A Little Bit of History

           by Margaret Badger Blackert

 

“Piebald and skewbald are … terms that have been used to describe horses having any of the asymmetrical white patterns.  Piebald refers to a black horse with any of these white spotting patterns, since piebald derives from “magpie,” a black-and-white bird.  Skewbald refers to a nonblack horse with any of these patterns.  Both terms originated in Britain , where white spotting is rare on horses….the terms piebald and skewbald also ignore which specific pattern is present.”[1]

Originally, the stud books of the Welsh Pony and Cob Society (WPCS) ( UK ) allowed any color.  Wynne Davies, noted author and long-time Welsh breeder states that of the 38 stallions registered in the four sections in Volume 1 of the WPCS (UK) Stud Book, “20 were of the hardy black, brown or bay colours, 14 were dark chestnuts, 3 were roans, and only one was grey (Dyoll Starlight).  There were more greys amongst the mares (mainly in Sections A and B rather than the Cobs), the 571 mares being made up of 367 blacks, browns or bays, 109 chestnuts, 40 roans, 34 greys and 21 duns or creams.”[2]

Lady Wentworth, renown breeder of the 1920’s to 1940’s, wrote in a booklet PONIES, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE “Piebalds and skewbalds are never seen amongst correctly bred ones and heavy daubs of white are much disliked.”[3]

So while the piebalds and skewbalds were not clearly excluded from all sections of the WPSC (UK) until 1950-51, they were clearly undesirable.  The Foundation Stock program was still in use, and some outside blood was allowed in the WPCS Stud Books (UK).  Perhaps the reason to add the terminology to accept any color except piebald and skewbald was to keep out “Gypsy blood”, or perhaps it was to restrict the influence of the outside blood which had already been accepted. But the exclusion did not mark a change in sentiment.  It was, rather, a reinforcement of the established custom.  

In an Email from January 4, 2006 , Wynne Davies wrote: “In WPCS UK piebalds and skewbalds were accepted (but not encouraged) up to vol 32 (1939 - 1945).... Vol. 34 (1950 - 51) states Pie and skewbalds banned.”[4]  In the first 39 Stud Books published in Britain , (covering to 1956 and 14,000 ponies) I found a total of four ponies of piebald or skewbald color, and one of those was Foundation Stock. Neither piebalds nor skewbalds were registered as such here in the United States . 

In America , our stud books combine the years 1913 to 1955 in Volumes III and IV.  This is the first document from the WPCSA I have found to say "Any color, except piebald and skewbald" (page XXIII)[5].   There is a publicity leaflet for Geo. E. Brown’s Stud of Welsh Ponies in Illinois , USA , 1907, which states “Colors, mostly bays and blacks, free of white marks, a few strawberry roans and steel greys.”[6]  This statement indicates he considered no markings a desired trait.   Piebalds and skewbalds were never encouraged in Britain , and never accepted here.  Therefore, the reasoning that by removing Rule 6 the board is merely putting the rules back to the way they “used to be” is misleading, and cannot be considered a valid point. 

 

A Little Bit of Science

 

Two different genes seem to exist in the Welsh which can cause explosive expressions of excessive white.  The more common is the sabino, characterized by high white stockings with irregular edges pointing up the front of the hocks and the back of the knees.  In combination, the white can creep up into belly spots, roaning through the flanks, and even full fledged pintos.  The British Piebald and Skewbald association has a photo of a sabino pony on its website[7].

It is rare that the sabino will do this, but people who breed them should consider this when making their breeding decisions.   Linebreeding and crossing certain lines seems to really bring this trait out into full-fledged pintos. 

        The other gene is the splash gene.  It is a dominant gene, so you would expect to see it more often than we do; however, it seems there are "suppressor" genes, which limit its expression[8].  So it can sometimes appear without warning.  But there are signs to look for.  "Bottom heavy" facial markings, belly spots, and high and disjointed leg markings indicate the pony may carry the splash gene.  One really needs to be careful with these markings. Environmental factors may or may not have an effect on the expression, but the genes must be present, first, in order for there to be white markings.

        Squamous cell carcinoma is a real threat for equines with pink eyelids, a common trait consistent with sabino, and particularly splash patterns.  I recently attended an equine ophthalmology seminar at Texas A&M University , and the speaker was berating the Pinto and Paint associations for not doing more within their breeds to try to educate owners of the problems associated with wide white facial markings.

        Currently, people have been selecting for "chrome", high white stockings, and wide blazes.  They are wildly popular, especially for first-time buyers who are easily influenced by flash, and competitors in large divisions trying to catch the judge’s eye.  Ponies with lots of white have a greater likelihood of carrying the sabino or splash genes and therefore a greater likelihood of producing excessive white than their more conservative counterparts.  Recently, I have seen the term “sabino” used to promote ponies in advertisements, so there is no doubt that it is the current fashion.

Because of its popularity, we are seeing more white in general, especially in Britain .  Over there, they do not require photos for registration, so they tend to have a few registered that would not have passed our registration rules.  This brings us to the root of the issue.

 

Current Events

 

        Well, it seems somebody purchased a stallion and imported it here.  It was registered with the WPCS (UK).  Our Purebred Registration Eligibility Rule 1 states “Ponies or cobs imported from other countries will be registered at the discretion of the Board of Directors”.  Historically, the Society did not accept FS (Foundation Stock) or FS1 ponies, and would only “list” FS2 mares.  In fact, in Vol. 1 of our Stud Book, the original Rule (5) states:  “Our aim must be to raise the standard, and make it more difficult to obtain an entry in our Stud Book.  For upon keeping up a high standard and insisting upon other desirable qualities …depend the well being of our Stud Book and the future success of our society.”[9]  Instead, our current board believed they had to accept this pony.  They ignored Purebred Registration Eligibility Rule 5, and at the Fall Board Meeting, they changed and effectively abolished Rule 6, which set the white limits[10].

There were other issues, as well, which prompted the rule change.  There is the European Union edict that all animals from registered parents must be allowed to be registered.  This is so that European Union passports can be issued.  This does not affect us, unless we plan to sell a pony to Europe , and even so, the United States is not part of the EU.  But the WPCS (UK) was going to have to change their rules to accept any pony with excessive white.  Well, two weeks after our Board altered Rule 6, the WPCS (UK) established a Section X for ponies that would not otherwise be accepted for registration (excess white, offspring of unlicensed stallions, etc.).  This is a new classification, and the rules are still being worked out, but the British Society’s current rules indicate offspring of ponies listed in Section X are not eligible for registration in Sections A, B, C, or D, they are not allowed to show in WPCS shows, and they are not eligible for WPCS sales[11]. They do have papers and can get their passports, but they do not have all the rights and privileges of a registered section A, B, C, or D.

        Another factor which may have weighed in on the decision- making process for members of the board is the change the American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA) made in their registration rules.  The AQHA lost a legal battle against someone who wanted to register their Quarter Horse with excessive white against the AQHA rules.   Whereas I'm sure the plaintiff was able to claim a large monetary devaluation because the horse was not allowed AQHA papers, I do not feel the same could be said of a Welsh Pony.  Half-Welsh papers are an option, and, unlike Quarter Horses, many ponies are sold for a great deal of money without their papers.  There are also Sports pony registries which will accept them.  And, while the AQHA is now accepting horses with excessive white, printed on the papers, they have a disclaimer which reads, "This horse has white markings designated under AQHA rules as an undesirable trait and uncharacteristic of the breed." Rule 205, section d[12].  This is repeated in the judging rules.  The AQHA did not exactly welcome them with open arms.  Most of the other Mountain and Moorland breeds have strict color limitations[i].  We are not the only ones.

        Traditionally, it was assumed the piebald and skewbald restriction was to maintain purity—if a piebald or skewbald appeared, some would assume there was a mistake in the breeding shed; it was thought purebred Welsh could not produce such markings.  Now, with DNA testing, we can prove the parentage.  We know now that there are registered Welsh which can and do produce excessive white when the right genes get together. Leaving the restrictions in place, however, can limit the influence of these genes from generations back for generations to come.  When too many of these genes get together, often through inbreeding or linebreeding, they will manifest themselves as excessive white markings.  Excluding piebalds and skewbalds is not a safe-guard which can be replaced by DNA tests.  DNA will only ensure accurate recording of first-generation parentage.  Excluding excessive white markings encourages breeders not to breed individuals so closely related that there is a good likelihood a pinto will be produced. Without the rule as a foundation, there will be no reason for Welsh breeders to exercise discretion when breeding lines known to produce excess white.

The Future

 

The board will have to take action at the next meeting in Orlando, because while they figured out how to charge for registration of older animals, and what to do with points already won in the Half-Welsh division, they seem to have forgotten about current Purebred Registration Eligibility Rule 5, which is still “on the books” and says “Piebalds and skewbalds are not eligible”.  .

I believe the breed would be much better served with the creation of a section E or, to follow the lead of the WPCS, a section X.  Any animal which did not meet the standards set by the old Rule 6 could be listed in this section, following DNA tests to verify parentage.  They would not be allowed to show in purebred classes, but they would be allowed to compete in the Half-Welsh division, as they always have been.  Offspring could be reentered in the appropriate section A, B, C, or D if they met all the registration rules. 

 

In Summary

 

        Some say only a few ponies will be affected.  If this is true, then why cause such a division in the breed for so little gain?   I’ve also heard the argument that nobody is required to register a pony if they feel it has too much white.  I consider this view short-sighted.  I believe this change will affect us all.  Removing this rule contradicts and therefore weakens our breed description which continues to say “any color except piebald and skewbald.”  All the literature from the Society, all the encyclopedias, reference books, and even coloring books which describe the Welsh pony as any color except piebald and skewbald will be contradicted by every piebald and skewbald pony registered.  The breed description is the standard to which all Welsh ponies should be held, and the breed description must be revered, not ignored. 

In addition, I find this rule change to be in violation of Article I of the By-Laws, where it says "The purpose of this Society is to maintain a Registry....while striving to maintain its purity and trueness to type and to further its welfare in every way."  This purpose is repeated in the Rule Book.  Allowing the registration of piebalds and skewbalds conflicts with that mandate.  Having the breed description and the rules in opposition weakens the ability of the Society to ever do anything to maintain the purity and trueness to type of the Welsh Pony and Cob.

 

So, while there may have been several factors which led to the board’s unanimous decision to change the rules, none of them, singularly or considered all together, warrant making this decision which has such far-reaching effects on the purity, trueness to type, and health and welfare of the Welsh breed.  A few may benefit by being able to register and show their pinto ponies as Welsh, but the breed as a whole, will suffer.  The sanctity of the breed description, that which enables people to recognize Welsh characteristics and determine if a pony or cob has the traits necessary to be a good representative of the Welsh breed, that which the Society was established one hundred years ago to maintain, will be forever compromised with the change. 

 

-Margaret Blackert


[1] Sponenberg, D. Phillip and Beaver, Bonnie V.  Horse Color, Texas A&M University Press, Texas , 1983, p. 36.

[2] Davies, Wynne, The Welsh Mountain Pony, J.A. Allen, London , 1993, pp 6-7.

[3] Field, Ed, Welsh Lore, An anthology of articles reprinted fromYour Pony, Florida , 1980, p. 11.

[4] Davies, Wynne, email, 2006.

[5] Welsh Pony and Cob Society of America Stud Book VOLS III and IV, Carr Publishing, Virginia , 1955, p. XXIII.

[6] Davies, Wynne, One Hundred Glorious Years, Cambrian Printers Ltd, Aberystwyth, Wales , 2001, p. 17.

[7] http://bspaonline.com/types%20breeds.htm, the 6th one down.

[8] Sponenberg, D. Phillip, email, 2006.

[9] Welsh Pony & Cob Society of America Stud Book VOLS. 1 and 2, 1913, p. 13.

[10] http://www.welshpony.org/ news

[11] http://www.wpcs.uk.com/society/sectionx.html

[12] http://www.aqha.com/association/registration/pdf/06registrationrules.pdf  


[i]     Web research forwarded by Vanessa Vaile.

Exmoor breed standard specifically states absolutely no white at all.
 Dartmoor - "The usual colors are bay, brown, black and occasionally grey, chestnut or roan. White markings on the head and legs should be minimal" (from US Dartmoor page) or "Piebald and skewbalds are not allowed. Excessive white markings should be discouraged" (from official breed standard on UK page).

 Highlands Ponies - "Unlike some other native breeds Highland ponies do not have to pass a subjective assessment of conformation or height before they are entered in the Stud Book - a pure Highland pony pedigree is all that's needed. (One exception to this: white markings are not liked as possible evidence of cross-breeding in the past, and Highland stallions cannot be registered if more than a small white star present).

Dales - "White markings are confined to no more than a star, snip and white hind fetlocks."

Shetland - "any colour other than spotted.”

Fell -  "White markings are restricted to a star and a little white on hind fetlocks."

 New Forest - "They come in most colours other than broken colours or blue-eyed cream"

 Connemara - "Grey, bay, black, brown, dun (buckskin), with occasional roan, chestnut, palomino and dark-eyed cream." Connemaras are the ONLY native breed that does not include "against excess white" phrasing in the breed standard - this from Irish, UK , and various EU Connemara sites as well as ICCPS (International). Interestingly, the breed standard at the US site includes the statement, "Piebalds and skewbalds are not acceptable for registration."  Looking at pictures on Connemara sites & googling images for "Connemara pony" suggest that excess white is not a problem as the many pictures I looked at showed modest if any white - ONE pony with 4 socks out of over a hundred pictures viewed and many, many meeting the strict Exmoor standard of no white whatsoever. If high white and crop outs do not appear in quantity to raise traditionalist eyebrows, that could be why there is not always a rule or warning against it. Could the US tastes for chrome have prompted that particular warning note?