|
|
I just read the headlines
Posts: 4483
  
| rockette - 2016-03-20 9:22 AM
I am not wishing failure to anyone, I just find it interesting that other stallions are ripped to shreds or discounted, even though they have several futurity winners on the ground. Yet Clayton is handled with kid gloves.
I have had the same thought. |
|
| |
|
 Elite Veteran
Posts: 1062
Location: Probably On the Road to the Next Barrel Race! | Cindy Hamilton - 2016-03-17 10:30 AM Take the papers away from all of these barrel horses and just run em....fastest time wins....how's that for a new drama free concept...
Yes, that would work in a perfect world...however...when I buy a young horse, if none had papers, how would I know how to invest my money? You may not can ride a set of papers, but you HIGHLY increase your odds of winning by knowing their parentage. And though I "know" Clayton's parentage, I would not personally breed to him for a couple of reasons, the MAIN one being....cloning weirds me out. I think it is taking human intervention into genetic selection a bit too far. That is MY opinion, I understand others may feel differently. Plus, Clayton has not "proven" himself as a "producer"...for a stud fee that high, I'd breed to KNOWN producers. Just seems like smart money to me, with my limited budget. |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 285
| rockette - 2016-03-19 5:29 PM
Swannranch - 2016-03-19 2:20 PM
rockette - 2016-03-19 10:34 AM Nita - 2016-03-19 5:59 AM I really wish AQHA had kept their standards as high as the Jockey Club. But, if they're going to allow AI, embryo transfers and gender selection, why not clones as well. It's a slippery slope that they've already slid down. I don't understand their logic in drawing a line in the sand *now* on this one thing... The clone does have the quarter horse genetics and the horse is represented by what's documented on its papers. As far as performance, each clone is an individual and they develop beyond the genetics based on their exposure and experiences. Cloning a champion doesn't mean it's going to automatically develop into a champion. I think the only reason they didn't run Clayton is because of how much it cost to get him on the ground and they didn't want to risk injury. They wanted Scamper's genetics, and that's what Clayton is here for. Charmayne didn't pay anything to get Scamper cloned. The only financial loss would be Clayton not being a 1D horse and losing credibility.
I happen to agree on the Clone issue. They could easily ad an addendum to the number just like the Yellow papers and the different numbering system for TB/QH crosses, Appendix horses. They can earn their way into regular registration, but What difference does it make if they can be verified.
On RIDE TV they have a program called This Old Horse Carly Twisselman does the interview. She had one about Scamper, Tony Garritano said that VIAGEN was looking for a champion horse to clone and he thought Scamper was a great choice to promote. So they did it for free. Then Charmayne compared Scamper to Secretariat, which I thought was odd. But I enjoyed the stories about Scamper and some rare footage.
I enjoyed the show but also thought it was strange to compare scamper to Secretariat and pretty much say scamper was a better horse. She talked about how scamper held up all those years and said something about do you think Secretariat could have done that? Not her exact words but I feel that is what she meant. I don't think you can compare the two. Two different sports and breeds. Both were amazing horses but you can't just say one was a better athlete. |
|
| |
|
 Saint Stacey
 
| pepsi97 - 2016-03-20 9:46 AM
rockette - 2016-03-19 5:29 PM
Swannranch - 2016-03-19 2:20 PM
rockette - 2016-03-19 10:34 AM Nita - 2016-03-19 5:59 AM I really wish AQHA had kept their standards as high as the Jockey Club. But, if they're going to allow AI, embryo transfers and gender selection, why not clones as well. It's a slippery slope that they've already slid down. I don't understand their logic in drawing a line in the sand *now* on this one thing... The clone does have the quarter horse genetics and the horse is represented by what's documented on its papers. As far as performance, each clone is an individual and they develop beyond the genetics based on their exposure and experiences. Cloning a champion doesn't mean it's going to automatically develop into a champion. I think the only reason they didn't run Clayton is because of how much it cost to get him on the ground and they didn't want to risk injury. They wanted Scamper's genetics, and that's what Clayton is here for. Charmayne didn't pay anything to get Scamper cloned. The only financial loss would be Clayton not being a 1D horse and losing credibility.
I happen to agree on the Clone issue. They could easily ad an addendum to the number just like the Yellow papers and the different numbering system for TB/QH crosses, Appendix horses. They can earn their way into regular registration, but What difference does it make if they can be verified.
On RIDE TV they have a program called This Old Horse Carly Twisselman does the interview. She had one about Scamper, Tony Garritano said that VIAGEN was looking for a champion horse to clone and he thought Scamper was a great choice to promote. So they did it for free. Then Charmayne compared Scamper to Secretariat, which I thought was odd. But I enjoyed the stories about Scamper and some rare footage.
I enjoyed the show but also thought it was strange to compare scamper to Secretariat and pretty much say scamper was a better horse. She talked about how scamper held up all those years and said something about do you think Secretariat could have done that? Not her exact words but I feel that is what she meant. I don't think you can compare the two. Two different sports and breeds. Both were amazing horses but you can't just say one was a better athlete.
Scamper held up because he was smart. She hauled him loose and he'd lay down in the trailer. Hauling is what tears most horses up. Scamper took care of himself and that's why he stayed sound. Couple that with him being stoic and you have a horse that was not normal. I'm not convinced his genetics were that outstanding (given his siblings didn't amount to anything). I think he was above average in the brain department and a total freak. Most of the time those two things are not duplicated or passed on. |
|
| |
|
 Expert
Posts: 1718
Location: Southeast Louisiana | CrossCreek - 2016-03-20 10:40 AM Cindy Hamilton - 2016-03-17 10:30 AM Take the papers away from all of these barrel horses and just run em....fastest time wins....how's that for a new drama free concept...
That made me laugh... it weirds me out, too. I do try to separate my personal feelings on it from what the owners should be able to do or not do. |
|
| |
|
 Lived to tell about it and will never do it again
Posts: 5408
| I still feel like inviroment in the formative years plays a part in how a horse turns out. I mean a horse that is handled roughly when young may turn out to be the toughest, most heart in the world. Clone him and raise that baby in a sheltered baby him type atmosphere and he might turn out to be a complete wus. Does that make sense. |
|
| |
|
"Heck's Coming With Me"
Posts: 10794
Location: Kansas | I once heard a horseshoer make the remark "a horse needs to earn the right to be a breeding stallion."
Being the "clone" of a gutsy little barrel horse like Scamper doesn't exactly fit that bill.
Cloning is just a strange concept. Although I do think they should take a shot at cloning Brad Pitt. 
|
|
| |
|
 A very grounded girl
Posts: 5052
Location: Moving soon..... | I do not believe Clayton is in the same class as Secretariat. JMO |
|
| |
|
Saint Stacey
| horsiace1025 - 2016-03-21 8:39 AM
A lot of people are missing the fact that scamper himself was not registered. His dam is listed as unknown. Therefore, if he was a stallion himself, he would not have been able to produce registered foals.
Your info if false. Scamper was too registered as was his dam. His registered name is Gills Bay Boy. Drapers Jay is the name of his dam.
Edited by SKM 2016-03-21 10:30 AM
|
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 557
Location: Kansas and loving it | SKM - 2016-03-21 10:28 AM horsiace1025 - 2016-03-21 8:39 AMA lot of people are missing the fact that scamper himself was not registered. His dam is listed as unknown. Therefore, if he was a stallion himself, he would not have been able to produce registered foals. Your info if false. Scamper was too registered as was his dam. His registered name is Gills Bay Boy. Drapers Jay is the name of his dam.
Edited by rockette 2016-03-21 10:41 AM
|
|
| |
|
Saint Stacey
| rockette - 2016-03-21 9:40 AM
SKM - 2016-03-21 10:28 AM horsiace1025 - 2016-03-21 8:39 AMA lot of people are missing the fact that scamper himself was not registered. His dam is listed as unknown. Therefore, if he was a stallion himself, he would not have been able to produce registered foals. Your info if false. Scamper was too registered as was his dam. His registered name is Gills Bay Boy. Drapers Jay is the name of his dam. Wasn't there some controversy once about his papers? I thought I remember that Drapers Jay was a colt stealer. The stallion is for sure, but at one point in time I thought the dam was in question.
1977 was long before DNA testing. In the 80's there were a lot of horses out there that weren't what was claimed. One of the richest race geldings for a long time wasn't by who they claimed his sire was. One of the owners towards the end of this horses life never believed what was claimed so he took a DNA sample and tested it. He was right. Nothing ever came out of it as he want wanting to cause a controversy. He was just wanting to know for himself.
The only way to prove Scamper wasn't what was claimed was for Charmayne to test once DNA testing became available. It really wouldn't have served any purpose. Especially if they didn't have any idea who the dam was if he was stolen. In the case of my story, this gentleman gave the testing facility the name of the stallion he suspected as being the true sire. Charmayne would be better off not knowing if there wasn't a suspect mare. |
|
| |
|
Elite Veteran
Posts: 788
| SKM - 2016-03-21 10:28 AM
horsiace1025 - 2016-03-21 8:39 AM
A lot of people are missing the fact that scamper himself was not registered. His dam is listed as unknown. Therefore, if he was a stallion himself, he would not have been able to produce registered foals.
Your info if false. Scamper was too registered as was his dam. His registered name is Gills Bay Boy. Drapers Jay is the name of his dam.
Yes sorry, I got confused! I was thinking for some reason Gills bay boy was his sire. . . I apoligise.
|
|
| |
|
Saint Stacey
| horsiace1025 - 2016-03-21 10:08 AM
SKM - 2016-03-21 10:28 AM
horsiace1025 - 2016-03-21 8:39 AM
A lot of people are missing the fact that scamper himself was not registered. His dam is listed as unknown. Therefore, if he was a stallion himself, he would not have been able to produce registered foals.
Your info if false. Scamper was too registered as was his dam. His registered name is Gills Bay Boy. Drapers Jay is the name of his dam.
Yes sorry, I got confused! I was thinking for some reason Gills bay boy was his sire. . . I apoligise.
Happens to me all the time, lol!! I'm the queen of messing things up in my mind and getting confused so I can totally relate.  |
|
| |
|
 Extreme Veteran
Posts: 368
Location: run2win land | SKM, This sounds like an interesting story. Could you provide more info so I can read up?
Edited by swd 2016-03-21 11:50 AM
|
|
| |
|
Saint Stacey
| swd - 2016-03-21 10:49 AM
SKM, This sounds like an interesting story. Could you provide more info so I can read up?
Sorry, but no I can't. The gentleman was a family friend and it was a discussion around the breakfast table one day when he was at our house. Nothing was ever published about it and he has since passed away. Like I said, he never believed the horse was what the papers said, DNA testing became available and he had the chance to get a sample for his own curiosity, not to make waves. Plus the right sire and the wrong sire were both deceased so it served to purpose.
But breeding a great stallion under a lessor stallions name happened all the time back then. |
|
| |
|
"Heck's Coming With Me"
Posts: 10794
Location: Kansas | My husband had an unregistered bulldogging mare, grade simply because the breeders didn't keep their paperwork up. She was a plain brown beautiful animal. People were forever offering to sell us papers from "dead" mares with the same description and approximately the same age. That was in the 80's. |
|
| |
|
  Texas Lone Star
Posts: 5318
Location: where ever my L/Q trl is parked | SKM - 2016-03-21 12:56 PM swd - 2016-03-21 10:49 AM SKM, This sounds like an interesting story. Could you provide more info so I can read up? Sorry, but no I can't. The gentleman was a family friend and it was a discussion around the breakfast table one day when he was at our house. Nothing was ever published about it and he has since passed away. Like I said, he never believed the horse was what the papers said, DNA testing became available and he had the chance to get a sample for his own curiosity, not to make waves. Plus the right sire and the wrong sire were both deceased so it served to purpose. But breeding a great stallion under a lessor stallions name happened all the time back then.
what interesting information.... makes you wonder? I have known one or two people in the past that take register papers and pass them on to a grade horse that have the same or near same physical characteristics.  Like car salesmens/horse traders!  |
|
| |
|
 Extreme Veteran
Posts: 454
Location: Decatur, Texas | SKM - 2016-03-21 6:51 PM rockette - 2016-03-21 9:40 AM SKM - 2016-03-21 10:28 AM horsiace1025 - 2016-03-21 8:39 AMA lot of people are missing the fact that scamper himself was not registered. His dam is listed as unknown. Therefore, if he was a stallion himself, he would not have been able to produce registered foals. Your info if false. Scamper was too registered as was his dam. His registered name is Gills Bay Boy. Drapers Jay is the name of his dam. Wasn't there some controversy once about his papers? I thought I remember that Drapers Jay was a colt stealer. The stallion is for sure, but at one point in time I thought the dam was in question. 1977 was long before DNA testing. In the 80's there were a lot of horses out there that weren't what was claimed. One of the richest race geldings for a long time wasn't by who they claimed his sire was. One of the owners towards the end of this horses life never believed what was claimed so he took a DNA sample and tested it. He was right. Nothing ever came out of it as he want wanting to cause a controversy. He was just wanting to know for himself. The only way to prove Scamper wasn't what was claimed was for Charmayne to test once DNA testing became available. It really wouldn't have served any purpose. Especially if they didn't have any idea who the dam was if he was stolen. In the case of my story, this gentleman gave the testing facility the name of the stallion he suspected as being the true sire. Charmayne would be better off not knowing if there wasn't a suspect mare.
I'm confused.... a champion race gelding was not sired by who was on the registered papers? |
|
| |
|
 I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | SKM - 2016-03-21 12:56 PM swd - 2016-03-21 10:49 AM SKM, This sounds like an interesting story. Could you provide more info so I can read up? Sorry, but no I can't. The gentleman was a family friend and it was a discussion around the breakfast table one day when he was at our house. Nothing was ever published about it and he has since passed away. Like I said, he never believed the horse was what the papers said, DNA testing became available and he had the chance to get a sample for his own curiosity, not to make waves. Plus the right sire and the wrong sire were both deceased so it served to purpose. But breeding a great stallion under a lessor stallions name happened all the time back then.
It sure did happen all the time. Horse traders were very good at doing this. It was also common in the dog breeder business.
I remember many times people saying that they would like to know how their horse really was bred.
|
|
| |
|
 Expert
Posts: 1898
| COautumn - 2016-03-21 2:40 PM
SKM - 2016-03-21 6:51 PM rockette - 2016-03-21 9:40 AM SKM - 2016-03-21 10:28 AM horsiace1025 - 2016-03-21 8:39 AMA lot of people are missing the fact that scamper himself was not registered. His dam is listed as unknown. Therefore, if he was a stallion himself, he would not have been able to produce registered foals. Your info if false. Scamper was too registered as was his dam. His registered name is Gills Bay Boy. Drapers Jay is the name of his dam. Wasn't there some controversy once about his papers? I thought I remember that Drapers Jay was a colt stealer. The stallion is for sure, but at one point in time I thought the dam was in question. 1977 was long before DNA testing. In the 80's there were a lot of horses out there that weren't what was claimed. One of the richest race geldings for a long time wasn't by who they claimed his sire was. One of the owners towards the end of this horses life never believed what was claimed so he took a DNA sample and tested it. He was right. Nothing ever came out of it as he want wanting to cause a controversy. He was just wanting to know for himself. The only way to prove Scamper wasn't what was claimed was for Charmayne to test once DNA testing became available. It really wouldn't have served any purpose. Especially if they didn't have any idea who the dam was if he was stolen. In the case of my story, this gentleman gave the testing facility the name of the stallion he suspected as being the true sire. Charmayne would be better off not knowing if there wasn't a suspect mare.
That's what I am getting. It used to happen all the time. A stallion owner would have more than one stud, a credible, proven stud and an "up and coming" producer. To help the "up and comer" they would cover mares with the stud they knew produced winners and put the mare on the "up and comer's" breeding certificate instead. If those babies did well it made the young stud more desirable and increased the stud fee. |
|
| |
Folks on-line