Editorials

Thanks to Our Sponsors
visit our sponsors


Lorry Wagner's 2000 WAHO Report

WAHO, the AHRA, and ROM-GATE

Paul Husband
on the WAHO Issue

Stacey Mayer on the WAHO issue

Let me reiterate my appreciation of the AHRA and its Board. I am a fan, not a foe, but the present position does not seem to me to make sense.

What is a "purebred Arabian" horse? In the final analysis, an Arabian horse is whatever a particular person or group says that it is. AHRA does not have an official definition, but rather to determine whether AHRA will consider a horse a purebred or not, a hearing committee is designated by the President of AHRA. The decisions made are not based on stone tablets received by men from the Almighty at Mt. Sinai.
 
One example of a purebred Arabian that we all seem to accept is Skowronek. Skowronek was out of a Polish mare whose pedigree was recorded in Europe for several generations. However, Ibrahim, the sire of Skowronek, was, I believe, purchased by the agents of Count Potocki in Istanbul. Istanbul is not the Arabian desert. Besides, how do we know that Ibrahim was a purebred? We accept him as a purebred though, and his descendants include Indraff, Ferzon, Khemosabi,Aramus and Muscat, among others.
 
The AHRA position, as I presently understand it, is essentially that horses which it registers are all purebred, but it may or may not accept horses registered by other WAHO member registries. This position does affect international commerce, as well as breeding, racing and showing. The position is not merely an internal matter.
 
The self righteousness expressed in the recent letter from the soon-to-be-ex president of AHRA is not justified. It appears to throw stones at horses accepted by the Argentine registrar about 80 to 90 years ago (and presently accepted by all other registries in the world) but makes no mention of a group of horses accepted by AHRA in 1971, whose "purity" or lack thereof has been questioned, even by AHRA officials -- these horses include the stallion El Tizcar AHRA no. 80190, the mare Bint Safaya AHRA No. 79733, the stallion Najim Holwave AHRA No.79734, the mare Bahia El Hind AHRA No. 79735, among others. The foal of Bint Safaya in the U.S. after her registration named Nijme El Hind AHRA No. 102657 was also accepted for registration. These horses are not cited to denigrate AHRA, but rather to suggest that if the sinless one is to cast the first stone, then AHRA should put down the rock.

While we do not have any all encompassing definition of "purebred Arabian" (compare the Asil club definition to the Al Khamsa definition to the Pyramid Society definition to the WAHO definition), we do have standards of breed type. Perhaps the question should be asked: Do the horses of the Argentine and Brazilian Registries who seem to be at the core of this controversy exhibit ArabianType?
 
The issue is really not whether WAHO is trying to dictate AHRA internal policy -- manifestly, WAHO cannot do that. However, the issue is whether the WAHO definition, which is accepted by all other Arabian registries of the world, will be the accepted definition of WAHO members for purposes of international trade. It would seem that this question should be answered by the 54 members of WAHO.

It is clear that AHRA is the biggest and richest Arabian registry in the world. It is also clear that if AHRA chooses to ignore the WAHO definition and refuses to continue to engage in meaningful dialogue, it can do so. What is not clear is whether such a course is wise, or justified.
 
It is also clear that the present AHRA course will cause harm to U.S. breeders.

Will anyone benefit from the present U.S. course?

- Paul Husband