|
|
| April 22, 2006 |
Newsletter email
Volume 1, Number 3 |
|
HOME to ALL Issues of the Newsletter
INDEX Letter to the BOD - Margaret Badger Blackert North Eastern Counties Welsh Pony & Cob Association Winter Newsletter "White Issue" - E-Mails submitted by Margaret Badger Blackert WPCS, UK - E-MAIL from Gwyneira Edwards Head of Administration Links Horse Color Genetics by Phillip Sponenberg ~ ~ ~ An Inquiry
was made to the WPCS in the UK about how the "EXCESSIVE WHITE ON WELSH" was handled by them, the answer went like this: ~ ~ ~ Exmoor breed standard specifically states absolutely no white at all. *(This may possibly be
the only way to exclude sabino, which, apparently, can spread like fungus in a Gulf Coast rainy season once it gets a foothold - especially if enabled by
acceptance. "Some white but not excessive" is a much harder position to maintain.) *Sender's note. Connemara - "Grey, bay, black, brown, dun (buckskin), with occasional roan, chestnut, palomino and dark-eyed cream. ~ ~ ~ Welsh Ponies just as nice without a lot of white
|
Comments, opinions and articles in this newsletter
are not necessarily those expressed by the STV Group, and are the sole responsibility of the author of such comment, opinion or article.
This Newsletter is a new endeavor by breeder members of the WPCSA who support the original breed standards of all sections of Welsh ponies and cobs, and I have volunteered to produce it with the help of all who send me pertinent information, comments and opinions; and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Denise Loeffel
Dear WPCSA Board Member: I'm sure you all realize I am against the change you intended to make by changing Registration Rule 6. With each registration of these ponies, you are violating our Registration Rule 5. Please take the opportunity to reinstate Rule 6, let Rule 5 stand, and get back to doing everything to maintain the purity and trueness to type of the Welsh Pony. Piebald and skewbald are descriptive, not genetic terms, and have never been popularly accepted in the Welsh. If you feel you must do something for the "crop-outs", then make a separate section for them. Allow them to show in half-Welsh (or part-bred) classes, as has always been an option. To quiet the objectors, accept any foals of the "crop-outs" with acceptable markings to be registered (assuming they meet all other requirements), but have the registration number of the parent, which appears on the pedigree, indicate the parent did not meet qualifications for full registration. There is no need to place a "scarlet letter" on all descendants, as long as the one with excess white will be noted on the papers. This solution is not my first choice, but it will prevent these ponies with excessive white (who may have valuable blood lines if used judiciously) from being "lost" to the breed, which is the only argument for the change I feel has any validity. It is a compromise suggestion...much better than just giving up and registering all pieds and skews (which will encourage more to be produced), and gives these ponies a chance to remain valuable to the breed if their owners choose. Add, to Registration Rule 6: Once parentage is verified, the pony or cob may be listed in the appendix registry. These animals will have an X {or whatever symbol you like} in addition to the standard number they would have been assigned had they met color requirements. These ponies and cobs are not eligible to show in purebred classes, but may be shown in half-Welsh or Part-bred classes. Offspring of appendix listed ponies or cobs who meet the color requirements and all other requirements for registration may be registered in the appropriate purebred section. The registration number of the appendix registered sire or dam will appear on the offspring's papers with the X {or whatever you choose to use} to denote it did not meet color requirements for purebred registration. My hope is that this will be used like the FS2 ponies were....as long as all other requirements are met, they may remain in the Welsh gene pool. It gives an incentive to try to not produce pintos, but provides an outlet in case some come up. It is unreasonable to expect to eliminate entirely from the Welsh breed all genes which could potentially create excessive white. But there must be a consequence (beyond requiring a DNA test!) in order to encourage breeders to be judicious when breeding ponies with this potential. I would love to hear your personal views on this subject, and your reasons for your vote. Thank you for your consideration, Margaret Badger Blackert
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 1:55 PM Dear Cheryl, In WPCS UK piebalds and skewbalds were accepted (but not encouraged) up to vol 32 (1939 - 1945) (only one vol produced owing to world war II). Vol 34 (1950 - 51) states Pie and skewbalds banned. New book on A,B,C,WPB (J A Allen) due March 2006; title "The Welsh Pony". Sincerely, Wynne Davies.
From: Margaret Badger Blackert Date: January 16, 2006 I don't know if you are aware, but the Welsh Pony and Cob Society of America (WPCSA) just dropped its "Rule 6" which established a clear standard for what constituted too much white to be registered. They are now allowing ponies of all ages which can prove parentage to be registered, despite previous refusal due to too much white. However, the breed description still says any color except piebald or skewbald. I attended the seminar you gave our group in Kentucky many years ago, and, I have your book (somewhere!). My understanding is that both splash and sabino are the genetic causes of the excess white in our breed. I also understand according to the pinto web site, that both are subsets of overo, but are different from what I believe is called "frame overo". Lethal white is not a concern in our breed, though problems with squamous cell and light sensitivity due to pink skin around the eyes and muzzle could be a concern. I am trying to see if I can clarify some definitions... piebald means parti-colored, black and white; skewbald means parti-colored, any other color and white.Splash and Sabino can cause white markings which would be considered piebald or skewbald. There seems to be some controversy calling splash and extreme sabinos subsets of overo. I understand this is a "political" problem within the breed, but I want to be sure we are all using the same definitions of these terms. Additionally, can you tell me if splash is a simple recessive inheritance? If a pony demonstrates the splash characteristic, then both parents must carry the gene? If you have a splash bred to a splash, you would always produce splash?I believe sabino is much more complex, possibly additive; acceptable when minimally expressed, but can be expressed to extremes. And the more sabino in a pony's pedigree, the greater the chances it has of expressing extreme sabino traits...although it is no guarantee. If you have the time, I would appreciate being able to use some pictures of maximally expressed sabinos and splashes, if you have any available, and the permission to quote your responses. It seems current thinking is that sabino is not piebald or skewbald...I think that is "splitting hairs", and that it is more "black and white". I think the supreme court was required to make a ruling defining a tomato as a fruit or a vegetable...I don't think defining piebald and skewbald will come to that, but if you have any insight on what piebald and skewbald meant during the WWII era, that may be helpful.The WPCSA is now at odds with the Welsh Pony and Cob Society (Britain) which, for European Union compliance reasons, has created a section X for excess whites and other purebreds which don't meet registration requirements. But they do not require photos for registration, and have ignored the no piebald or skewbald requirement in many (but not all) cases. I certainly do not expect you to straighten out the mess, but clarifying some terms would be helpful. Thank you, ~ ~ ~ ~ To: Margaret Badger
Blackert This is an interesting development - and a good one! Most white spotted horses in the Welsh are either sabino or splashed white. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the differences, but the sabinos are usually more broken up and roan. They are different from "frame". Sabino is most likely due to multiple genes. Basically like white marks, but just "too much." There is some reason for hedging here, though, because some sabinos are due to a single dominant gene. This is the case in the Thoroughbred and Tennessee Walking Horse. Usually those sabinos are very extensively white, and the pattern seems to vary between the "largely white" and the "completely white" types. Splashed white is also likely dominant. I know this is confusing, because it should not happen that dominant genes pop up out of nowhere. For many of these spotting genes there appear to be pretty powerful suppressors. The result is that they appear to pop up out of nowhere - but then go on to reproduce as if dominant genes. So, if folks start using the spotted ones for breeding, they will get more spots. A third pattern that CAN pop out is app type patterns. Check the 1918 studbook - one cob stallion with a photo is a leopard! These, I believe, pop out more in Europe than they do here, but the genes are in there somewhere. "Piebald" is any black and white horse. "Skewbald" is any horse, other than black, that has white spotting. Hope this answers the questions. D. Phillip Sponenberg, DVM, PhD
PONIES, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE Written by the Right Honorable Lady Wentworth Sections titled; TYPE, ACTION, FAULTS, SIZE, FOUNDATION STOCK, SHOWING, COLOR: In color ponies many be grey (the most popular color in Britain today), roan, chestnut, bay, dun, cream, brown, or black. Piebalds and skewbalds are never seen amongst correctly bred ones and heavy daubs of white are much disliked. Wall, or silver, eyes are not uncommon: nor do they indicate the least impurity of blood. Since she has been dead a very long time, probably written before 1950.
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 10:22 PM Good question, and will be happy to clarify!
To:
yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 7:06 PM Subject: Re: NEWS!!!! re: Excessive White on Welsh. Although I am new to the Welsh world, I have owned and showed pony hunters for many years from childhood through college. I have spent days and nights over the last 10 months researching this remarkable breed and have felt very privileged to "cold call" and chat with many of the original breeders that are responsible for having created and strengthened what has been so remarkable about this breed. But recently, it has come to my attention that changes have been made to the American standard without the subject ever being put to a majority vote of the association's members. Although I assume the committee that made this recommendation had good reasons for it, I must say I am dumbfounded as to how or why an association of people who have spent their lives - and their livelihoods - bettering this breed wouldn't expect a voice and demand a majority vote in regards to ANY change to the standard. It is quite possible that I can be written off as an ignorant newcomer (maybe true!), and I know I am "politically clueless" (absolutely TRUE!) when it comes to who I may or may not be offending by this post, but maybe someone outside looking in might not be all that wrong in their observations. I am wondering if others have failed to post a similar observation for fear of repercussions? I truly have no opinion or particular knowledge as to the merits/downfalls of white/too much white. I do however understand how potentially dangerous it is that ANY governing body has the unilateral authority to change something as historic as a standard to the breed without a majority of the association's members being counted. It sure seems to me that this is an association of caretakers of an AMAZING breed of animal, and I sure would trust the majority's opinion as to what was right and best before altering any standard. You are all remarkable and wonderfully unique in your personal breeding/showing/loving goals with regards to these ponies. It seems clear that each member wants what is best for the the longevity and strength of the Welsh pony and cob breed. What is NOT clear is why, as a group, we have not been permitted to put this standard change to an association vote? I can't imaging that a governing body that works as hard as ours does wouldn't want this decision validated before being imposed on the breed. As a mother of three-year old twins, I pray that when they are my age and their children want to ride, that the breed will be be what it was when I was a child - sane, beautiful, kind, athletic ponies. I honestly hope I am not offending anyone by this post, but am concerned that changes to the standard get made that move us from these or any of the historic traits without requiring the vote of the membership. This body deserves a voice.
From: Margaret Badger BlackertTo: WPCSA Director Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 9:12 PM Mary Alice, as you stated at the meeting, we elect the directors to make decisions...and if we don't like the decision, we can speak with our votes. I have voted for almost every director who is on the board, and I did trust you and them to do the "right" thing. Waiting for 1, 2, or 3 years, when the vote may come up, is not good enough. Just as I would with my Congressman, I believe we and members of the Society must be able to let you know what we are thinking. And I believe you have a responsibility to respond to those protests. I care very deeply about the breed, and doing all I can to see Welsh ponies remain the wonderful breed we all know and love. Virtually every breed has color requirements, ours were some of the most lenient. In the native pony breeds, I believe only the Shetland allows piebalds and skewbalds. And there are many good reasons, particularly sun sensitivity, and squamous cell carcinoma around the eyes. This whole white issue was not handled properly, and it is still not handled with Rule 5 being in place. In my opinion, I think it would be much more prudent to slow down and see what is really happening in the rest of the world. I can't verify it, but I've heard the Quarter Horse is back-pedaling from their change. The WPCS has a section X. I've heard a similar system was tried here, but since there are only one or two per year who are refused papers, I'm not surprised nobody opted for that. Perhaps some may this time around, especially since that is what they are doing in Britain. I'm sure my opinion is of little consequence, but I am not alone in my feelings. Many Society members feel betrayed by this course of action. It displeases many to please a few who are currently influential. Very few ponies are affected by these rules, but the entire breed is affected by the change. The coloring sheets I handed out to the kids at the meeting said Welsh ponies are any color but piebald and skewbald. Every breed directory, horse encyclopedia, any sort of nonfiction book that has been printed in the last 50 years which offers information about the Welsh breed will be at odds with the registry. It puts us at odds with all the other Welsh breed associations, and it is absolutely ridiculous to have the breed description say one thing so very clearly, and the registry do something so completely different. As for some of the problems leading up to the request for the change, I would say it is certainly incumbent upon any individual seeking to import an animal to see whether it will meet registration requirements with the national society. The Society cannot be expected to change its rules because someone chose to ignore them. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. You once said you wouldn't breed a grey cob because it wasn't a traditional color; and now you vote for this change. This seems very contradictory. I do not believe the board is doing this for the right reasons. The mandate in the By-Laws clearly states you are to do all things to maintain its purity and trueness of type. Surely, you see this change is in violation of maintaining trueness of type. I can see that it is the easy way out, to vote along with everybody else. But sometimes, someone has to step up and say we need to do the right thing. Open up a section X, I could even live with offspring of those ponies being accepted into the registry if they showed no excessive white, as long as the registry number of the parent showed it to be an "X". You know, that middle ground where everybody is equally dissatisfied. It sure seems as though this was a hasty decision over an issue that has been around for decades. How can we possibly register pinto ponies when the rule for registration says no piebalds or skewbalds?
To: Margaret Badger Blackert Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 10:06 PM Well, Margaret, nothing is carved in stone. My suggestion is those who feel strongly attend the AGM and express their feelings. I received your letter today and also a packet containing responses to the petition. I will go through them and see who are actually members of the WPCSA and thus have a valid say so. Stepping back and looking at the big picture I really cannot see that this matter merits this much to-do. Everyone is free to continue breeding as they have in the past and I doubt that the few excessively white offspring that will end up in the breeding pool will alter the breed, especially since most of the time it seems that the few that are bred usually produce acceptably marked offspring. And they are, indeed, purebred. In the larger historical picture a case could be made that the grey influence was damaging due to the melanoma issues but the British did not see that it was a problem. Perhaps if it had happened in today's climate we would have a similar outcry. The fact that I did not want to breed Chime to grey purebred mares was a personal preference and I did not insist that others follow my inclinations. The Board has recently made other decisions that, in my opinion, have had a greater influence on the breed i.e. lowering the height of the section B and A + A = A only. Do not overlook that many may approve of the Board's decision or trust that they have done the research to come to this decision but are not as vocal as some.
To: WPCSA Director Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 11:00 AM Years ago, I may have agreed with you about the little impact, but now I see many ponies showing splash characteristics that people don't seem to be
aware of, or at least don't care about. At least we need to educate people to the little signs, like wide, unusual blazes, disjointed leg markings, etc.,
which can produce the full blown pintos that "crop" up. If we allowed a WPCS stallion with markings that exceeded our former restrictions, and allow all
the crop-outs to be registered, then obviously there is a greater chance for more ponies with these characteristic to be produced in the future. Granted,
you cannot predict exactly when or how it will happen, but if the gene pool allows more, then the chances of producing more increases. And currently,
these are against the breed "description". I don't argue that they are purebred...but unless the Society does something to encourage breeders to be cautious about their
color-breeding practices, there will be many, many more ponies bred which are clearly pinto. And, I agree, there are very many people who are heralding
this change as a good move. Very few seem concerned about having the breed description differ from registration requirements, and that very fact that
there is such little concern is precisely which causes me such great concern. Subject: Section X Thank you for your enquiry I am sorry that you have not had a reply to your previous e mails. Section X is a section whereby an animal cannot be registered in the full body of the stud book, they can be coloured animals out of pure bred animals, pure bred animals with white patches, progeny out of welsh stallions that haven't been licensed prior to being castrated etc. From your query I would think that your animal being a coloured would qualify for the X register. Once an animal is registered in section X then the progeny would also stay in X register. At present I cannot send you the rules as we have not compiled these as yet, but I will keep your name on file and send you details once they are ready. I hope I have tried to explain this register as best I can. Gwyneira Edwards |
