Quote:
Not all pretty horses are useless.


I agree, and that's why I've never said that all pretty horses are useless.

I do think that horses bred with good looks as the main goal have a low probability of excelling as performers.

Quote:
What happens to the ugly one bred to perform but can't?


If the horse isn't crippled, but just less talented, it could be tried at a different discipline, like many other horses who have crossed over and excelled at their new job.

Quote:
I just don't believe it is necessary to sacrifice eye appeal for working ability. There are many horses who fit the description of both (Zan Parr Bar was one). As a breeder who is breeding for both performance ability and eye appeal, I don't find it necessary to sacrifice one for the other. It might be more difficult to achieve, but what worthwhile goal isn't?


I don't think people go like "gee,I'm gonna produce a bunch of ugly headed toed out horses so I can finally win an NCHA Futurity". That doesn't happen intentionally. This is why I think you got it backwards.

Everybody likes pretty horses, but if the horses you produce are going to be measured only by their work you can't discard an outstanding worker just because it isn't pretty, that would contradict your own goals as a breeder.

Quote:
You must realize that most people don't have the best interest of the breed at heart. Of course they're not going to understand (or agree) with someone breeding for the long term integrity of a breed. They're too consumed with doing what they currently do with the type of horse they do it with. That is more self-serving and provides for the probability of success in a shorter amount of time.


Or maybe their ideal of the future of the breed is different than yours.