using' horses when purebreds were scarce, and I'll wager that somewhere in its history this kind of outcrossing helped contribute to demand and development of purebred breeding programs that became the foundation of the purebred Fjord. Be careful, I did not say the crossbreds were used in the breeding program (maybe they were, maybe they were not), I only said that the outcrossing probably created demand for the qualities of the purebred Fjords to warrent investing in a purebred breeding program. I am speculating here on the Fjord breed, but do so because this scenario of outcrossing has been instrumental to creating demand for most other purebreds in the past and that demand supported purebred breeders giving them the resources necessary to specialize. It is very likely to have been instrumental in the Fjord as well. Perhaps someone who has studied the history of the old Fjord breeding establishments can comment. I have not suggested -anywhere- that it is desireable to incorporate crossbreds into the purebred Fjord population, and it is the very fact that so many people are so quick to jump to the conclusion (that crossbreeding = diluting purebred Fjords) that lead me to believe many do not understand the difference between the various purposes of crossbreeding. > As I've said before, Fjords are what they are for a reason. If you >want a horse with different qualities, go buy something else. No one is >twisting your arm and forcing you to get one. I will repeat myself again "Personally, I have found the purebred Fjord to suit me perfectly and have no desire to change it. " I have stated this at least 4 times in the past couple of weeks in this forum. > but you'll never convince me that the >breed and the breed's image won't be. Really the heart of this debate is breed purity..... How are you suggesting the crossbreds are going to enter the purebred Fjord gene pool? Why would breeders choose to attempt to illegally register a crossbred? as for the image of the breed, I already said: << I -do- appreciate the concerns some have about potential confusion of purebreds vs crossbreds, although I >>do ponder why this does not seem to be an ssue in any other breed. >> I am speaking about reported potential confusion as to whether a horse is a purebred or crossbred Fjord and what that does to the image of the purebred. I will continue to observe and take notes, as I have not yet seen a crossbred except for the photos Lynda posted of the rescue horses. But so far, in the discussion that has ensued here on the list, no one was able to make a strong case that the crossbreds are anything more than a hypothetical threat to the image of the purebred horses. Crossbreds are readily accepted as a non-threat to many other pure breeds, so I am truly puzzled why Fjord breeders are uniquely concerned about this issue. In response to my statement.... << I am puzzled too that the most logical rationale to ban crossbreeding, that is to keep numbers of fjord-like horses in check to protect the value of the purebreds, so that Fjord breeders can recieve respectable prices for their product (and continue to be able to afford to carry out their breeding program), is not top on the list, as it should be. >> Jamie responded: > Wow. If you think the most logical reason for not crossing the Fjord >is based in money we've got much bigger problems... Let me explain. If the value of purebred Fjords drops below the level needed to invest in continuing the breed, the breed will suffer. If purebred Fjords maintain a high value, people will be willing to invest in the best genetics, training, and will be out travelling around buying and marketing their horses. If it is possible, that a plethera of crossbreds would satisfy the demand for Fjord like horses, or worse, became more popular than the purebred, and that caused the purebred price to drop, then many of the breeders would not be able to justify investing in the Fjord breed. I honestly don't know if crossbreeding Fjords would do this. I can point to several examples where crossbreds in other species command just as much money as purebreds, but of course we can also point to many examples where crossbreds are cheaper. I am only saying, at least this reason for banning crossbreeding holds some water if the purpose is to protect the breed. In conclusion Jamie wrote: > When we see something potentially harmful happening, >we do what we can to stop it. No one on this list has been able to tell me how they think outcrossing with a Fjord is going to result in those crossbreds entering into the registry thus tainting the purebred gene pool, nor has anyone been able to provide conclusive evidence that crossbreds are harmful to the image of the purebred Fjord. (one or two examples, and lots of speculation does not make a trend). If it is image that everyone is so worried about then think twice before attacking the owner of a half bred, think twice before defining who should and should not own Fjords, think twice before critisizing people who may have needs different than your own. In other words, do a good job selecting your breeding stock, take care who you sell to, but be a good neighbor. **Because the attitude of the people who own the breed is every bit as important to the image of the breed as the animal itself.** I am concerned that as a new Fjord owner, I have seen more posts attacking and critisizing people who know or think differently, and it is creating a very negative image. It reminds me once of going to the state fair, where the Tenn walker people had their stalls all roped off and no one would take time to talk to me (I was looking to buy a TWH!), but the Belgian, Percheron, and Clyde people were not only welcoming but down right hospitable. Which image are Fjord owners and breeders creating here? I have not asked anyone to accept crossbreeding, nor have I asked that any rules be changed. I have only suggested that perhaps crossbreeding does not deserve to be treated as something 'evil'. Not acceptable is one thing, evil is another. Based on private responses I know that there are people who are afraid to speak up on this topic because they are afraid that any show of support means being tarred, feathered and hung as a traitor. This is very unfortunate and does not help the image of the Fjord breed one iota. Janet W McNally
