Notice of decision on registration protest

Summary of Notice of Decision concerning the official ApHC Registration Protest and Hearing of 2010 foal out of a Regular (#) ApHC-registered dam, and by an AQHA/APHA dual-registered stallion.

The ApHC conducted a hearing on Thursday, December 16, 2010, concerning an official Registration Protest by which the registration status of a 2010 foal (subject horse) out of a Regular (#) classified, ApHC-registered Appaloosa dam, and by an American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA) registered sire was protested under ApHC Rule 269 of the 2010 Official Handbook of the ApHC and other applicable ApHC Rules. The protest alleged, in part, that the subject horse is ineligible for ApHC-registration due to his sire being dual-registered with the American Paint Horse Association, and pursuant to ApHC Rule 205.B. which states, “No horse shall be registered with the ApHC that has draft, pony, Pinto or Paint breeding.”

The ApHC Registrar, considered the testimony of the witnesses and the hearing record including but not limited to:

1. Rules and regulations relevant to this matter contained in the Official Handbook of the Appaloosa Horse Club in full force and effect beginning January 1, 2010.

2. ApHC records relevant to this matter as maintained by the ApHC in the regular course of conduct of its business.

All APHC registration requirements were satisfied prior to the horse being ApHC-registered and shown in ApHC-approved and/or sponsored events. The sire of the subject horse does not exhibit undesirable/excess white to make the horse ineligible for ApHC breeding purposes. The subject horse does not exhibit undesirable/excess white to make the horse ineligible for ApHC-registration or exhibition.

3. ApHC, AQHA, and APHA-Registration history, background and practice relevant to this matter and as historically and customarily applied in the ApHC’s reviews of ApHC registration applications.

The registration procedure followed by the ApHC has been to consistently allow dual AQHA/APHA-registered horses to be used as ApHC breeding animals, and resulting Appaloosa foals have been eligible for ApHC-registration as long as all other requirements for ApHC-registration were met.

4. A brief discussion of genetics relevant to this matter.

The discussion on genetics contained in the Notice of Decision illustrates the point that excess/undesirable white markings are not evidence of Paint breeding in an AQHA-registered horse; rather, that undesirable/excess white markings are commonly present for genetic reasons in horses other than Paint horses.

5. Pedigree of the subject horse.

The sire of the subject horse is dual-registered with AQHA and APHA. His sire, (the subject foal’s grandsire) and his dam, (the subject foal’s granddam) are dual-registered with AQHA and APHA. The dual-registration statuses on the top side of the subject foal’s pedigree are evident only of APHA-registration; they are not evident of Paint breeding. There is no persuasive evidence that the subject horse has Paint breeding.

6. Legal Considerations.

For the ApHC Registrar, in this case, to part with past custom and practice in the interpretation and application of its registration rules could subject the ApHC to the claim that it had acted arbitrarily and, therefore, unreasonably, thus giving further cause for a potential restraint of trade claim against it.

7. Conclusions.

The dam of the subject foal is an ApHC-registered Appaloosa classified as Regular (#), making her eligible for ApHC breeding purposes under ApHC Rule 204.

The sire of the subject foal is registered with AQHA and does not have an undesirable white notation on his AQHA Certificate of Registration, making him eligible for ApHC breeding purposes under ApHC Rule 204.

All ApHC-registration requirements according to the 2010 Official Handbook of the ApHC were met. The subject foal was parentage verified by DNA genetic testing, met all other ApHC-registration requirements and was properly registered by the ApHC as a Non-Characteristic (N) Appaloosa in accordance with ApHC rules and regulations contained in the 2010 Official Handbook of the ApHC and customary registration practices of the ApHC consistently applied and without mistakes. There is no persuasive evidence that the subject horse has Paint breeding.

8. Decision.

The subject protest of the ApHC-registration status of the foal as a Non-Characteristic (N) Appaloosa is hereby denied.


  1. Carrie Giannandrea Said,

    January 19, 2011 @ 8:38 am


  2. Jessica Smith Said,

    January 19, 2011 @ 9:47 am

    I am hurt and appalled that the ApHC has become nothing more then a QH club! This breed deserves better!

  3. Jodie LaRosh Said,

    January 19, 2011 @ 12:18 pm

    This is the last straw. The ApHC has received annual dues from me for the last time.

  4. Carol A Deming Said,

    January 19, 2011 @ 12:44 pm

    I wish to applaud the ApHC for going into this issue with open eyes and good intentions. You left “no stone unturned” and pursued all options in investigating this issue. IMHO, APHA papers do not equal ‘Paint breeding’ .
    Good job!

  5. Noell Said,

    January 19, 2011 @ 1:07 pm

    Really??? Seriously???
    Daddy’s HIGH WHITE SOCKS and Splashed left knee do not count as “excessive” white? How about that he is PROUDLY advertised as an APHA World Champion? Or that he produces very LOUD MARKED Paint characteristic foals?
    Here is his web page link…

    When might ApHC actually START following it’s own written rules? What is to be gained by allowing this colt to be added to our gene pool?

    I am deeply disappointed in this decision. I love Appaloosas, with spots. If I WANTED Paints, then I would BREED Paints.

  6. Cynthia Ruud Said,

    January 19, 2011 @ 3:23 pm

    This decision is an affront to every ApHC member. It goes directly against rule 205. Paint bred horse are not allowed. This colts sire is a REGISTERED APHA paint horse.

    Club members seriously need to consider a class action suit against the actions and decisions being taken by this exec board.

    Steves sponsorship of the Horse summit and just the tip of the iceberg.

    Members need to call for an audit not only fo the books but the registrations being done as well…

    I propose a boycott of membership in light of this decision. This club is no longer representing the breed.

  7. Deborah S North Said,

    January 19, 2011 @ 4:06 pm

    And this reinforces my decision not to renew my ApHC membership after 15 years. I bought a pure of blood HAFLINGER. Shame on you, ApHC. I imagine this comment will not stay on this blog.

  8. Karen Goodwin Said,

    January 19, 2011 @ 4:33 pm

    Just another nail in the coffin detroying the breed.

  9. denise Said,

    January 19, 2011 @ 4:58 pm

    A quote from the movie “Forrest Gump” comes to mind as I read this statement. “Stupid is as Stupid does.”

  10. Anna Larson Said,

    January 19, 2011 @ 5:05 pm

    And I see now that there is no persuasive evidence that the ApHC intends to be honorable to the Breed.
    I also see no persuasive evidence that I should renew my membership.

  11. Marybeth Cillo Said,

    January 19, 2011 @ 5:15 pm

    I find the logic that produced the conclusion that in essence proclaims when a stud horse is a Paint and covers a mare and produces foal that foal is not a product of Paint breeding to be equal to a psychological Moebius strip. M.C.Escher would be proud.

  12. Dave Said,

    January 19, 2011 @ 5:48 pm

    Am I must missing something??? This sounds like that if a solid appaloosa shows no appaloosa characteristics it can’t be an appaloosa!! I think that when i see an APHA accepted horse it must be a paint!! To say there is no evidence that there is no paint breeding must upset the APHA that they are wrong!! PLEASE EXPLAIN !!!!

  13. Lynda Taylor ApHC #70751 Said,

    January 19, 2011 @ 6:29 pm

    From what I understand, a test has been done and the sire does have paint genes. He is duel registered AQHA/Paint. This colt in question should not have been even considered for registeration with the ApHC. In doing this, the Register just slapped the face of the founders of the ApHC, it’s members and the REAL Appaloosa horse for which the club was started for just to satisfy a few “halter” people. This is like breeding purebred Springer Spanials and the saying it’s OK to let a pitbull in the breed, all you are going to have is a mutt. And at this point–where is the intergrity of the ApHC?

  14. Susan Said,

    January 19, 2011 @ 8:49 pm

    This is rediculous. The statement: “There is no persuasive evidence that the subject horse has Paint breeding. ” is analogous to saying an app that is registered with the ApHC has no pursuasive evidence it has Appaloosa breeding. I sure don’t see quarters and paints allowing us in their tent! A horse that has registration with the Paint Horse Club has horses in its lineage that have paint horse characteristics or it wouldn’t be registered by the APHA. If you are doing this just to avoid a lawsuit you are doing the appaloosa breed a disservice.

  15. Sharon Johnson Said,

    January 20, 2011 @ 12:34 am

    All I can think to say about the decision is that it is wrong and we all know that because the grandparents of the foal are apparently also of Paint breeding that eventually the Paint markings will show up in the Appaloosas from this line. What you going to do then?

  16. Janelle Yates Said,

    January 20, 2011 @ 5:36 am

    Well, it’s good to know that we are expanding our registry to Paints – our registrars breed of choice now. Considering the stallion in question is out of an overo dam who has produced overo foals when bred to AQHA ONLY stallions. So am I to understand then that we are now allowed to breed our ApHC stock to any APHA breeding stock since they “do not have excessive white”? They all come from AQHA stock – it’s their breed. So now we’ve publicly opened the doors to supporting their breed more than the ApHC supports our own breed…

    Makes my decision to get out of the ApHC even easier. Thank you.

  17. Kris Hartman Said,

    January 20, 2011 @ 9:38 am

    This is just ridiculous. Yes, the sire (A WC PAINT horse) is also dual registered AQHA — but that does not negate his Paint breeding. Since the 2004 AQHA decision to expand their books, you should have seen this coming and steps should have been taking. Obviously they weren’t. Just as obviously, ApHC doesn’t care. I guess the use of APHA horses is “ok” even though our rules specifically state that it isn’t. Thanks ApHC for driving away so many long term APPALOOSA breeders with this short sighted decision.

  18. Linda San Agustin Said,

    January 20, 2011 @ 10:26 am

    I will not renew my membership this year. I do not join a registry that encourages mongrels—this colt is a mixup of QH/Paint/Appy—I just wish he was not allowed to breed as this will further dilute the true Appaloosa blood.

  19. Deb Stubblefield Said,

    January 20, 2011 @ 1:11 pm

    This colt is a registered PAINT, APHA. To make the statement,” he has no paint breeding” is not a defendable position. Are his grandparents not registered paints? I just foaled a G5, palimino& chocolate leopard, base white, one blue eye, one brown, 6 generations of documented appxapp I think i will register him as a PAINT, he must not be a Appaloosa with all those lines to F# appaloosas. I am disgusted, and very sorry for the people who registered him as an Appy; the mutt breed, just send money and they will register you cat also. Deb

  20. Eddie Street #841877 Said,

    January 20, 2011 @ 2:12 pm

    What ever happened to owning the mistake you made and making it right. This horse should never have been registered in the first place and when the mistake was brought to the attention of the Registry they now want to persuade us to believe that the AQHA papers somehow nullify the fact that not only is the Sire of this horse a Paint, but so too is the horse. I’ve been a member since 1995 and I’ve waited to see what the decision was to re-new. I think it’s time to cross the border and see what Canada has to offer. Come join me!

  21. Katrina Woempner Said,

    January 20, 2011 @ 2:27 pm

    What will the Appaloosa breed GAIN by allowing this stallion to be an ApHC approved stallion and therefore allowing this colt to be registered? I desperately want to believe that this registry has the Appaloosa’s best interest at heart, but I’m not seeing that here. Do the board of directors understand that they are going to LOSE an incredible amount of members and horses due to this decision? Please do not destroy our breed by allowing this. I beg you to reconsider this decision.

  22. Deb Stubblefield Said,

    January 20, 2011 @ 2:31 pm

    In respone to” APHA papers do not equal paint breeding”, do ApHC papers equal Appaloosa breeding?? I think NOT. Guess the dream is dead, very sad day here, not even just a color breed anymore. send the trucks….Deb

  23. Eddie Street #841877 Said,

    January 20, 2011 @ 2:55 pm

    If it’s all about expression of characteristics and has nothing to do with blood then why doesn’t the AQHA allow solid Appaloosas with predominantly Quarter Horse lineage into their registry? Just saying!

  24. Diane Said,

    January 20, 2011 @ 3:51 pm

    I find it truly ironic that the person who gets to decide if a mistake was made in granting this colt registration is the exact same person who granted this colt registration in the first place.

    There is a reason why courts of law ask jury members if they’ve had any dealings with the parties involved and/or know any of the lawyers involved. Harder to get an unbiased decision when the person who made the mistake is the one reviewing whether it was a mistake.

  25. Tracy Said,

    January 20, 2011 @ 5:55 pm

    You say ther is no persuasive evidence of the subject colts sire having paint breeding , he obviously has enough breeding and “excessive white ” to be registered with “regular” APHA papers to be a multiple APHA World Champion !!!! This is a joke !!! Is one colts registration worth all the members and future registrations that the ApHC is going to loose ??? This breed has become the laughing stock of the horse world !!! I agree with one member , there should be a class action suit brought against the ApHC and all the currant board members that have allowed this to take place . All of these board members should be removed !!! The general membership shouldve been able to vote on this decision to register this colt or not .

  26. Susan Said,

    January 20, 2011 @ 6:44 pm

    Thanks to the person who provided the website – we enjoyed looking at the loud overo colored foals he’s producing. That should look good in the app ring one day.

  27. Ed Hounshell Said,

    January 20, 2011 @ 7:44 pm

    This registration decision has only been posted 2 days and I have received notice that that 3 participants of our last year show will not be participating in this year. 2 of theses ApHC members said they will not renew their membership. We might as well say “good by” to any profitable ApHC show and go with PAINT shows…… WRONG DECISSION board members. Face up to the error while you still have a few members.

  28. Sandra Jones Said,

    January 20, 2011 @ 11:03 pm

    I want to thank our CEO and Registrar for making the right decision on this issue in accordance with all of our present rules.By your action you have renewed many members faith in our leadership and our staff and we appreciate you standing by our rules.

  29. John Jones Said,

    January 20, 2011 @ 11:17 pm

    I have to commend you on the making the right call on this issue. You have made the right decision in light of the rules set forth by our Board of Directors and came to the only conclusion possible.

  30. Gail Smith Said,

    January 21, 2011 @ 6:39 am

    I am sorry to see so much anger about a decision that was thought out and followed the current rule book. How sad members attack members, threaten lawsuits, and throw public temper tantrums.
    I beleive as most of the breeders, we do not want to add paint color to the ApHC, however we do have the color within the breed already. In this case, if the colt had too much white he would of been denied papers. The sire is a registered AQHA.
    I plan to attend the Annual meeting. MY DUES ARE CURRENT. I AM A MEMBER and as a member I support the Registrar in this case.

  31. Terry Said,

    January 21, 2011 @ 8:02 am

    Thanks to our registrar for basing her decision on the facts rather than giving in to pressure from a small number of alarmists. The colt in question has no Paint breeding. Breeding refers to genetics and the colt comes from an unbroken line of AQHA ancestors. Papers do not equate to genetics so although the sire has dual registry with APHA it does not change the genetics of the horse himself. APHA and PtHA registries allow horses without any Paint genetics to get registration papers. A piece of paper does not have the power to change the ancestry of a horse. I would encourage people to do more research into the subject. The sire does not have an excessive white notation on his AQHA papers which makes him eligible for ApHC breeding. The sire does not display excessive white according to ApHC rules. The colt in question does not display excessive white. He was registered based on the current rules and I want to congratulate the owners on earning a national championship title on this colt. We are fortunate to have a colt of this quality in ApHC.

  32. Heather Said,

    January 21, 2011 @ 8:39 am

    I thank the ApHC for the detailed explanation. Do to the previous ability for AQHA pedigreed/bred horses to get APHA papers in many cases, does not nullify the AQHA breeding. Even prior to the AQHA change in EW rules, there were horses with AQHA breeding with APHA papers.
    I think this does highlight the need to ‘clean up’ old & contradictory rules in the handbook.
    I think the right decision was made & I hope the owners of this horse will be able to enjoy their ApHC horse & title.

  33. Carol A Deming Said,

    January 21, 2011 @ 9:07 am

    ApHC papers (IMHO) do not equal all “appaloosa” horses – only those horses registered under the ApHC rules. The term “appaloosa” is a coloration found in many breeds around the World…ApHC is unique to the horses of the USA, and its affiliates. We have three acceptable breeds that are used in breeding! Just maybe this MESS has opened the door for the INTENSE genetic studies being done about ‘appaloosas’ and white patterns ?

  34. Raymond E Armstrong Said,

    January 21, 2011 @ 9:19 am

    To say I am dissapointed in the recent decision of the ApHC registrar, President and Board of Directors is putting it mildly. This is a complete travisty of the ApHC rules and regulations in which ultimately affects the morale, credibility and sole purpose of the ApHC governing body. As one who has recently become a Life Member of this breed registry it is my duty and purpose to see to it those individuals who have violated the rules, sanctity and future breeding stock of the Appaloosa horse be held accountable for their actions. Their irresponsibility in promoting an agenda that is not in concert with the well being of the Appaloosa breed is a direct violation of the standards and guidlines upon which this breed registration was founded upon over 70 years ago. The errosion of responsibility and discipline concerning the management of the breed registry is grounds for impeachment if not dissolution of the entire governing body. All of us who own, breed and most of all carry on the Appaloosa heirtage have an obligation and moral responsibility to our breed of choice. Any protest, letters of concern and eventual litigation must be initiated immediately. We cannot wait and let this decision go unanswered. Let this be the shot heard round the world that will lead the charge to regain adherance to the premiss of what this organization was founded on, and that was the continuation of the Appaloosa horse with all of its’ own traits and characteristics. To be a horse that is unblemished with the confirmations and colors of other breeds that have never been allowed since the inception of the ApHC charter. Tell all of your fellow Appaloosa owners you know to vigorously flood letters and e-mails to the ApHC in Moscow, Idaho and voice your concerns over this blatent disregard for rules, standardization and rightousness for our breeds sake. In Claude Thompsons’, (the founder of the ApHC), own words, ” We are championing a breed so few in number that the main purpose is to preserve the blood of the once-famous Appaloosa war and buffalo horses of the northwest”. Thank You

  35. Monica Doddato Said,

    January 21, 2011 @ 9:24 am

    It’s so sad that the ApHC is so greedy that it will accept a horse that clearly has APHA Breeding. I am appaulled and disappointed with the Appaloosa Club I fell in love with! I don’t ever intend to be part of this ignorant fraction of the industry again. I will take my Appaloosa to some where he can compete with other Appaloosas on real terms – AHSA shows. I also will be keeping my Colorado Ranger Horse Association membership current, they are a bloodline association and have more color than the ApHC! Every member of that board should be proud to call themselves APHA members – and no that wasn’t a typo because they should be ashamed to be ApHC members!

  36. Jeanette Langford Said,

    January 21, 2011 @ 10:34 am

    With a quick stroke of a pen, The Apploosa People and their horses have been Demorlised and pedigrees De-valued. WTG ApHC!!! Is their anyone left in this world that knows how to say. “I apologize, I made a mistake.”and correct it… Or is this the new way of our world.. COVER UP!! HIDE OUR MISTAKES!! REALLY?!?

  37. Jeff May Said,

    January 21, 2011 @ 12:03 pm

    Unbelievable! Have you seen this stallion? The ApHC said that “The sire…does not exhibit undesirable/excess white to make the horse ineligible for ApHC breeding purposes.” Are you kidding? Anyone, other than those who made this ruling, would say the sire is a Paint. But it’s not the first time that the ApHC has allowed undesirable white. There is at least one popular stallion that has more undesirable white than the stallion in question, who PRODUCES excessive white, but no one complains about them! Bottom line is that paint characteristics are, sadly, going to be a reality in the app world.

  38. Linda McCallum Said,

    January 21, 2011 @ 3:26 pm

    I think the ApHC has lost its way.
    This clearly is a case of “money talks” and obviously also “rules”. All the hard work of conscientious breeders of thirty-plus years ago of trying to keep the Appaloosa breed clear of undersireable out breeding is unravelling before our eyes.
    It may be too late to rectify.

  39. George Carter Said,

    January 21, 2011 @ 5:15 pm

    This is a travesty perpetrated against the members of the club. The fact that the sire is a registered paint horse is the fact of this matter. The sire does display white. The rules should not contain grey areas to manipulate. The registrar should be disciplined at the least! This horse should be removed. The yearling in question should not be allowed to compete in further ApHC events and the sire should have his papers pulled. This is a topic that will polarize the club and quiet frankly has drawn the line in the sand. I am standing here with my annual dues in my hand wondering…. should I send it in. I need someone in Idaho to tell me why I should. At least a member of the board to tell me why the club should have me as a member when it seems that the club does not value the breed!

    George Carter
    Carolina Appaloosas

  40. Christine Beaty Said,

    January 21, 2011 @ 7:42 pm

    The sire is obviously a PAINT and therefore the colt is not eligible for registration, PERIOD!

    It is disgusting that the ApHC refuses to step up and do the right thing.

    You can make the club better by following your own RULES!

  41. Gerry Lukacik Said,

    January 22, 2011 @ 5:56 am

    Kudos to the ApHC for upholding their own rules. From the very beginning, I could find no rules that were broken. If you think the colt has paint genes, you don’t have to breed him. Leave that up to the mare owners. I have seen many of those posting negative comments here also making vicious, and in some cases, slanderous remarks about the ApHC and office staff on other public forums. If you don’t like it, remember, no one is forcing you to stay. Let’s see how well those that say they are leaving will keep their words.

  42. Lynn Crowell Said,

    January 22, 2011 @ 10:40 am

    I try to stay open minded, but there must have been a reason the colts sire and grand sire and grand dam were registered APHA in the first place!!! It sounds to me like my FPD solid registered ApHC mare with AQHA breeding several generations back makes her a AQHA horse. Are we going back to the 1930s when what you see is what it is???? Convince me I should continue to breed ApHC horses!!!

  43. Lynn Crowell Said,

    January 22, 2011 @ 10:43 am

    I’m wondering why Steve didn’t or did he?? recommend the Horse and Rider article about blurring of the breeds???

  44. Robyn Lay Said,

    January 23, 2011 @ 11:22 am

    I am appalled that the ApHC is further expanding the definition of what a few board members believe the Appaloosa is by allowing obvious paint breeding into the gene pool of the Appaloosa. It is a plain violation of the rule books that are supposed to govern member’s actions. I am embarrassed that the prize winning example of the Appaloosa BREED is a paint colt!

    Having QH papers does not magically remove paint bloodlines no matter how much some people wish it did. This shows you do not even care about your own rule book and have no regard for the poor foals that will be born of these blood lines and not be registrable to any registry. Not to mention a huge failure to follow two of the basic principals stated in the front of the rule book – protect AND standardize the breed.

    Whoever is responsible for making this decision has dropped the ball in a big and disastrous way. I only pray something can be done to reverse it.

    I am officially an embarrassed Appaloosa owner and club member. I did not realize that the mantra – “breed of choice” – meant you could pick and choose what breed you wanted to be named and registered an Appaloosa. Just garbage………

  45. Robyn Lay Said,

    January 23, 2011 @ 11:28 am

    In response to Deb’s comments above mine – I believe this will go a long way to reduce anyone’s desire to pay for ApHC papers. I believe the Appaloosa is special and different from the other breeds out there. This attempt to merge the three stock breeds makes me sick and in my opinion reduces the value of any registration papers for all three breeds. It is indeed a very sad day unless the members of the board will come together and reverse this decision. Unilateral decisions should not be allowed to remain in force when they contradict the rules laid down that all members are expected to follow.

  46. Tricia Dennis Said,

    January 23, 2011 @ 11:49 am

    Very Very Stupid Move!! (The ApHC conducted a hearing on December 16, 2010) Who was present at that “hearing” and WHO authorized “The Registar” to be the only Judge & Jury of the “final decision”? This decision needs to be REVERSED! That colts ApHC papers need to be pulled and burned. How sad for the TRUE Appaloosa Horse breed that this club was supposed to honor. Shame on the ApHC.

  47. Dodie Sable Said,

    January 24, 2011 @ 4:47 am

    The ApHC has followed the letter of the law, in investigating this situation. They have not, however, followed the spirit of the law which is to stop the infusion of excessive white into the gene pool. These failures of the ApHC, as an Appaloosa Club, to protect the genetics of the Appaloosa is the exact reason why I stopped breeding and showing Appaloosas in 2007. As current members, you should be prepared to take this particular situation to the next level. When AQHA changed their ruling on excessive white, ApHC should have changed their ruling on cross breeding to a AQHA horse for a registered ApHC.

  48. Carrie Hemken Said,

    January 24, 2011 @ 8:07 pm

    There is no persuasive evidence that the subject horse has paint breeding. – Seriously? – Any registered horse owner out there knows that you can get a pedigree with more than one generation of parents – (the parents considered by the ApHC) – that is how this horse is registered Paint – the paint club did not just hand out papers. That does not happen unless you are someone of influence with the Ap club apparently. We want to set ourselves apart but instead we throw ourselves under the bus for a particular few. I am a proud owner of an Appaloosa stallion. Wonder what the reward of owning him as a registered Ap is? He proudly carries Appaloosa traits and yes I know his lineage fourty or fifty years back. Guess all those previous breeders troubles in being true appaloosa horse club members was a farce. This is shameful!! Who on the board voted against this? Does anyone on the board have the nerve to respond to all of the negative response or are they above the opinions of their members? I hope everyone that supports or breeds to this “New Ap” get excessive white – board will ok that, and any other Paint markings possible just so our board has to keep changing the rules to suit a particular few. I am sure there will be no evidence of paint breeding though.

  49. Moe Said,

    January 25, 2011 @ 8:08 pm

    Who are we kidding? There are already MANY Paint/Pinto bloodlines in the registry as it is. But, to allow this to happen or in fact, to RULE on this to be okay is wrong in my books. It may have been excusable when horses were mostly range bred, & registration mistakes made, such as when horses who later colored up were registered as AQHA, this excuse is no longer valid in the days of DNA & gene testing.

  50. Deby Zimmerman Said,

    January 26, 2011 @ 2:07 am

    I do not see this as the end of the Appaloosa breed, just the ORIGINAL CLUB founded through the dedicated work of Claude J. Thompson, and carried on by George B. Hatley. Both men would NEVER have allowed it to come to this. The rules they set down were there for a reason, and when the color gray was allowed was when the chipping away at the foundation began. THIS move, is the fuse on the dynamite to totally eradicate this CLUB, NOT the breed, because there are other clubs to go to that WILL NOT allow gray, or Paint/Pinto or pony or Draft in the lineage like we now can expect to be the next step, since the Paint has breeched the lines and laws. It won’t be long and the ApHC will be no more and that’s alright because Canada, here we come!!!!! Let those who BOUGHT their positions of power in this club, have it, and more power to them! Once they have driven all of the true Appaloosa lovers and breeders away, they will just have a secondary AQHA/PAINT association. Maybe THIS is where the AQHA will FINALLY admit that the Paint IS indicitive to THEIR AQHA bloodlines, and THIS will serve as the NEW club to register THAT “cross” breeding to be members of.

  51. Deby Zimmerman Said,

    January 26, 2011 @ 8:38 am

    As for the SIRE of this mutt colt, HE is KNOWN to be N/H, good ol’ Impressive… now, WHO wants to breed to this KNOWING that HE DOES have the possiblilty of passing on the HYPP problem??? Any App breeders interested??? The phrase, Money talks, b.s. walks is SO true in the breed clubs, to KNOWINGLY ALLOW a potentially breed destroying fault into the lines is beyond belief, and just for ONE horses pedigree??? That SHOULD require a mandatory spay/neuter program to prevent this from happening.

  52. Deby Zimmerman Said,

    January 26, 2011 @ 9:48 am

    ANOTHER good plus for this horse’s sire being a paint.. when he was entered into All Breed Pedigree Query it shows ALL OF THE HORSES BEING OF AQHA BREEDING, BUT under the Seriously Secure’s name, he is listed as a pal ov 16.2H 2002N/H AQHA…BUT his father is Seriously Securitee a Sor ov 1993 Quarter Horse. Funny how the tracing to Sonny Dee Bar isn’t mentioned and HE IS LISTED AS A PAINT AND PRODUCES PAINTS!

  53. debbie Said,

    January 28, 2011 @ 3:40 pm

    so the note/rule that says no paint horse breeding does not apply to a horse that is dual registered with the AQHA & APHA then sires an Appaloosa foal?

    can we then have dual registered ApHC & AQHA horses as well

    welcome to the
    Paintaloosa Horse Club – still appaloosas – just our spots have been changed to satify the next generation of horses……………

  54. Tami Said,

    January 31, 2011 @ 7:08 am

    The protest alleged, in part, that the subject horse is ineligible for ApHC-registration due to his sire being dual-registered with the American Paint Horse Association, and pursuant to ApHC Rule 205.B. which states, “No horse shall be registered with the ApHC that has draft, pony, Pinto or Paint breeding.”

    Wow; I’d hate to be the guy that has to break it to the Paint Horse Association that they awarded a World Championship and three Reserve World Championship Paint Horse Trophies to a horse for which “There is no persuasive evidence that the subject horse has Paint breeding. “

  55. debbie Said,

    January 31, 2011 @ 9:48 am

    so lets see – if you don’t agree with ApHC ruling you are wrong? – put up or shut up leave the club if you don’t like it??? why should they? not seeing a lot of vicious speech here – or slanderous remarks…….just appaloosa owners & supporters voicing their disagreement with a decision it appears they deem as unacceptable with regards to a breed they support and many make a living from – what is the problem with that? hmmm always thought the BOD worked for the membership that elected them – not personal good or to make a certain person or group of people happy???? Gee I remember a lot of folks didn’t agree with the CPO program and a lot of other things the ApHC BOD has instated thru the years – looked at our membership lately??? wonder why we have issues getting new people into the breed??? we are not the club as we once were and those who helped bring the breed back from the brink – are probably turning over in their graves.
    please note this is the Appaloosa Horse Club – not APHA not AQHA, not palomino not buckskins – but Appaloosas

    that is why people join the club, because they want appaloosas and try to preserve those blood lines and like it or not , the appaloosa color………

  56. Janet Said,

    February 1, 2011 @ 1:40 pm

    I’ve read through the comments and want to ask all of you who are incensed, outraged, disgusted if you’ve read Rule 205B? If you love the Appaloosa, and I believe we all do, are you willing to be part of the solution by contacting the BOD with your input on how to word the rule so it is fixed FOR GOOD?? Or are you just going to stay mad, leave and take your toys with you?

  57. Diane Said,

    February 2, 2011 @ 6:25 pm

    Again, irony strikes–people are thanking the ApHC for upholding “their rules” yet ignoring the fact that there is a rule that states “No Paint breeding allowed”, which rule has been ignored. And others are saying that it is good that ApHC recognises that APHA papers do not “trump AQHA papers, yet seem to ignore the fact that the sire of the colt in question was the second generation of APHA papered horses, and neither the sire nor his own parents obtained AQHA papers untill some years after the APHA papers were issued to the sire.

    I am incensed, outraged, disgusted and mad, but no, ApHC is “stuck” with me, my opinions and my votes. They just won’t be getting my discretionary money.

  58. Sandra Matthews Said,

    February 2, 2011 @ 6:56 pm

    For all of you who are mad at the BOD for the decision on the registration of the colt by Seriously Secure, please remember this decision was made strictly by the registrar and CEO. The BOD had absolutely no input on this decision.

  59. Mike DiPietro Said,

    February 3, 2011 @ 12:19 pm

    It seems that the BOD followed rule 205B and made their decision based on that rule. They did what they had to do.The problem is that the rule itself is outdated. It should have been changed when the AQHA changed their rules on excessive white markings. The stallion in question here obviously has enough white to be registered by the APHA. Would this stallion be eligible for AQHA papers before they changed the excessive white rule? If not, there would be no argument and the owners of the Aphc foal would have probably not bred the foals dam to him. Maybe the rule should be changed to disallow any AQHA horse that is eligible for APHA registration. What would have been the outcome here had the stallion been a loud colored overo with two AQHA parents? After this ruling, how can we stop this from happening.

  60. Wayne Banta Said,

    February 8, 2011 @ 6:31 pm

    I’ve been an ApHC member and foundation breeder since 1980 and am an avid appaloosa supporter. This current governing body of ApHC is, and has repeatedly proven to be, the absolute worst in ApHC history. The appaloosa was established as a breed in the 1940’s and is not just a color breed. This was established as a breed and all of the original F numbered horses were declared pure bred. I have watched the appaloosa, over the years, turned into quarter horses with spots and now I am seeing the infusion of paint breeding into the ApHC and the Governing body supporting this. This appaloosa horse is/was one of the hardiest horses on planet earth and now, in the hands of it’s own Guardians, is being decimated ! Good job ApHC. You have proven to be exceptional stewards of the breed!!! NOT!!!!!.

  61. Robyn Lay Said,

    February 8, 2011 @ 7:01 pm

    I would like to know why there is no oversight to the registrar’s decisions in cases of protests? That is too much like the fox protecting the hens. There is obviously conflict of interest in the registrar’s ability to be impartial to a decision they previously made. I think this whole thing is a travesty. I have a totally different view of the ApHC than I had even a year ago. I do not think I am the only one checking into other options for my horses and my registration dollars going forward. The idea of standardizing the Appaloosa was to attempt to remove the outside influences that had been introduced. That was the whole reason behind the no paint, or draft etc.. This decision simply turns back the clock to the beginning. If this colt is truly allowed to keep his registration, his title and breed more animals to be registered in this club and it becomes the quaterpaintaloosa club that it seems to be headed for, I really believe it will reduce even further any value that can be gained from paying for registration paperwork.

  62. Susan Kerins Said,

    February 8, 2011 @ 7:22 pm


  63. Sharon Greenwood Said,

    February 8, 2011 @ 10:58 pm

    I was pleased to see the ApHc followed the rules when making their decision on the Palomino colt in question. I have been a breeder and owner of appaloosas for over 20 yrs. I have no intentions of leaving this great breed anytime soon. I support this breed and registry and will continue to do so. My horses jobs are to make me happy and it does not hinge on any thing the registry does, they do a great job at it by themselves. There has been enough things said here that I will not repeat anything already posted. I’ll just go out and play with my herd.

  64. Liz Kincaid Said,

    February 9, 2011 @ 12:12 am

    I love the Appaloosa. I happily breed raise and show these outstanding athletes. They are smart, people oriented and uniquely colored individuals with a history like no other breed. Our breed of choice carries the ability to produce “paint marked horses” with or without this colt that is the center of such controversy. The colt was registered according to the rules as written. NO rules were broken. I believe the final decision was reviewed in depth with great detail. The ApHC did it’s job and we should move on. Rules can be rewritten, work to change what you don’t like, we live in a democratic society. I am very happy with the ApHC and will continue to stay my course of riding, breeding and loving the most unique horse in the world.

  65. Wayne Banta #515621 Said,

    February 9, 2011 @ 8:05 am

    Decisions like this are the main reason that ApHC membership has dropped by over 50% in the last ten years and is still on the decline. This is SUPPOSED to be an appaloosa horse club, dedicated to the protection and breeding of the appaloosa. I’ve watched over the years the appaloosa turned into a Quarter horse and find excuses for this as appaloosas being a “stock” horse. The appaloosa is, and always has been a light horse bred for stamina and agility. A war horse used by the mongols and the American Indians far before we (Americans) got our hands into the pot. Nearly all of this is being bred out of the appaloosa. Look at the sire to this colt in question. He looks like some freak on streroids and this is supposed to be a representation of an appaloosa? I’m sorry, but I don’t buy that for a minute. If I want a quarter horse or a paint I’ll buy one! But don’t infect the appaloosa with their breeding into it. Take your quarter horses and paints and GO AWAY! I will assure you that my foundation appaloosa will run their butts into the ground. Those heavy muscled quarter horses on their stumpy front legs won’t last 2 days behind me, and yet you promote this? As far as I’m concerned all of you who are cross breeding the appaloosa out of existance should take your mutts and find your cross bred club somehwere else and leave our appaloosas alone. Just because they have ApHC papers doesn’t make them and appaloosa, only a quarter horse in a wanna be appaloosa hide.
    This decision sucks and will do nothing more than expidite the destruction of the appaloosa.

  66. Wanda Gorgoschlitz Said,

    February 9, 2011 @ 8:51 am

    I too am upset about the ruling. I would love to see the Appaloosa be it’s own breed, with it’s own characteristics, seperate and distinguished from TB, QH or Arab. They are an exceptional horse in their own right and do not need other breeds to “improve” them. My best solution is to faze out all crossbreeding and close the books.

  67. Diane Mueller Said,

    February 9, 2011 @ 9:18 am

    Some may remember me as co-moderator for several egroups online for App owners, some may remember my horses, and others on the BOD, past and present, may remember my late night chats via phone, emails, or meeting me in person at the 2006 Nationals meeting. During that Nationals, I met staff over lunch, had breakfast and dinner at the host hotel with BODs, and was repeatedly asked to run in my zone. I was more heavily involved with the politics than most, and I carried petitions to individualize the leading sire list that lumped halter horses with HIH horses. I also carried petitions for more Masters classes, which are still in place today. This same year, the AQHA began allowing dual registration for excessive white, a move which benefitted AQHA and APHA, but left the ApHC with a major problem. I brought this up to Diane Rushing, Emeritus President of ApHC, during a phone call, and expressed my DEEP concern that something be done to PROTECT the ApHC membership from stallions being billed as AQHA, but holding dual Paint papers. As time marched on, I was informed that the AQHA and the APHA had been casually contacted for a solution for ApHC. My suggestion was that the ApHC have unlimited access to AQHA and APHA databases (they were online well before ApHC) so that the registrar could do her job per ApHC rule that no Paint blood was to enter the gene pool. Apparently, this was discussed, and ApHC was given the opportunity to pay for these services. ApHC declined based on cost. And there the ball lies. Unattended, as I suspected, the membership was left to their own devices, to do their own homework; if they chose to really have clean blood in their herds, ApHC would NOT lend any hand in this research problem. Nor did I ever see any full page ads in our own Journal to help membership avoid this pitfall that may occur., which should have ran in every issue. If the ApHC isn’t willing to protect it’s own members and horses, there WILL BE foul play in loopholes, someone WILL take advantage, as having a World Champ stud in ALL stock horse breeds would really be something, wouldn’t it? And here he is, finally. Per this ruling, here is your first horse, created by a problem left unaddressed by ApHC BODs, to let the chips fall as they may. Continued in next post….

  68. Penny Whitehead Said,

    February 9, 2011 @ 9:20 am

    I would emplore all of the Board to take some dedicated to the breed, and serious action to clarify the rule in question, to dis-allow Paint/Pinto breeding in any form or pedigree and from now forward to make it work for the breed, our breed, not ever put the QH above what the Appaloosa is, should be and will stay, a breed that has allowed improper crosses and bloodlines into our gene pool. Granted, some were already there in some lines but to further allow it to happen when another registry changed standards they should have acknowledged all along, excessive white markings that caused a whole other registry to be formed with mostly full blooded Quarter Horse only breeding and maybe some Thoroughbred, wrong in my eyes. I am sure the QH fanciers over proper Appaloosa breeding have spoken, and are quite pleased, as I read here and on many chat lists, QH and even Pinto coloration count more than what this registry was founded on and rules have been bent to suit just that very thing. Sad for many of us.

  69. Diane Mueller Said,

    February 9, 2011 @ 9:47 am

    2006 was my last year as an ApHC member. I was highly disillusioned by the Club for it’s many issues with membership, BOD antics both in and out of meetings (Roberts Rule of Order was nowhere to be found and The Good Old Boys and Girls ruled the roost by knowing outcome of anything to hit the BOD table), and now the inability to outcross QH with App without a protection in place to avoid Paint blood. To date, I have NEVER received any correspondence from ApHC, asking me to return, asking me why I’m no longer involved, or even a renewal each year. Since then, ApHC has lost 2/3rds of it’s membership. At that time, my mantra was that if you continue to try to be all things to all people (FPD, CPO, PPP, etc.), that all that would be left of the Club would be the Big Boys showing against the Big Boys, and a few who still hold the dream that the App is a contender. Maybe Diane R saw this coming, as I was asked that year what I thought of creating a “Half App” registry, not unlike any other color breed registry, where color was the determining factor, parentage was not. I was Not Impressed. But is this the path that the BODs see as the only way to keep afloat? Face it folks, membership jumped ship, and this Club has proved over and over that it’s integrity is out the window.

    So what’s left to do? Study your rule books. Two thirds majority is your ticket to change. You MUST come to a conclusion about what you want this club to be, if it’s not already too late. Mutterings of what should happen next are flying thru the air, and if the membership doesn’t take this by the horns and become involved, your Club will be no longer.

  70. Sheila Kobs Said,

    February 9, 2011 @ 9:59 am

    I am currently looking for a good Paint halter horse that also has AQHA papers so I can improve my chances of getting a colored foal. I think it is just wonderful that the ApHC is so open when all the other breeds refuse to accept our blood in their horses.

    REALLY! You don’t see anything wrong with this? That colt now has his DNA on record as being a Appaloosa. If they stand him at stud, we will have to accept every paint foal that pops out of the mares he breeds. Something is terribly wrong here and part of it is a registrar that can’t admit she might have been wrong to accept this colt now that the facts are all out.

  71. Diane Mueller Said,

    February 9, 2011 @ 10:03 am

    For Sandra Matthews: It is a BOD issue to make certain that the rules in the rule book are adhered to, changed if they are unclear, and to address issues such as the excessive white rule that pertain to the future generations of Appaloosas, where the rules state no Paint blood. Shonda takes the fall for the BODs lack of integrity, and the CEO will always have a conflict of interest with the APHA. The BOD can’t hide behind the skirts of Shonda and Steve. The Good Ole Boys got to ya, eh?

    Look, there is no glory in being a BOD. It’s a terrible job for zero pay. What would compel someone to run? What was your reason for running? There is only one answer, and that is to change what you feel is amiss about the Club. The BODs grades in the last 10 years? FAIL. See membership numbers.

  72. Wayne Banta #515621 Said,

    February 12, 2011 @ 11:04 am

    So, now that it is apparent that the only people in agreement are those actively involved in crossbreeding the appaloosa out of existance–? What and how do we get enough people to geter to protest this screwed up mess and get the ApHC back on track and enforce following ApHC regulations TO THE LETTER?? All this talk is good, but I guarantee you the “good ‘ol boys” and the rest of the BOD and CEO could giove a s%^#@t less what we as members want done to protect the appaloosa. They are going to continue to promote their own agenda untill we as members FORCE compliance and start protecting what is leeft of the true appaloosa? Something has got to be done NOW! How do we accomplish this? How do we contact the membership of ApHC and inform them and get together enough people to force this issue? It’s a sad day indeed when the governing body of the ApHC is in conspiracy to destroy the breed!!!!!

  73. SJ Rader Said,

    April 1, 2011 @ 10:02 pm

    I have just found out about this, and I am just sick about it!!! I was strongly involved in promoting not only the Appaloosa breed, but also the ApHC, until I began to see how screwed up and top-heavy the club really is! I gave up, especially after hearing the scornful remarks by so many people who have Appaloosa horses, but do not care to be involved in a very expensive club. Now this!!! What part of “no Paint breeding” did the registrar not see??? Even if the horse wouldn’t have looked like a Paint (and to most of us, he DOES), his papers SAY HE IS!!!
    So why is he being allowed??? It seems that you are only looking at the QH side of that “QH/Paint” equation, folks! HIS PAPERS SAY “PAINT” for crying out loud!!! Walmart carries reading glasses if you can’t see that! I am serious…and I am concerned about the breed that I love! The creators of the ApHC would turn over in their graves!!! As for telling us, the breeders, that it is OUR responsibility to keep it out, get real! I thought that was what you were supposed to be dedicated to do??? As you can tell, I am very upset by this ruling! You play all kinds of games with our Appaloosa to Appaloosa breedings (e.g. requiring a HUGE fee for Performance Permit for solid APPALOOSAS), but you lightly allow “PAINT BREEDING” even though the RULES say “NO PAINT BREEDING ALLOWED”??? As everyone has said, and you wonder why we are dropping memberships, and no one wants in anymore! Maybe it is time for a REAL Appaloosa Horse Club!!!

  74. Darlene Said,

    April 3, 2011 @ 2:25 am

    A sad day for appaloosa owners/breeders when this colt was registered as an appaloosa. Makes me wonder how many others are already in our registry that the membership doesn’t know about….for those that support this decision …..are you lining up to breed your mares to this colt so you can start the new paintaloosa club. The offspring should certainly make a splash in the appaloosa showring. Good luck with that!

  75. Sheila Teas Said,

    April 4, 2011 @ 5:30 pm

    What a slap in the face!!! We have a beautiful non characteristic mare that we’re unable to performance certify. Due to the death of her mother and not enough registered offspring. And our mare has produced a beautiful colored regular registered filly. NOW you wonder why people are giving up on the National appaloosa club. It shows that if they want certain people they will do anything to get them.

RSS feed for comments on this post