unwanted horses

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Thoroughbred Fan

How about a tax on horses sold at auction to be used to help take care of the unwanted horses?

I really think, with regard to thoroughbreds, the breeding/sales industry is way out of whack. There is never a reason to breed an unraced mare by a stallion who stands for less than $25k. Period. There is no reason to breed a mare who didn't win an allowance race and is by a stallion that stands for less than $5k. If the stallion farms were a bit stricter about the types of mares they accept, the number of foals would go way down. It is up to the racing industry to save itself.

I don't necessarily agree with you... sometimes the best broodmares are those that didn't do squat on the track.

[Thoroughbred Fan]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I don't necessarily agree with you... sometimes the best broodmares are those that didn't do squat on the track.

I think the percentages would prove you to be completely incorrect. Yes, terrible no-race record, no-pedigree broodmares have produced good offspring, but how often? Your logic is very flawed and the reason why there are unwanted horses. People keep breeding horses who can not have a chance of "paying their way" and don't have anything to offer to the future of the breed.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Thoroughbred Fan

I think the percentages would prove you to be completely incorrect. Yes, terrible no-race record, no-pedigree broodmares have produced good offspring, but how often? Your logic is very flawed and the reason why there are unwanted horses. People keep breeding horses who can not have a chance of "paying their way" and don't have anything to offer to the future of the breed.

I see it differently because in my opinion, just because a stallion is less than 5k doesn't mean he's a piece of crap. Somethingroyal was obviously bred nice, but she didn't do anything on the track.

So in your mind, a foal by Storm Cat (for example) is going to "pay its way" because of its breeding? How many of those foals are actually going to win over 500k on the track to pay their way and pay for that stud fee?

[Thoroughbred Fan]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I see it differently because in my opinion, just because a stallion is less than 5k doesn't mean he's a piece of crap. Somethingroyal was obviously bred nice, but she didn't do anything on the track.

So in your mind, a foal by Storm Cat (for example) is going to "pay its way" because of its breeding? How many of those foals are actually going to win over 500k on the track to pay their way and pay for that stud fee?

I am not saying that at all. I am saying that their are far too many horses being bred. Breeding should be more selective for traits desired in Thoroughbreds. Now if you can tell me you have found a desireable match for traits desired in the Thoroughbred breed from a $2500 claiming mare at Sunland and an already failed Oklahoma stallion, I'll laugh in your face.

I think there needs to be something to a horse to qualify for breeding. Period. Pedigree, race record, rare stallion line blood, etc.... Not all horses have those traits. But, somewhere along the line the very people who should be protecting the bloodstock lost sight of having any criteria of worthiness. As long as you have you check for $3500 you can breed any mule you want. The result is inferior animals who go unwanted.

[Danzig]

i agree that far too many horses are bred-but the solution is not to go exclusively by stud fee. a lot of unproven horses start out at 10-15 k after winning one graded race, and end up in no man's land after failing at stud--while some horses who start out low due to a variety of reasons end up doing quite well at stud.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i agree that far too many horses are bred-but the solution is not to go exclusively by stud fee. a lot of unproven horses start out at 10-15 k after winning one graded race, and end up in no man's land after failing at stud--while some horses who start out low due to a variety of reasons end up doing quite well at stud.

Elusive Quality is one that comes to mind. He started at 10k.

[Cannon Shell]

I do believe that there are too many thoroughbreds being produced but it is very hard to qualify who should be "allowed" to breed and who shouldn't.

[Danzig]

but unraced doesn't necessarily mean unraceable-or indicate lack of pedigree. one example is storm and a half -- unraced, for standing in arkansas, he's had a pretty good year. another case in point would be marylou whitney, she doesn't run many of her fillies, but she's got a heck of a broodmare band. also, cheap doesn't always mean bad, they can't all stand for high amounts. also, you would drive out many smaller operations with the types of rules you're suggesting, and smaller outfits can produce some good quality horses. most states who encourage horsemen and breeding don't have horses that stand for the sums you're tossing around. you'd have a few huge farms in kentucky that would continue to operate, but most breeding nationwide would be shut down if they had to follow those types of guidelines.