Breeding an unregistered horse is comparable to buying fur... discuss

[ QUOTE ]
Goodness, this really just seems like you're having a bad day and want to take it out on someone.

[ QUOTE ]
I was having a discussion with a friend recently about unregistered horse breeding and her opinion is that it is the same as buying fur and I have to say she has a very valid point.

[/ QUOTE ]In your opinion.[ QUOTE ]
When you buy fur, you have no concept of what quality of life the animal led,

[/ QUOTE ]You've assumed a massive amount about the entire fur industry here. How well acquainted with it are you? Are we talking about the worldwide industry, the practices of a particular country, a particular fur trader, or just the bad ones? [ QUOTE ]
you can't logically claim that you care about the standard of living that animal.

[/ QUOTE ]Why not? That doesn't actually make sense. I want to eat nice meat, but just because I want nice meat doesn't mean that I don't care about the standard of living of the animal. If I wanted a nice deerskin coat, why can I not then care that the deer had an active, healthy, free-range life too? Why can I not select between the fur houses that rear and produce livestock in a suitable manner and opt out of buying from those that don't? I really don't see your point here at all. [ QUOTE ]
Now, you breed two unregistered horses to 'see what we get'

[/ QUOTE ]And here I think the problem is not with 'breeding two unregistered horses', the problem is with 'to see what we get', or in other words, the attitude. You can breed two registered horses with the same attitude and still produce crap. So why bring registration into it when the actual problem is the motivation and the attitude behind it? [ QUOTE ]
the chances of said offspring having poor conformation are higher, the chances of it ending up at the sales is higher, going for meat or being generally neglected are all higher.

[/ QUOTE ]This has been done to death. Read the previous threads on the self-same thing. [ QUOTE ]
So therefore you can't really care that much about the quality of life that that animal will lead.

[/ QUOTE ]If you have the wrong attitude towards horses, i.e. 'let's see what we get', why would it be remarkable that you then don't forward-plan the horse's life? I'm not sure what your point is again.[ QUOTE ]
PS: and don't give me that 'but I'd give it a home for life' bullsh!t because nobody can predict the future and to think you can is increadibly naive.

[/ QUOTE ]Are you aware of just how aggressive this sentence is? This is the bit where I seriously think you have gone from asking for a discussion on a subject to spoiling for an actual fight.[ QUOTE ]
PPS: this is also not a 'all unregistered horses are sh!t' post so don't start posting about how wonderful your unregistered's are.

[/ QUOTE ] And this one isn't much better, but you yourself don't seem to have clearly separated 'attitude towards horses' from 'horse registration', so it's odd for you to then demand that others be more careful.

[/ QUOTE ]

well put
smile.gif

tho i'm still slightly confused by the original topic. i am easily confused tho lol
i'm not sure who you're having a pop at?
are you saying we should only breed from registered mares to registered stallions?
what about those that don't give a monkeys about parentage and just want a nice horse? i know if i was going looking for a horse right now, papers would be the last thing i'd look at.
i'd be looking at temperament, conformation and how they were to ride. if a horse fitted the bill for me i couldn't care less if it was registered or not
smile.gif
 
what utter crap!

I think there is a requirement, and a healthy market for horses who may not have proven bloodlines. Shoot me down, but aren't the majority of riders out talented by their horses?

top class horses deserve top class riders. i have seen horses with wonderful bloodlines, confirmation and talent, being wasted & ruined to the extent where they have been labelled unrideable and are more likely to end up with a questionable life than a hardworking, less talented cross breed with unknown parentage that will do well at riding club level all his days.

as pointed out previously, poor examples (conformationally defected) horses are poor choices to breed from regardles of their bloodlines. It's this that's the problem, not breeding unregistered animals!
 
OP - Subject: Re: Breeding an unregistered horse is comparable to buying fur... discuss

I didn't make myself clear, it's the above I think is tosh. Breeding an unregistered animal being comparable to buying fur.
Maybe the chances of getting crap from unregistered animals is higher but it's not always true and therefore breeding from them isn't always going to be a bad thing. If you consider the animals you are breeding from carefully, ie how the dam and sire are put together, their character and previous progeny, you can produce a good foal. Using a registered, graded stallion should mean that you get a good foal, but that doesn't mean that they will always produce something that will do the job, eg race as well as they should.
 
QR

Urm, I'm not having a 'pop at' anyone. I asked for people's opinions. Sheesh, chill. I never said that breeding horses who's history you knew meant there would be nothing wrong with the offspring, neither that you were guaranteed crap if you didn't know the history. But it is a lottery and surely if you are breeding it is your responsibility to ensure that the foal you produce has the highest chance of having a full and healthly life that you can give it. You cannot possibly say that you can give it that chance if you don't know the bloodlines it comes from as you have no facts to back it up.
 
[ QUOTE ]
If you consider the animals you are breeding from carefully, ie how the dam and sire are put together, their character and previous progeny, you can produce a good foal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely, how can you know its previous progeny/history or anything about it apart from it looks nice if its unregistered and there are no records for it?
 
Erm... I'm confuzzled - how on earth are the two comparable?
confused.gif
While the the fur industry animals generally live a horrible life and suffer a horrific death; unregistered horses only run a risk of being sold at a meat market (the same as registered ones) and you're comparing the two? It's a bit like comparing carrying a yard knife round the yard to the increase of stabbing crimes.....

As you put in your OP you can't predict the future, and a registered foal can not be guaranteed a safe and happy life anymore than an unregistered one can.
 
I can't understand how you can actually compare buying fur to breeding "unregistered" horses.

It is people lacking knowledge and understanding that contribute to high sales and horse slaughter numbers- those who breed a foal but don't have a clue how to break it etc.
 
[ QUOTE ]
the point is that I would never breed my mare to a stallion who had no history as you are increasing you chances of getting something tosh. I'm not saying that you are guaranteed to get something tosh, just increasing the chances.

[/ QUOTE ] This still has problems for me. Indiscriminate breeding is only partly tied up with registration. Here's an example: you can choose between Stallion A (top class, excelling in their field, sound, unregistered, nothing known about their history) and Stallion B (fully registered, history back to Henry VIII, good but not great, will never reach the levels of A). Which would you breed your mare to? I'm suspecting (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you would choose A, yes? The problem here is not with registration, it is about choosing a good horse, with good conformation, who has done well in the tasks that you want to set for the foal (or in other words, being discriminating in your breeding) rather than just picking the nearest thing that trots by, whether it has papers or not (indiscriminate breeding). If you choose based on papers alone and the horse has rubbish conformation, is unsound, has a nasty temperament, etc. then you have bred just as indiscriminately as any backyard breeder who has just thrown his mare in with the stallion down the road.
 
I think the original point about unregistered horses is misconceived. As others have said, the parentage in and of itself is a side issue. What matters is that you breed from well put together, strong and sound horses (notwithstanding accidents) with talent and temperament to do whatever it is you're breeding for. If breeding helps identify such horses then great, but it is not the be all and end all.
 
[ QUOTE ]
This still has problems for me. Indiscriminate breeding is only partly tied up with registration. Here's an example: you can choose between Stallion A (top class, excelling in their field, sound, unregistered, nothing known about their history) and Stallion B (fully registered, history back to Henry VIII, good but not great, will never reach the levels of A). Which would you breed your mare to? I'm suspecting (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you would choose A, yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Urm... no. I wouldn't put her to either and if they were the only choices then I just wouldn't bother until something that matched and complimented her came along.

An yes, the fur thing may be a bit far fetched but it was just an example of highlighting the responsibility you can choose or choose not to take when it comes to your purchases (be that fur or the stallion of your choice). I just said it was an interesting point is all.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'm not sure who you're having a pop at?

[/ QUOTE ]Little ole me? Or the OP? Sorry, I'm having confusion as well today. Chocolate shortage.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry that was addressed to the OP not you
smile.gif

mine's is a coffee shortage
tongue.gif
 
Gosh you really are rather good with the quote button, I'm not as familiar with this forum so I dare say this will end up a bit of a mess but...

[ QUOTE ]
Goodness, this really just seems like you're having a bad day and want to take it out on someone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is someone not allowed to post a provactive post without being accused of having a bad day? It's Friday, I am having a lovely day as I'm sure many people across the world are.

[ QUOTE ]
In your opinion..

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it's a free world, she's allowed her opinions, as are you, and the rest of this forum, she can post what she likes so long as it's within HHO guideline.

[ QUOTE ]
You've assumed a massive amount about the entire fur industry here. How well acquainted with it are you?

[/ QUOTE ]

You obvisouly are a source of knowledge on the fur trade, I don't wear fur due to the bad reputation that the entire trade has. I don't think when people refer to the fur trade they are talking deerskin, they are generall talking mink, rabbit or dog fur many of which are raised in cages to keep their fur nice and soft. I think the whole anti fur campaign shows that the OP is not the only person against fur.

[ QUOTE ]
I want to eat nice meat, but just because I want nice meat doesn't mean that I don't care about the standard of living of the animal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how the fur point went to meat eating but the OP was not about eating meat it was about wearing fur, I'm sure you do like good meat and only buy British
smile.gif


So getting of the fur point...

[ QUOTE ]
And here I think the problem is not with 'breeding two unregistered horses', the problem is with 'to see what we get', or in other words, the attitude. You can breed two registered horses with the same attitude and still produce crap. So why bring registration into it when the actual problem is the motivation and the attitude behind it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point is that you are less likely to breed crap if you take two registered horse's and cross them, I'm thinking ID x TB, TB x Arab, Clysdale xTB, all warmbloods they all make pretty good horses generally. two unregistered horses are unlikely to produce the same effect, you don't know which has the stronger genes, you don't know of any defects they are liekly to have you are going in almost blind and hoping for the best, IMO this is not the case when they are both registered.

[ QUOTE ]
This has been done to death. Read the previous threads on the self-same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realise we were not allowed to discuss any point on this forum more than once, next time anyone posts about the use of side reins I'll refer them to the past millions posts about them.

[ QUOTE ]
If you have the wrong attitude towards horses, i.e. 'let's see what we get', why would it be remarkable that you then don't forward-plan the horse's life? I'm not sure what your point is again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you just made her point, the people that breed unregistered have a bad attitude and don't forward plan, for someone who doesn't see the point you seem to have hit the nail on the head.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you aware of just how aggressive this sentence is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you aware of how aggressive your response was? This was a mindly amusing topic with a few relevant points until you torn the OP to piece's. She was viewing her opinion and wanting to see what other people though, she didn't say she agreed with the friend. In the same way I have anti hunt debates with friends, they have valid points but I'm always going to have my own opinion

[ QUOTE ]
And this one isn't much better, but you yourself don't seem to have clearly separated 'attitude towards horses' from 'horse registration', so it's odd for you to then demand that others be more careful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Er...I don't think she was demanding anything, I think she was pointing someone elses points across as a sounding board, she didn't say she agreed with any of the points (I think, I don't know how to read the OP while doing all this quoting, it's very tiring!)

You obviously have a very strong opinion, it a shame you didn't really share it while you tore into the OP. I would have read it and probably not quoted even if I didn't agree
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
So let me as you this. Do you feel that all registered horses are suitable for breeding?

Because if not, you've essentially shot your own argument down in flames.

[/ QUOTE ]

Urm, where did I say that all registered horses were suitable for breeding. Its about giving the offspring the best chance and in order to do that you need to have all the facts in front of you which you don't have if the horse has no records/papers. Not every stallion would suit every mare and different horses would produces foals suitable for different jobs.

Also, even if the horse isn't suitable for breeding by being registered then people looking to breed from that horses dam/sire can see what the progeny have done good or bad and make a more informed decision.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Gosh you really are rather good with the quote button

[/ QUOTE ]It's one of my sad little talents.[ QUOTE ]
Is someone not allowed to post a provactive post without being accused of having a bad day?

[/ QUOTE ]I think it was the first PS that really shouted 'bad day' for me.[ QUOTE ]
she's allowed her opinions

[/ QUOTE ]I wasn't really against her posting her opinions, to be fair. My point was that the OP stated 'she has a valid point' as a factive, and I was just trying to highlight that actually, it's an opinion.[ QUOTE ]
You obvisouly are a source of knowledge on the fur trade,

[/ QUOTE ]Not at all. I know the basics; some farms are free-range, others are horrible hellholes, some will let you choose the animal(s), others wouldn't let you within fifty miles of their building, etc.[ QUOTE ]
I don't think when people refer to the fur trade they are talking deerskin,

[/ QUOTE ]
confused.gif
It was an example...?[ QUOTE ]
I think the whole anti fur campaign shows that the OP is not the only person against fur.

[/ QUOTE ]Erm, okay. Great.
crazy.gif
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure how the fur point went to meat eating but the OP was not about eating meat it was about wearing fur, I'm sure you do like good meat and only buy British
smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]Well, her point was that if a person chooses to wear fur, they couldn't possibly care about the life of the animal, but that made no more sense to me than saying 'if you eat meat, you don't care'. I might have wandered off on a tangent a bit there though.[ QUOTE ]
I think the point is that you are less likely to breed crap if you take two registered horse's and cross them

[/ QUOTE ]I guess where I stall here though is that no one has actual figures for this. There are no percentages that say, "70% of all unregistereds turn out rubbish" and "90% of all registereds turn out well" or similar, so I get anxious that such huge generalisations are drawn without any real research to back it up. I agree that history can help but I don't think it defines.[ QUOTE ]
I didn't realise we were not allowed to discuss any point on this forum more than once, next time anyone posts about the use of side reins I'll refer them to the past millions posts about them.

[/ QUOTE ]That would probably actually cheer me up
smile.gif
. Okay, seriously that was a bit flippant of me but I was also trying to indicate why I wasn't bothering with that chunk of the post.[ QUOTE ]
I think you just made her point, the people that breed unregistered have a bad attitude and don't forward plan, for someone who doesn't see the point you seem to have hit the nail on the head.

[/ QUOTE ]NOOO! That really ISN'T my point!
frown.gif
My point is that indiscriminate breeding, whether papered or not, is bad.
confused.gif
[ QUOTE ]
Are you aware of how aggressive your response was?

[/ QUOTE ]I'm afraid not. I write with a tone in my head and try to avoid 'you' (though lots slip through) and try to keep throwing 'I think' and 'it seems to me' in there but I do get a little fed up (and rush) sometimes. [ QUOTE ]
This was a mindly amusing topic

[/ QUOTE ]What, even the bit about 'don't give me that bullsh!t'...? [ QUOTE ]
She was viewing her opinion and wanting to see what other people though,

[/ QUOTE ]Which I have no problem with, but it seemed very much more like a rant than an actual 'what do you think' post. [ QUOTE ]
Er...I don't think she was demanding anything,

[/ QUOTE ]Actually, to be fair, she was: 'so don't start posting about how wonderful your unregistered's are' is an imperative (i.e. a direct instruction) or, if you prefer, a demand. [ QUOTE ]
You obviously have a very strong opinion,

[/ QUOTE ]Erm, thanks? I didn't feel it was a particularly over-riding passion but it's easy to miscalculate. [ QUOTE ]
it a shame you didn't really share it while you tore into the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]I think my main point was on not mixing up 'registration' with 'indiscriminate breeding' which I thought I'd made clear a number of times, but perhaps I didn't.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Urm, where did I say that all registered horses were suitable for breeding.

[/ QUOTE ] You didn't. I'm asking you.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, even if the horse isn't suitable for breeding by being registered then people looking to breed from that horses dam/sire can see what the progeny have done good or bad and make a more informed decision.

[/ QUOTE ]So registration doesn't actually mean that the horse is guaranteed good for breeding then?
 
Now, you breed two unregistered horses to 'see what we get' and the chances of said offspring having poor conformation are higher, the chances of it ending up at the sales is higher, going for meat or being generally neglected are all higher. So therefore you can't really care that much about the quality of life that that animal will lead.

rubbish
you can breed two lovely made unregistered horses together and get a nice straight foal,
the same as you can breed two 'registered' horses (who may not have great conformation either-registered isnt the same as graded) and get a wonky baby.
being reistered doesnt mean anything- your horse can be registered with the veteran horse society-doesnt mean anything AT ALL when it comes to breeding!

indescrimate breeding isnt the same as breeding two unreg animals.not all breeding quality horses are registered/graded.
where exactly are you getting your statistics from?

personally i prefere to use graded stock but i wouldnt rule out an ungraded horse if i thought he suited a mare.
 
I thought to OP point was that all unregistered horse's were unsuitable for buying. If people were (as I imagine her friend is) against unregistered breeding then they would have to persuade others that there are far more suitable animals out there that have papers and traceable bloodlines.

Here's my opinion on the topic then I promise I will stay out of it....

I don't think all registered horse's are suitable for breeding, I own an Arab out of great bloodlines but she's completely insane. People tell me I should take a foal off her and I always respond 'She weaves and she box walks, she spends her entire life worrying about something or other 'what is that noise' ' what is the thing moving over there' 'why is that thing not moving over there' 'where are the other horses' 'why is that horse to close to me' and that all just standing in the field, out riding she's 100 times worse. Why would you risk taking a foal that might have the same temprament, it would be a nightmare to sell!'

But at the same time I would be put of by a horse that had 'unknown breeding' on it's passport. I walked away from a horse advertised as Highland x Arab when I was horse hunting, I rode her and she was lovely, really what I was looking for then when I asked what her bloodline where it transpired that they had 'guessed' that was how she was bred as she had no papers. I left soon after that explaining that I would be uncomfortable buying a horse with unknown bloodline as it would be hard to sell on.

It's a total lottery out there but I think you increase your chances of getting a nice horse if you at least know where it came from and what to expect. If it says Arab on the tin you're unlikely to get a plod, if it says clyesdale on the tin you're unlikely to get a weaver, if the tin has no label you could end up with dog food.
 
Regarding the animal welfare side, I would have thought that indiscriminate breeding of any kind and of any species is pretty irresponsible?

I would be more inclined to compare wearing fur of unknown origin (my knowledge of the fur industry is minimal...) to purchasing cheap clothes from the supermarkets. You have no idea where it's come from or what standards have really been applied in the manufacturing process. Wherever actions may follow on from or lead to some compromise of the welfare of human or animal then it is generally left up to an individual to weigh up the pros and cons and morals of the matter, become better informed if they so wish and then decide what to do.

The debate underlying the discussion statement posed, to my mind, is twofold.

1. Whether indiscriminate breeding or breeding of unregistered animals has welfare implications.

2. Whether there is an argument for regulation of or intervention in activities which have welfare implications. The counter side of this argument being freedom of choice, capitalism, free markets and so on. This debate is obviously wider than just horse breeding, but it is interesting nonetheless. Where precisely does one draw the line? If passports worked properly then over time the unregistered problem shouldn't arise - which supports the case for some kind of intervention.

(Just doing my bit for the "discussion"...
grin.gif
)
 
no i dont agree with you, I know a gorgeous mare she is extremely well put together and a regular winner at county shows. She always scores extremely highly with conformation judges. Her breeding is unknown, she was bought from some travellers.

Compaire that to my arab whos lines can be traced back to the first arabs brought to the UK. His conformation is appauling, he is extremely cow hocked, has a long flat back, he needs remedial shoeing all year round with pads on because his feet are useless, at 15 he is fully retired with digenerative joint disorder. I know his entire past right back to the stud he was bred at and both his parents are beautiful.

I would be more inclined to breed from the mare then my boy. And i wouldnt care if the stallion were registered provoded he was well put together well mannered and suited the mare. Thus giving the foal the most chance of being well put together and good at what i want it for and thus giving it the best chance in life.
A foal by by lad (who is now gelded) would have bloodlines to die for but very little chance of doing anything as it would likely break down before it was 10

Most of the stallions on the CHAPS liscences and studbook are of unknown breeding.
 
I think it entirely depends! For instance if it was new forest ponies that you were breeding then yes id say it was irrisponsible to breed an unreg one because there are already tonnes of fab reg ones looking for a home and we dont need more unreg foresters- people dont really want them!
 
What a load of rubbish. The OP must be having a bad day, comparing buying fur to breeding unregistered horses how ridiculous.
 
[ QUOTE ]
QR

and surely if you are breeding it is your responsibility to ensure that the foal you produce has the highest chance of having a full and healthly life that you can give it. You cannot possibly say that you can give it that chance if you don't know the bloodlines it comes from as you have no facts to back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need to know the bloodlines to give it that chance at all, that's complete tosh!

Every horse you breed should be given that chance, doesn't matter if it's by Seattle Slew or Dimaggio or the Romany cob that's passed through your village - as long as the mare has correct conformation, temperament and ability to be useful herself; it's up to you to find its niche in life, not every 'bred for show jumping' is or can be a show jumper by any means, same for all types.

Don't forget, passports and registrations for all are a reasonably new phenomenon but that's not to say that the breeder of the stallion is unable to tell you the name with good and bad points of past generations or what offspring have done for years back, usually with a measure of pride; they will have been just as diligent of bloodlines and knowing which nicked in with which and which not to touch with a bargepole, they weren't as thick as you seem to have been implying! It didn't matter to them and many others that their horse didn't have any papers because they knew all the details of ancestry in their head.
Don't tar all 'unknown breeding' in passports with the same brush, many of them are known for generations back but they've never had to have been registered before now.

Incidentally, I have just bought a broodmare of unknown breeding!
shocked.gif
She is fully graded with SPSS and has produced offspring already recognised with the same society so they at least will have breeding known. She won't be alone in although her breeding is unknown, mares like her will still be used to produce good stock with the added benefit of full paperwork; it will be some years yet before every horse bred will have a recordable parentage; but that's not to say they won't be better or worse than full parentage known stock at all.
A lot depends on the opportunities each horse gets and it's up to the breeder to take the greatest care when selecting hopefully, long term homes for them. If you can sell to competitive people if that is what you have bred said horse for, then all well and good but not everyone either can ride well enough or even want to be the next Pippa or young Whittaker and there will always be a market for sane, sensible and good looking stock whether the full pedigree is known or not.
A lot of showjumpers in the past didn't have recorded pedigrees and some were complete freaks of breeding but it's interesting to know that we had far more success with those in comparison today when now travel is worldwide; then it was a dream to represent your country and very rare indeed. Now, even if the dream is still there, why is it that numbers and success haven't increased that much when opportunities are so much greater, even though, in the main, they are all riding 'registered' and 'breeding known' horses.
If that sounds mixed up, sorry, but I know what I mean!
blush.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
QR

Very good mood today actually. It was just a conversation I'd had, and thought I'd see what people on here thought.

Yes, I have owned registered and unregistered, the point is that I would never breed my mare to a stallion who had no history as you are increasing you chances of getting something tosh. I'm not saying that you are guaranteed to get something tosh, just increasing the chances.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a load of cr@p!!!!!
You can have the best resgistered bloodlines in the world and it can still have shocking conformation! It is not restricted to the great unregistered of the world!
I used a pikey black and white UNREGISTERED STALLION on my mare, I will give you time to go and get a drink to calm your nerves before I go on........
tongue.gif

He did not have crap conformation although he was very hairy and had a wall eye, big drink now......
When that foal was born (bay by the way) we took the mare to be grading by the SHB (GB).
One of the judges could not believe that the sire was a gypsy cob and wanted to take the foal home!!!!
I will quote her "that's what I like to see, something with a leg at each corner, you will have great fun with her".
The judges seemed most disappointed that the mare was not in foal again to the same stallion, even though it was a registered one!!!
I did not use the stallion with the lets see what pops out attitude, I had seen his offspring from other TB mares and was very impressed. One of his offspring has just qualified for the BE Pre Novice Championships and he is black and white!!!!!
Mind you if I ever want to turn my filly into a fur coat you will be the first to know.......
tongue.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I was having a discussion with a friend recently about unregistered horse breeding and her opinion is that it is the same as buying fur and I have to say she has a very valid point.

When you buy fur, you have no concept of what quality of life the animal led, generally it isn't a waste product, its purely there because someone wants 'something nice' - so you can't logically claim that you care about the standard of living that animal.

Now, you breed two unregistered horses to 'see what we get' and the chances of said offspring having poor conformation are higher, the chances of it ending up at the sales is higher, going for meat or being generally neglected are all higher. So therefore you can't really care that much about the quality of life that that animal will lead.

Discuss.....

PS: and don't give me that 'but I'd give it a home for life' bullsh!t because nobody can predict the future and to think you can is increadibly naive.

PPS: this is also not a 'all unregistered horses are sh!t' post so don't start posting about how wonderful your unregistered's are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has someone got your back up?
Horse for life crap??? My ''x breed'' WILL be with me for the rest of his life, if things got so bad than the only thing I would do is loan him out.
IMHO I cant see anything wrong with un registered x breeds, my cob is a fantastic horse and he's a mungral!
grin.gif
grin.gif
grin.gif
 
A horse isa horse, and if the siad horse did its job well and was nicely put together, I couldn't give two hoots as to how it was bred or by whom. My best horses recently have all been bargins from the market with questionable breeding, but they have the heart and attitude to go to the top of their abilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top