Registry Comparison

[Michelle Clarke]

I have listed all the Kiger Registries I know of, am I missing any?? Lets' compare, list good qualities, things we as Kiger owners would like to see different, etc. Registry owners are more than welcome to comment. Maybe this will help get everything in one place...

Steen Mountain Kiger Registry (Ricks):
www.kigers.com/smkr/index.html

Steens Kiger Breed (Ricks):
www.kigers.com/skbr/index.html

Jillians:
www.kigerhorse.org/

Kelleys':
www.canadiankiger.com/

KMA:
www.kigermustangs.org/

Janices:
www.americankiger.com/

I also belive there is a "midwest Kiger Mustang registry" but I could not find any info on it.

[Michelle Clarke]

With the SMKR, Rick has basically said he does not have the time or inclination to keep up with it. Bascially it is to record and register his horses. Personally, I have a few horses that I have bought papered with him. I also have a few I cannot get papers on from him. I am not exactly sure what is going on with his Steens registry...

The KMA...well, I have tried for years to get something feesible accomlished there. Either the return emails take months, or there is no inspector in my region or they won't register grey/give them breeding status - I am not sure where that is now. The biggest thing is I am not sure where anything with the KMA is and honestly, with all the controversy - right, wrong or indifferent - I pretty much steer clear with them. I also don't belive they have strong support for crossbreds. Oh, and since thier new website, I can't even navigate it off the first page to see what they are up to anyway.

I really have no reason to register my horses in Canada...

Janices' registry seems very "closed" if that is the right word. I like what she has done with keeping track of all the Kigers (HUGE need for that!). I don't agree with her rule as far as not registering alot of the new BLM kigers. When I did get some registry applications from the registry, they were very limited and did not record alot of info that I would like to see on papers. Also did not seem to crossbred friendly.

Jillians registry I like alot, lots of good stuff going on there. However, I have three grey purebreds that need registering...so that is problematic. Jillian has offered for members to be able to vote on that, so that is a resolve that is very user friendly in my book.

I don't think we are any closer to an answer and I find it hard to belive that the registries will merge. Even if so, there will still be, what, four???

With what I gather from some Kiger folks, is there needs to be a Kiger Foundation for the preservation of the "original" Kiger. Again, though, not everyone even agrees on that!

[nrly]

Stormy and Riddle are papered from rick, no problem for me on getting my papers. rick has been very honest and forth coming with me on everything. As far as the rest I haven't a clue. I just want my horses and future horses registered with out any complication since both parent will be pure kigers and those who 1/2 Kigers can register without any problem. And I feel a board member elected by owners of kigers and 1/2 kigers answering to the owners and the one registry (that i hope will come about) and each year we elect new member to this board if they that are on it are not living up to the rules and regulation and they will also have to be reelected each year. and we as owners will have an input and be able to vote on what is to be acceptable, and what isn't. It is only fair since we are the ones with the horse's. but we also have to be able to let them do what is right, but they will need to set up an e-mail site with some way for us to vote, question and so forth with a registry number for each member just as KMA does for their members. allot of work but it will be worth it in the end this way no hanky panky can go on we will all know what is up for a vote and we can have a say and if we do not want that then they can not over ride us, majority rules.
nola
nola

[karismakigers]

admin said:

Jillians registry I like alot, lots of good stuff going on there. However, I have three grey purebreds that need registering...so that is problematic. Jillian has offered for members to be able to vote on that, so that is a resolve that is very user friendly in my book.

Michelle,

I appreciate the comments and discussion on KHAR, however, I must come forward and state that KHAR is not MY registry. I am only one of many "cogs" in the great workings of KHAR. KHAR was set up by many founding members, several of which have asked to remain silent founding members. KHAR is not centered around one person's wants or needs. KHAR was developed to answer many of the questions/issues that were hampering the Kiger breed at the time. There were many compromises made among all the members during the designing of KHAR. We had to start somewhere. While KHAR might not be 100% perfect, it is a great start at a registry that protects the horse while allowing the owners and enthusiasts to enjoy the breed in all realms.

Greys in the breed have always been a sticky subject. KHAR compromised by allowing non-grey offspring of Greys to be registered using the hardship clause. Grey never was a color selected, maintained, or allowed in the herd management plan. Since KHAR was based on keeping the Kiger as close to the original image of what E. Ron Harding created, KHAR adopted the same selection and culling practices in the registering of breeding stock.

Many have stated that you cannot have the "claybank" color without grey. I would state that this is a false assumption. They are many Kigers in the breed that are the pale, creamy dun or grulla without the grey gene interacting. In other breeds, they would be called a 'buttermilk dunskin' or misnamed a 'silver grulla' (not to be confused with carrying the actually 'silver' gene.) Claybanks are rare, the real, non-grey claybanks are indeed rare. These claybanks never fade out. Their manes and tails never fade out. Their dark points and dorsals never fade out. They are the same color at 1 year as they are at 10 years.

There might be a time when the members of KHAR decide that they want to see grey become a recognized color of the Kiger breed. I hope that if they decide to make this proposal that they take into account all the info on the breed history, the nature of the grey gene, and the long range cause & effect their decision might make on the breed.

On another note: It is very concerning to hear of Kiger people that want to change the standard to better fit their animals instead of taking the approach of making their Kiger (or breeding program) better fit the standard. It seems lately that the goal of making better Kigers has become a goal of modifying standards so that it fits what 'we' own right now. This is a scary situation. We all need to evaluate the Kigers we own and what our own breeding goals are. We are starting a new year, where are we as a breed going? Are we meeting our benchmarks?

Jillian

[kigerfan]

Good post Jillian, Informative. Seems a big question is, is the breed standard going to stay what was originally slated by the BLM, or is it going to change to meet the desires of the breeders, put plain and simply.
I think the registries really need to boil down what a Kiger is so that new people coming into this don't buy a 'Kiger' and then find out that they can't register it. I'd be a might upset if I bought say that seventeen year old fellow and tried to register him and found out I couldn't. That is not a statement on his registerability due to his coloring, but how the registries preceive him.
As far as registering his offspring because they are dunn or some acceptable color, isn't that still bleeding the grey gene into the fabric of the breed?

[Michelle Clarke]

That is a good point in regards to "bleeding" the grey gene into the breed. I know what you mean, not color wise but the genetics of the grey. You can say, we don't want the grey color and I understand that, but then why allow non-greys by greys if it is not soley based on color...or is it??

Jillian, thanks for further explaining and I surely understand your point. Does this mean since Desi, who is a red dun, is out of Madonna (who has registration papers saying she is a light dun) can be registered just because he is not grey? What about the fact that I will be breeding him, are his get registerable in the KHAR?

[Michelle Clarke]

I have another question about partbreds. If I want to register my partbreds, am I wrong to assume they are judged and scored according to the Kiger Breed Standard (KBS)?

So, considering that in the KBS there are some known conformation aspects that are considered faults in other breeds and as a breeder, I breed to improve...will my crossbreds be scored lower because they don't have cow hocks or V-shaped chests?

What if I am blessed enough to find some Kigers without these traits (that are considered faults) and breed purebred Kigers, will they be scored lower because they don't fit the original KBS?

I also have a concern that when I take my horses and show them in open type shows or even the Buckskin Association or FEI In-hand Dressage classes or whatever, these Kiger traits will be faulted largely against other breeds...

My guess is this would not be a good thing in the eyes of other horsemen and potential buyers down the road.

While I understand what the point in preservation is, I honestly think it will get in the way of the progression of the breed as a whole in the long run.

There really should be a registry that has a "foundation" group, as well as leaving room for the betterment of the breed in the future. While some may not agree, I would guess plenty do.

How would a registry be able to address this?

[fantasykiger]

The gray gene does not work that way, it is not recessive, if you got the gray gene you will be gray. If you honestly think bringing back the gray will wash away the dun, it is not so. But I can understand wanting to hold to the original BLM standards for color and their desire to perpetuate the dun coloring. But I don't know how well educated the BLM was on color genetics when they made up the standards or even the name of horse colors. Try to explain to someone what a claybank Kiger Mustang is and they think you are crazy because a claybank horse is of reddish color points on a cream coat. That 17 yr old gray stallion held on to his black mane and tail pretty good and had it not been for the flea bitten appearance to his face would he be your claybank. It is something to think about. I may be a bit bias I do own a gray 1/2 Kiger and do tend to like the grays best when asked 'which is your favorite color?'. I just happen to be on the side of the fence that thinks they should not have tried to establish a color breed. Conformation should have been on the forefront of their minds. Now that is just my opinion.

[karismakigers]

kigerfan said:

I think the registries really need to boil down what a Kiger is so that new people coming into this don't buy a 'Kiger' and then find out that they can't register it. I'd be a might upset if I bought say that seventeen year old fellow and tried to register him and found out I couldn't. That is not a statement on his registerability due to his coloring, but how the registries preceive him.
As far as registering his offspring because they are dunn or some acceptable color, isn't that still bleeding the grey gene into the fabric of the breed?

Education of newcomers is certainly a paramount concern of KHAR. Both on breed history, breed traits but also proper horse conformation.

But also, there is a responsibility of people to do their homework and learn as much about the breed of interest, especially if they are looking to become breeders instead of just owners. AQHA cannot be faulted if Joe Smooe goes down to the local breeder and selects himself a cyptorchid stud for his next stallion prospect. The same goes for Joe Smooe who runs down to buy a bonafide, guaranteed, rare white Freisian. Unfortunately with horses, there are buyers that are impulse buyers. They don't want to learn about the horse or its breed, they just want to own it now!

Grey is dominate. It only takes one gene to produce the grey coloration. Grey is a modifying gene. It interacts with other color genes.

Jillian

[karismakigers]

admin said:

I have another question about partbreds. If I want to register my partbreds, am I wrong to assume they are judged and scored according to the Kiger Breed Standard (KBS)?

So, considering that in the KBS there are some known conformation aspects that are considered faults in other breeds and as a breeder, I breed to improve...will my crossbreds be scored lower because they don't have cow hocks or V-shaped chests?

What if I am blessed enough to find some Kigers without these traits (that are considered faults) and breed purebred Kigers, will they be scored lower because they don't fit the original KBS?

I also have a concern that when I take my horses and show them in open type shows or even the Buckskin Association or FEI In-hand Dressage classes or whatever, these Kiger traits will be faulted largely against other breeds...

My guess is this would not be a good thing in the eyes of other horsemen and potential buyers down the road.

While I understand what the point in preservation is, I honestly think it will get in the way of the progression of the breed as a whole in the long run.

There really should be a registry that has a "foundation" group, as well as leaving room for the betterment of the breed in the future. While some may not agree, I would guess plenty do.

How would a registry be able to address this?

Partbloods are not judged by any standard. Partbloods are recorded not registered. KHAR records Partbloods so that those that are developing a breeding program using Kigers and other breeds are able to track bloodlines and develop what they are specifically looking for. A Kiger crossed with a MFT is certainly not going to look like a Kiger and would be unfair if judged by the Kiger standard. Partbloods are allowed in all colors & markings and can be of any particular type or influence. A developed, well-thought out breeding program creating a Partblood is not a determent to the breed.

The reversed V chest was a aspect of the Kiger that has been there from the beginning. It was a trait that set them apart from the QH, which tends to have a T or inverted U front end.

True cow hocks is faulted in the breed.

The KHAR standard calls for "The hocks should be wide, deep and clean. Viewed from the rear, the hind legs are usually closer at the hocks than the fetlocks, but not to the extreme. "

Perhaps this could be re-worded. Most conformation specialists talk about the hock joint being slight closer than the stifle or feet. The cannons would be parallel, but the hocks would appear slightly closer. In 'The Horse Conformation Handbook' by Heather Smith Thomas, it states, "it is also acceptable to have vertical cannons with the hocks turned in and the feet toed out slightly. A line dropped from the buttocks should still bisect the leg perfectly when viewed from the rear." "A strong hock turned slightly inward offers the best support for the hind leg. The hind leg should thus be angled slightly outward at stifles and toes."

I think if one was to really look at every aspect in the KHAR standard, it allows for an improvement (as far as proper riding conformation) while still maintaining the horse as being a Kiger.

Jillian

[fantasykiger]

As to the subject of this post, registry comparison

All my horses are registered with SMKR. I am pretty sure if I need my papers right away Rick would get em' to me. It helps I live just down the road from him, it is not like he can hide from me..

I have no Steens Kiger horses so I have yet to deal with that registry

I have never delt with KMA, have no real reason to do so.

I like Kelly, I may one day register my horses with the Canadian registry.

American Kiger registry is very much a databank I gladly submitted my horses names and pictures to. I don't know that I need to register there as well, I only own part breeds at the moment.

The KHAR to be honest, I walked away when I saw they did not except grays. That was probably unfair and hasty of me. I need to do more investigating into that registry.

I myself had I owned a registry would not have excluded the 2007 Kiger Mustangs regardless, but that is just me.

[nrly]

well said tiffany
nola

[karismakigers]

admin said:

That is a good point in regards to "bleeding" the grey gene into the breed. I know what you mean, not color wise but the genetics of the grey. You can say, we don't want the grey color and I understand that, but then why allow non-greys by greys if it is not soley based on color...or is it??

Jillian, thanks for further explaining and I surely understand your point. Does this mean since Desi, who is a red dun, is out of Madonna (who has registration papers saying she is a light dun) can be registered just because he is not grey? What about the fact that I will be breeding him, are his get registerable in the KHAR?

The allowance of non-grey offspring from greys was based on circumstances. A horse adopted from the wild might have been sired by (or out of a mare) a sorrel, grey, seal brown or a horse with excess white and the adopter wouldn't be the wiser. The hardship clause allows each horse to stand on their own merit. While KHAR hopes that no one runs out and starts breeding off-colored and excess white horses simply because there is a safety-net for some of the resulting offspring; KHAR is allowing those people who want to breed away from certain traits to do so.

Desi would be eligible if his parentage can be traced back to BLM freezebranded horses. He would qualify under the hardship clause due to his dam being a grey. (Years ago, I think you had sent me photos of her that showed that she lost the color in her mane/tail and legs). His pedigree will list his pedigree including his dam, her color, and that she wasn't eligible for registration due to the grey coloration. He would also have to be hardship'd, as Madonna is deceased, so his DNA wouldn't be able to be compared to her; unless you already have DNA on her prior to her being deceased.

Desi would have full breeding rights and his offspring would be eligible for registration without any special requirements. Depending on how well he scores, he might receive a "star" designation.

Jillian

[karismakigers]

fantasykiger said:

Try to explain to someone what a claybank Kiger Mustang is and they think you are crazy because a claybank horse is of reddish color points on a cream coat. That 17 yr old gray stallion held on to his black mane and tail pretty good and had it not been for the flea bitten appearance to his face would he be your claybank. It is something to think about. I may be a bit bias I do own a gray 1/2 Kiger and do tend to like the grays best when asked 'which is your favorite color?'. I just happen to be on the side of the fence that thinks they should not have tried to establish a color breed. Conformation should have been on the forefront of their minds. Now that is just my opinion.

True, each breed has a different definition of claybank. From books written around the early 1900s to recent books of horses, each describes a "claybank" as slightly different from the other. I can only go by what E.Ron Harding wrote and speaks of when asked to describe the claybank color. Half the equine world define claybank as a pale red dun, almost a genetic champagne. The other half define claybank as dark points with pale creamy body (no specific leanings toward dun or grulla). E. Ron Harding described them as his "pumpkin" horses, in winter they would have a distinctive orange hue, creamy body with dark points. They would have distinct, dark dun factor on the legs and dorsal. It was a rich, warm color.

Funny, if you look at the catalog photo of that grey, one would swear he was a blue roan. He had the dark points with the blue corn roaning in his body. Less than 3 weeks later he changed overnight. When I arrived at the corrals, he looked nothing like the horse pictured in the catalog. The horse in the catalog looked pony-ish, small head, with steep upright shoulder and dark mane and tail. The horse at the corrals was washed out in color, same shoulder but not as steep, longer back than originally pictured.

And no, he wouldn't be "my" claybank. His mane and tail were loosing their pigment. There is a definite difference between de-pigmentation and bi-coloring of mane/tail. Greys loose color over time, claybanks maintain their color. While I agree that greys with dun/grulla are certainly flashy as youngsters, it is a color combination that only mirrors the real claybank color.

Jillian

[kigerfan]

I do like this thread too, I love informative and this definitely is that. I like to see threads like this that talk frankly about things without getting defensive etc. I do understand a good bit about genetics as far as color is concerned, what is dominant and what is recessive. Not so much with body conformation. I have a little bit of a warm spot in my heart for red flecked mustangs because the first mustang I met was a little red flecked gelding, I also understand that a Kiger like that wouldn't be desirable. Please, feed me more input! I love it