Due to decreasing use over the years, I have decided to disable the forum functionality of the site.

Forums will still be available to view but new posts are no longer allowed.

Fugly has got it wrong again....

rabbitsfizz April 12, 2009 February 22, 2011

Forums

If you get a minute can you pop over to http://fuglyhorseoftheday.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and just put her right about OLWS, as she is ranting on about how Tobiano can carry and pass it and Solids can carry and pass it and "overos" (beginning to see why I do not like the term?? :laugh1 ) can carry and pass it and people should be shot for allowing it to happen. As it happens the woman that bred the foal know better , and at least one of her mares looks to be a visual minimal Frame, certainly one I would have tested before putting it to a + stallion, but this does not mean Fugly can spread misleading info without being called on it!! I know we always say "TEST" and always will, but even so.......

critterkeeper Tue, 04/14/2009 - 19:55

We may actually get APHA to require testing for LWO sometime in the future - but what about all the breeds that carry it that do not routinely test for it? Take for example: minis, QHs, TWH, TB, etc. - until all breeds applicable breeds start testing, I will still be :BH

Jenks Tue, 04/14/2009 - 20:26

It is extremely rare in QH's, so rare that I dare think most LWO offspring have been long since registered APHA when they were cast out during outcropping. True though that it does occasionally pop up. When I bought my frame mare I was told she'd had 3 LWO foals prior. I cannot believe that someone would continuously do it. I was even nervous that I'd bred her to an untested PB arab! It took his birth to make me believe it might not happen! I think I'd have seriously dropped out of the world of horses had that heartbreak happened to me knowing I could've insisted on a test.

I think the carrier TB lines are known for the most part...but you could be right? It's actually a marketing point, so I don't know why it'd be hid at this point.

NZ Appaloosas Tue, 04/14/2009 - 21:42

Except....AQHA is allowing APHA horses to be back-registered with AQHA if it can be shown that they are the product of "crop-outs" that weren't allowed to be AQHA registered prior to the removal of the excessive white restriction.

Diane

RiddleMeThis Wed, 04/15/2009 - 00:09

I personally think thats a great idea.

I think AQHA and APHA should require testing (and minis of course. will explain why no on the TBs). I also think they should deny registration to any foals from On x On breedings.

Im on the fence about LWO being more deadly than HYPP.

Heidi Wed, 04/15/2009 - 00:41

[quote="RiddleMeThis"]Im on the fence about LWO being more deadly than HYPP.[/quote]
I guess I am too, though I think I lean more towards the loss of the HYPP horse only because of the amount of time the owner could have spent to develop a bond and the difference between the losses; being that LWO is always fatal and HYPP is not always fatal, but devestating when it is.

As I see it, the LWO foal *will* expire and has absolutely no chance for survival, so it definitely IS deadly.
But the HYPP horses can/do live and many can have serious and deadly consequences when not managed carefully. Even when they [i]are[/i] carefully managed, sometimes their symptoms can rise up and become deadly with little to no warning and I feel this has more of an opportunity for an owner to suffer at the loss of the horse they have grown to love. [i]Not saying we can't love just born foals, but the opportunity for a close bond is not as great with foals as it is with raising a foal to maturity. [/i]

Ah, it's late and I need to get to bed. My apologies if this wasn't particularly clear and I'll try again tomorrow if necessary.
h

accphotography Wed, 04/15/2009 - 01:17

The problem with HyPP is that when breeding carrier to carrier you have a 75% chance of having a foal with a problematic mutation. When breeding LWO carrier to LWO carrier there is only a 25% chance of having a problem. With LWO there is no danger to human and it's over within a few days. With HyPP there are dangers to humans and one never knows when a horse might drop dead (and possibly even take a human with it).

RiddleMeThis Wed, 04/15/2009 - 02:37

[quote="accphotography"]The problem with HyPP is that when breeding carrier to carrier you have a 75% chance of having a foal with a problematic mutation. When breeding LWO carrier to LWO carrier there is only a 25% chance of having a problem.[/quote]
But that 25% chance is a GUARANTEED problem. HYPP may never show symptoms (though it is more common to have symptoms in a HH horse.)

I personally dont think that the fact that HYYP can be a danger to humans, is as "deadly" as LWO because when Im thinking about it (which is deadlier) Im only thinking about the risk to the horse horse, not to a human.

I think oh it more along the lines of what would happen to this horse if there was no human interference. HH might die...OO WILL die.

Jenks Wed, 04/15/2009 - 07:56

In either case, I'd want to know the status.

Right about the AQHA registering paints with only QH blood again - I didn't think about that - so maybe it is a good idea?

I don't know, I hate to FORCE anyone one to do anything, but if it's the price of registry, and it's not much more $? It should be left up to the individual, it would just be very convenient for it to be covered in registration. I met someone the other day who has a HYPP positive stallion advertised. No one cares! They all breed to him anyway! And she didn't seem to know what the heck I was talking about when I asked about whether he'd shown any symptoms other than his size (he's on a diet and can only stand in a stall all day). Symptoms of what?

Heidi Wed, 04/15/2009 - 11:36

[quote="Jenks"]Symptoms of what?[/quote]
:sad She said that? [i]Really[/i]? 0_o Unreal. Do you think it is true ignorance or deliberate?

*[i]I know I used the 'sad' smilie incorrectly, but it has the biggest googley-eyes[/i].

accphotography Wed, 04/15/2009 - 11:47

[quote="RiddleMeThis"]
But that 25% chance is a GUARANTEED problem. HYPP may never show symptoms (though it is more common to have symptoms in a HH horse.)

I personally dont think that the fact that HYYP can be a danger to humans, is as "deadly" as LWO because when Im thinking about it (which is deadlier) Im only thinking about the risk to the horse horse, not to a human.

I think oh it more along the lines of what would happen to this horse if there was no human interference. HH might die...OO WILL die.[/quote]

Regardless of whether HyPP kills the horse or not, if it is ever symptomatic it is just CRUEL IMO. At least a lethal white is gone quickly and quietly.

RiddleMeThis Wed, 04/15/2009 - 17:58

[quote="accphotography"]
Regardless of whether HyPP kills the horse or not, if it is ever symptomatic it is just CRUEL IMO. At least a lethal white is gone quickly and quietly.[/quote]
Agreed an both, but cruel doesnt equal deadly to me.

NZ Appaloosas Wed, 04/15/2009 - 19:27

The thing is, when breeding a OLWS carrier, it is totally possible to avoid producing a lethal white foal...just don't breed two OLWS carriers together. With HyPP, if you are breeding a carrier, there is no way to be 100% sure you do not get a horse with the condition. The absolute best you can hope for is a 50/50 shot by breeding to a non-carrier. That's why I consider OLWS to be the lesser of the two "evils".

Diane

RiddleMeThis Wed, 04/15/2009 - 19:31

[quote="NZ Appaloosas"] That's why I consider OLWS to be the lesser of the two "evils".
[/quote]
I agree. And after your response and ACC I am thinking that maybe I have confused some people. I would choose to breed a OLW carrier WAY before an HYPP carrier (actually dont think any HYPP horse should be bred EVER.) BUT I might think OLW is the deadlier of the two.

Jenks Wed, 04/15/2009 - 19:50

But without knowing the status of either one, you could be breeding for a dead foal, or one with HYPP. That's why it's good to know. The point of it was, that there is a registry that requires testing for what could be an issue. Whether one is more heartbreaking than the other was not my point, only that it's possible for a registry to put the registered breed in a spot that will make people test. Unfortunately, they may still not care or listen. So I don't know if it's a good answer, but getting the APHA to at least recognize it and allow the registration of carriers as frames (+other patterns) rather than overo or whatever phenotype it looks to be would be a good start.