This message is from: Janet McNally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I am new to Fjords and new to breeding horses, so cannot pass on what I think is ideal, I am just learning that now. But in support of Don's letter, I do want to mention a few things that I have learned via other species regarding selecting for conformation, temperment, and soundness.
There are two aspects to conformational ideals; one is how form relates to function, the other is simply beauty. I think in breeding animals, we humans get the two goals mixed up a great deal. There are some aspects to body structure that are important to a long life of service, or that may be correlated to temperment. But very often we focus on aspects that are purely desired because we find it nice to look at. Sometimes we confuse the difference between form/function and beauty. A wise old cattle breeder once told me, that if you want to see what a good cow looks like, go find an old cow, that has produced out on the range all her life and held up as a sound productive animal. That is what a good cow looks like. I think this advice is valuable in every species. As an example of form vs function... in dogs, we so often say a wide chest, and straight legs as ideal. The argument presented is that such a dog will hold up travelling over long distances. But look at wild wolves, they often are quite narrow in the chest, toe out, and are cow hocked in the rear. Yet wolves easily travel 50 miles per day routinely, and have been known to travel 500 or more miles in just a couple of weeks. I bet very few of our 'perfectly built' domestic dogs would hold up to that kind of travelling. In sheep and cattle, studies have found that the cow hocked animals can move longer and further than the showring animals with 'correct' hind legs. I believe that we have confused beauty with functional structure in these animals. I use various breeds of livestock guarding dogs on our farm to keep the wolves out of our sheep (Tatra, Maremma, Anatolian). Some of my dogs come from stock that were imported from farms in Europe. They are not pretty to look at, have various (presumedly) conformational flaws but they do their job very well because they have the right disposition (i.e. do not chase sheep, stay with their sheep, and are protective of their sheep). Other dogs have come from American dog breeders, who buy dogs in Europe and then try to 'improve' upon the conformation that European shepherds have 'neglected'. I have found some of these 'improved' dogs to have more soundness problems, and are not as reliable (i.e. not good working temperment). I am beginning to connect that some temperment qualities are related to certain types of body build, and that some breeders are selecting for the wrong structure because it is more 'beautiful' thus inadvertently producing more and more dogs that are not suited tempermentally to their work. It will be a long time before I learn how form/function/ and disposition relate to each other in the Fjord, but in defence of Don's point, we certainly can have animals that are functionally sound with good dispositions, but they may not be what we think is pretty. I have to agree that without a good working disposition the rest is pointless. When you get into a bind out on a slippery mountain slope, or along a busy high way, a calm, sensible horse is going to be the most important thing in the world to you. Janet W McNally
