Highest ranking SJ foal

[Damien]

Just realised that the highest scoring BEF YHE SJ foal was an SSH filly foal... Cquins Revenge interestingly enough by a non approved stallion (unless someone can tell me otherwise) Zarlequin a son of the luxurious Zeus!

If anyone does have information on the sire who is Oldenburg papered and overstamped AES please PM me so I can pass on the information to her owners. The filly was 100% home bred.

There may be grading history to him that his current owners may not aware of so any information at all would be much appreciated....

I think she was also the second highest scoring overall!

 

[Navalgem]

thats excellent Opie!!

 

[Ciss]

[ QUOTE ]
Just realised that the highest scoring BEF YHE SJ foal was an SSH filly foal... Cquins Revenge interestingly enough by a non approved stallion (unless someone can tell me otherwise) Zarlequin a son of the luxurious Zeus!

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the BHD Sport Horse Annual 2001 (I'm surprsied you haven't got sources like that to hand O with all the many thousands of gradings etc you attend ) Zarlequin was at that time on a list of stallions that it describes as 'being recorded for breeding purposes' with specific stud books, in his case the AES. However, the BHD list does not differentiate between Approved, Licenced and Registered but even AES Registered is of a higher rank that SSH Listed so that is interesting in itself. The progeny registered to him are mostly jumpers bred by Cyril Light (Brendon Stud in Sussex where Unbelievable Darco etc are) but in 2001 he was actually standing at Tall Trees in Cornwall so presumably stayed down in that areaafterwards, but obviously not at Tall Trees after it changed hands. By 2001 (ie as an 11 year old) he had won a total of £2,153 but as it is evening now I have not been able to ask Kate to look up his old BSJA records to see how much extra he put on his card ny the time he had finished competing.

Thought everyone might like to know that which is why I didn't PM .

[ QUOTE ]
I think she was also the second highest scoring overall!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes very well done to her . Obviously the BEF panel got it right this time as far as you are concerned O -- or have you rationalised it as being just a lucky accident?

 

[Navalgem]

[ QUOTE ]
AES Registered is of a higher rank that SSH Listed

[/ QUOTE ]

please explain? Think I might be being a bit numb.....

surely bottom rank is bottom rank with any studbook? how can one be better than another?

 

[Ciss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AES Registered is of a higher rank that SSH Listed

[/ QUOTE ]

please explain? Think I might be being a bit numb.....

surely bottom rank is bottom rank with any studbook? how can one be better than another?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they would be the same if bottom in both meant stallions who had at least scored well enough (say 60%) to at least be considered fit to cover its owners mares. Listed stallions score even less than that and would normally be failed except for a particular interpretation of EU law that says that it is illegal to fail anything, however poor so a List must be drawn up in which to enter these stallions.

 

[Navalgem]

thankies for clearing that up

didn't realise about the EU law........... how silly.....

 

[alleycat]

"Listed stallions score even less than that and would normally be failed except for a particular interpretation of EU law that says that it is illegal to fail anything, however poor so a List must be drawn up in which to enter these stallions."

If this were true it would be true of any stud book. Or are some European stud books subject to European law and some not?

I think Ciss must be deliberately misunderstanding something here.

Perhaps someone a bit more clued up would like to explain the REAL philosophy behind the SSH and AES registration processes.

 

[Anastasia]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes they would be the same if bottom in both meant stallions who had at least scored well enough (say 60%) to at least be considered fit to cover its owners mares. Listed stallions score even less than that

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure where your facts on this one lie Ciss but if you look at the SSH Guidelines it states the following:

Licensed - Average marks +75
Registered - Average marks 70-74
Listed - Average marks 65 - 69

The Listed category was first introduced quite a long time ago when it was felt that it was surely better to keep an eye on what stallions were doing and producing rather than turning them all away and letting them breed willy nilly.................which still happens even yet across the whole of the UK.

However, over the years the categories have been developed to raise the goal posts hence why marks have continually been raised for passing and now x-rays have been introduced as compulsary, and stallions can only be moved up if proving themselves in sport AND have so many 1st Premium progeny AND good fertility results.........also stallions can be demoted if they do not make these achievements.

ALSO working noting was last year the top graded foal at the SSH gradings was out of a Listed stallion and the KWPN judges themselves stated that she would have been a worthy candidate at their National Foal Championship..............but with you being in the "know"

, you would have known this anyway.....

ALSO from this year the SSH were the first UK Studbook to make it compulsary for stallions to pass strict x-rays, and these were done in conjunction with the KWPN Approved x-ray company, eDigit.......

Of the 19 stallions that came forward for grading only 6 passed.

The other thing to note is that judging from the majority of the UK Studbook websites, the SSH is the only Studbook that advertises the exact marks the stallions get at the gradings...........others just say whether they have passed or failed. For instance the AES only showed the stallion names, nothing as to what marks they actually got.

 

[Ciss]

[ QUOTE ]
"Listed stallions score even less than that and would normally be failed except for a particular interpretation of EU law that says that it is illegal to fail anything, however poor so a List must be drawn up in which to enter these stallions."

If this were true it would be true of any stud book. Or are some European stud books subject to European law and some not?

[/ QUOTE ]

No all are subject to the same law, some just interpret it differently from others, as is the case with many laws throughout the world both criminal and civil. The statutory instruments that activate EU laws also differ from country to country in order to agree with that country's legal code and the Scottish SI is often different from the one for England and Wales as Scots law is often different from English law anyway. Whilst I don't agree with ths particular interpretation (ie the need for Listed status), it hasn't been legally challenged in the courts by any one yet so it is just as valid as any other. And possibly a lot of very rich lawyers are already rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of such a challenge as interpretation of the law is how lawyers make their money and we all know that they are not usually short of income!

[ QUOTE ]
I think Ciss must be deliberately misunderstanding something here.

Perhaps someone a bit more clued up would like to explain the REAL philosophy behind the SSH and AES registration processes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Philosophy? The philosophy behind the functions of any responsible WBFSH member stud book should be to provide a transparent, thorough system of stallion and mare testing in order to provide a robust stud book of proven bloodlines suitable for registering foals and producing a world class performance horse (a general amalgam of most of the mission statements of most of the members). This is what governs the systems and functions of all the German, Scandinavian, Dutch and French studbooks and should also be the model for the mission statements and philosophy of the UK member studbooks (AES, BHHS,BWBS, Equi-Cours through Selle Francais, SHBGB, SSH and the TBF through the Trakehner Verband) too. OTOH, as I gather that as the SSH is now only an associate member (doesn't wish to pay the full membership fees as it is not cost effective for such a small organisation) and the AES is constantly at odds with the 'big boys' in mainland Europe becuase it holds gradings for stallions not acceptable to other studbooks there (now there is a real legal minefield!) I suppose that the form their own interpretations of such a philosophy take might be a little different, which is why they have the status they do.

May be a question about the status of Listed stallions according to WBFSH rules should be asked at the WBFSH General Assembly in November to clarify the point....

 

[Damien]

[ QUOTE ]
O with all the many thousands of gradings etc you attend )

[/ QUOTE ]

How does that saying go? Oh yes ask a stupid question and you will get a stupid answer............

[ QUOTE ]
Zarlequin was at that time on a list of stallions that it describes as 'being recorded for breeding purposes'


[/ QUOTE ]

A breeding list. Thank you for clarifying the situation.

[ QUOTE ]
please explain? Think I might be being a bit numb.....

surely bottom rank is bottom rank with any studbook? how can one be better than another?

[/ QUOTE ]

No Navelgem not dumb just keen to learn and understand

so will try to answer without trying to intimidate as some seem to consitantly do whenever asked a question

But you are quite right, the KWPN for example tend not to award high scores unless truly exceptional, this can clearly be identified when you look at the scores of approved KWPN stallions on www.kwpnstallion.com. e,g some of the scores acheived by some stallions is concerningly low, as low as a 5 or 6 for certain elements such as walk, trot, canter etc but basis of an approval of a said stallion is often made up of several elements.

It is therefore impossible to say across the board with all the studbooks that an average score of 7 with one stud book would be equal to another studbooks score of 7 much as it would be nice to believe.

This can also be compared to the likes of the BEF evaluations and the SSH Gradings, whereby a large number of foals score over 8 and receive first premiums whereby at and SSH Grading you will rarely get a score of 8 or above An overall score of 7 will gain a foal a first premium with the SSH a score of 8 (i think) with the BEF. This is not because the quality and standards of the best are any better/worse than the best scoring foals of each, they are simply measured using a different yard stick and the same applies to stallion gradings.

As Anastacia mentioned the top score ever achieved in Scotland for a foal was 80 for conformation and 85 for movement but in the main the best foals score is on average between 70 - 80 and the feedback offered by the KWPN officials over the years have stated that these foals are on a par with the standards set in Holland, and if they were in Holland would most likely be invited to the Championships.

@Ciss

The SSH did not create the listed status on the basis of covering the EU legislation that came into effect in January 96 it was implemented at the creation of the SSH then (SDWA) under guidance of the KWPN, and once again as Anastacia highlighted, in order to discourage back yard breeding and to encourage registration of all equines in order that the progeny stallions were producing could be monitored and paperwork could be provided, they had to start somewhere It was forward insight by the then SBM who foresaw the passporting of horses in the future would become a legal requirment that drove this decision to register all repoductive equines and quite rightly so as that is exaclty what has happened.

Over time the SSH have under new SB management been able to raise the minimum attainment scores to obtain breeding rights, as more and more stallion owners and breeders recognise the value of paperwork and how important it is to at least have some degree of assessment and thus back yard breeding has declined to that done in previous years.

[ QUOTE ]
except for a particular interpretation of EU law that says that it is illegal to fail anything, however poor so a List must be drawn up in which to enter these stallions.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I undertsand it this is not the case, studbooks do have the right to fail stallions, however they do not have the right not to register the progeny of failed stallions into their "Main Book" providing that they meet the "breed/type" desciption that must be outlined by the Studbook in their studbook guidelines. Thus the SSH being an open stud book catering for all types and breeds of sport horse have a legal obligation to register any horse in the "main" studbook.

However in order to maintain and manage standards within the studbook, studbooks have the right to place an animal in an appropriate book, which once again must be identified in the studbooks guidlines.

The SSH has four registers within their Main Stud Book, (main Stud Book as outlined in the EU comission decision being the "register" ) "Head Book" (recently changed to satisfy EU Leg so as not to confuse.) Auxilary Book, Foundation and basic register for all animals who do not have proven parentage - similar to the Pet register to satisfy once again EU leg that all equines are required by law to have a passport.

The individual placement of horses within these books allows the studbook to set its own standards of quality based on dam sire perantage and grading results into the various books and offers guidance to breeders as to which animals should be used for breeding.

[ QUOTE ]
May be a question about the status of Listed stallions according to WBFSH rules should be asked at the WBFSH General Assembly in November to clarify the point....

[/ QUOTE ]

The question has been raised perhaps you did not attent that particular meeting, if it had not the SSH would not have its associate membership.

 

[Navalgem]

[ QUOTE ]
however they do not have the right not to register the progeny of failed stallions into their "Main Book" providing that they meet the "breed/type" desciption that must be outlined by the Studbook in their studbook guidelines.

[/ QUOTE ]

ah this is why my colts foal can be registered with the AES for white papers and 'if' he ever graded the foals passport can be upgraded to pink papers......... however it'll be stuck with white as he's being cut. lol

I also understand what you say about one 7 not being equal to another but would have thought that for the majority in each catergory say bottom graded AES and SSH would be of similar quality..... wouldn't have thought that it would be a big difference, maybe one or two failing/grading with one and not the other (the borderline variety say)

 

[Damien]

[ QUOTE ]
ah this is why my colts foal can be registered with the AES for white papers and 'if' he ever graded the foals passport can be upgraded to pink papers.........


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes exaclty! White papers AES, Foundation register SSH Sports Horse (GB) ? not sure their terms Appendix? it

 

[Ciss]

[ QUOTE ]

The SSH did not create the listed status on the basis of covering the EU legislation that came into effect in January 96 it was implemented at the creation of the SSH then (SDWA) under guidance of the KWPN, and once again as Anastacia highlighted, in order to discourage back yard breeding and to encourage registration of all equines in order that the progeny stallions were producing could be monitored and paperwork could be provided, they had to start somewhere It was forward insight by the then SBM who foresaw the passporting of horses in the future would become a legal requirment that drove this decision to register all repoductive equines and quite rightly so as that is exaclty what has happened.

Over time the SSH have under new SB management been able to raise the minimum attainment scores to obtain breeding rights, as more and more stallion owners and breeders recognise the value of paperwork and how important it is to at least have some degree of assessment and thus back yard breeding has declined to that done in previous years.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure that the SSH did it with the best of intentions but the AES did it too and rather too many people then assumed that it was just a money making venture for Henk and probably the same suspicions about such a system rubbed off on the SSH. much to the stud book's horror.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
except for a particular interpretation of EU law that says that it is illegal to fail anything, however poor so a List must be drawn up in which to enter these stallions.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I undertsand it this is not the case, studbooks do have the right to fail stallions, however they do not have the right not to register the progeny of failed stallions into their "Main Book" providing that they meet the "breed/type" desciption that must be outlined by the Studbook in their studbook guidelines. Thus the SSH being an open stud book catering for all types and breeds of sport horse have a legal obligation to register any horse in the "main" studbook.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where interpretation of the law creates different actions by different stud books. In England especially amongst the pure-bred native breeds (and I have to say also amongst the Highland and Shetland breeders) there was huge consternation about this when a first reading of the legislation implied this as obviously they are very concerned that substandard pure-bred stallions not be allowed to swamp their studbooks. Careful legal advice (admittedly in England and Wales so not relevant to Scots law with the Horse team at DEFRA and its lawyers indicated that an Appendix section of the studbook could be created to register progeny that are eligible in bloodlines but not in approved breeding status of parents and that this section of the studbook, which has now been agreed to be termed Section X by the English and Welsh studbook PIOs, is non progressive (ie animals registered in it cannot have their progeny into any other section of the studbook). This section is therefore entirely different in purpose from any of the Foundation registers (including Registered status in both AES and SSH) as no upgrading is allowed. As SSH is a Scottish stidbook and therefore deals with the Scottish Dept of Agriculture it was not a party to these discussions although the Shetlands and Highlands (being antive breeds and jealous of their birthrights) have been involved right from the start and have accepted it with relief as a solution to the problems they have with this legislation.

[ QUOTE ]
However in order to maintain and manage standards within the studbook, studbooks have the right to place an animal in an appropriate book, which once again must be identified in the studbooks guidlines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely right that they should; it's picking the correct studbook for your stallion and mare (not just here but in Europe in general) that is one of the unsung skills of breeders -- but something sadly that UK breeders are only just beginning to learn.

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] May be a question about the status of Listed stallions according to WBFSH rules should be asked at the WBFSH General Assembly in November to clarify the point....

[/ QUOTE ]

The question has been raised perhaps you did not attent that particular meeting, if it had not the SSH would not have its associate membership.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was that as an original application for Associate membership or as part of a transfer from Full to Associate when the SSH became independent (ie no longe ra daughter stud book of) the KWPN? Just interested.

 

[Amelia]

**Sorry, my post is rather out of date because I keep having trouble loggin onto the H&H Forum**

<font color="green"> Congratulations should go out to the owner/breeder of the SSH sj foal - regardless of which stud book it’s registered with!

I had the opportunity to attend the SSH Stallion Grading in April this year and have to say how impressed I was! I am not commenting about the quality/standard of some of the stallions presented - some unfortunately were let down by thier owners handling ability and others presented by owners wearing 'rose coloured glasses' (bless them)..............

It was a super day, very well organized by friendly, knowledgeable people and the judge’s commentary/critique was superb

I think that no one Society / Body can afford to sit back and give themselves a pat on the back (just yet) ( NOT that I am accusing anyone of doing that) but little steps are certainly being made in the right direction - it is very much a learning curb for all concerned.

The introduction this year by the SSH of x-rays (however negatively it was received by some owners

) is a definite step forward - for everyone IMHO.

I am a loyal supporter of the BEF Futurity; we have done well with our home bred horses since its conception in 2005, so there are no sour grapes here – although there are still improvements to be made; which is not surprising really considering the scheme is still very much in its infancy.
HOWEVER (and I think Ciss will probably roast me alive for this) I still believe that the judges should evaluated independently – no conferring/huddling ……… and as their seems to be a lot of questions asked about the credabilty/experiance of the evaluators (most, if not all of them I know well and respect – so this is NOT intended as a witch hunt) maybe a page could be constructed on the BEF website ‘introducing’ the evaluators (like a cyber CV)

I think its’ a nice idea – Open, friendly and encouraging!

Just my Opinion </font>

 

[Damien]

[ QUOTE ]
Was that as an original application for Associate membership or as part of a transfer from Full to Associate when the SSH became independent (ie no longera daughter stud book of) the KWPN? Just interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

The SSH has never been a sister/daughter studbook of the KWPN they have always been an independent studbook. The SSH have always had their own studbook guidelines which have been independently created, and progressively adapted to what they are today. These guidelines were initially based on the KWPN philosophy of an open studbook and includes a predicate and evaluation system similar to the KWPNs. The SSH were also able to draw from the KWPN's expertise of evaluating mares, young stock and stallions using the linear score system used in Holland.

Over the years KWPN officials also attended the North Of The Border Foal Shows, Summer Shows and Young Sport Horse Championships, often alongside British Judges such as the late Paul Darragh, Liz Edgar, Charlie Edwards, The Hudsons, Rudi Wallerbosch, and last year Birgitta Larsson from Sweden, and this year Peter Murphy and Robert Maguire judged at last weekends loose jumping championship. This years Annual mare and youngstock Gradings will be assessed by Dr D. G Teunissen, Mrs. S. Bredero from the NRPS (Holland) and Birgitta Larsson (Sweden).

With more and more breeders in Scotland breeding from a wide variety of EU Bloodlines the SSH feel the need to extend their relationship with other studbooks who are also familiar with assessing sport horses and ponies and will continue to draw from our continental neighbours experience by inviting officials from a variety of studbooks to assess SSH stock in the events and years to follow.

At an International level, progress is evidently restricted due to the output in numbers of progeny produced each year but at a National level progress has been achieved and this is readily seen by the quality of foals being presented today in comparison to what was being bred at the creation of the SDWA T/A SSH. Fundamentally any degree of progress is a step in the right direction and confirms that the system set in place is working but as D has highlighted there is always room for improvement.

Returning to your question, as far as I am aware the SSH have always been associate members but that was dealt with long before I relocated from the continent to Scotland, perhaps Anastacia can answer your more accurately than I but my understanding is that in order to be WBFSH members be it associate or full, the studbook guidelines must adhere to the standards set by the WBFSH prior to acceptance, so am not sure why you have raised the issue here?

Glad to hear that you were satisfied with the days events D long may it contnue that way.