Talk:Walkaloosa

Untitled

The Walkaloosa is NOT a cross between a Tennessee Walking Horse and an Appaloosa.

It comes from Paso Fino / Spanish bloodlines and is a gaited Appaloosa-patterned horse.

http://www.thegaitedhorse.com/walkaloosa.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.27.161.94 (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2006

According to the Walkaloosa Horse Association, a Walkaloosa is

• the foal of a Walkaloosa Mare and Stallion

or

• an Appaloosa that can perform an intermediate gait (such as the foxtrot, rack, running walk, etc.)

or

• the foal of verified Appaloosa and gaited horse blood

The WHA's website is here.--PaintHorseLover 01:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging?

So there are two "breeds" of gaited Appaloosas? With what, 20 horses in each "registry?" Well, if someone who actually cares wants to expand the articles to explain why there is any significance to this difference (both are for people who can't ride a trot?) and why anyone should care, other than the 2 breeders who don't get along and started their own separate clubs, well, edit away. Just watch linkspam and peacock phrases. Sorry to be sarcastic, I just think some of these "breeds" are just ways people try to up the price of crossbreds to make money off the unsuspecting... Montanabw 19:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

68.103.80.245 19:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC) I agree... I think these crossbreds earning new names and starting registries are just to make more money. Without a registry, these horses would be grades. This reminds me of that trend in the dog world...

"Golden Doodle" "Chi Pom Pom"

People pay thousands for these crossbred mutts! Yes, they may come out cute but a rose by any other name is still just a rose.

68.103.80.245 19:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

To Merge or Not to merge the articles, that is the question.

Breeds of horses become such by the efforts of humans to refine traits. Registries are involved to keep records of these efforts.

The Quarter Horse was just a grade animal until it went through this process, as were all the other breeds.

To Merge the Tiger Registries with the Walkaloosa Registry would be the same as merging the QTR Horse with the Thoroughbred, after all they have many horses registered in common, so why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.13 (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that they are both less than 20 years old and have what, 10 horses each? I don't mean to be too sarcastic, but it seems like everybody with a horse breeding operation for crossbreds is starting a "registry" and calling their mutts a "breed." There is a line somewhere between commercial advertising and a real breed registry, and there is a need for this debate. If these horses had been bred for 50 years each, that would be different. Note I haven't merged the articles yet, I am just trying to figure out why the same basic horse has two different registries, unless it is because the two registries are just people who don't get along with each other or one group who didn't like the rules of the other group, which is often the case (certainly is with the minis, the shetlands and the pintos). I don't mean this as snarky as it sounds, I just get tired of people adding more "breed" articles that basically are promoting three peoples' farms. (sigh). Montanabw^(talk) 02:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No the WHA is 25 years old, and has a lot more than 10 horses, multiply by a factor of 100 +. The Tiger Horse Registry and the Tiger Horse Association are the Two registries that were formed, initially as one registry, then became 2. BOTH combined do not have 1/10 as many horses as the WHA. The Tiger Horse is the less established both in time frame and numbers of members and horses, with little to recommend them as a breed. The Tiger Horse Association was started in 1991 1994 incorporated in March of 2004. The Tiger Horse Registry is owned by Victoria Varley., she left the other registry somewhere around 2000 because they could not get along. Her Registry is mostly from horses descended from horses she has bred. GaitedHorses (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, see, that is EXACTLY why I question this stuff, so many of these "registries" are one person's personal commercial promotion. (And why spots make people lose all reason, I don't know, but spots seem to cause more debates than anything else out there, though people who dig chestnuts with flaxen manes are almost as intense) I am glad to see this article expanded, but what to do with the other one? Seems like everyone who has a gaited horse with spots wants to make it into a "breed." Drives me completely crazy. See WP:NOT. Question: If I tagged Tiger horse for deletion, would YOU have a problem with that?? Can you give me some sources for it being a one-person show? Montanabw^(talk) 06:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Varley shows only 14 members on her member page on the site. http://www.tigrehorse.com/members.html You can contact any of them and they will tell you that "Tigre" - The Tiger Horse Registry is based on the horses bred by Victoria Varley.

In My Opinion, and that is NOT a WP guideline, anymore than any other user. Both Tiger Registries are still in the infant stages and do not have enough membership or Horses to constitute a breed. I have been researching the appaloosa patterned gaited horses for over 10 years, and the WHA is the most established, and the SJHS has the most horses and broadest genetic base for a young registry. GaitedHorses (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmph. It gets worse, there are TWO different "Tiger horse" organizations and gaited horse magazine did an article on them, sort of explaining the spat. Seems they are as notable as your SJHS horses are, from an objective point of view. (These "breeds" drive me nuts, someone crosses a Gypsy Vanner on a Quarter Horse and claims they have a new breed these days! We have about 350 horse breed article in here, it's an avalanche!) For now, I am going to throw an NPOV tag on the Tiger horse article, toss the merge tags and add some more refs. (Why me?) Montanabw^(talk) 08:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)