Here are the responses to our 2005 Connemara inspections survey of ACPS members.

Adding up the responses was difficult, because some people did not check a box but put a comment underneath it that seemed to agree with the question. If the comment was “yes,” plus some explanation, it was counted as a check mark. Everything else was not counted, but the comments all appear below. While 89 people responded to the survey, a couple did not fill it out and a couple skipped most of the questions, hence the numbers never add up to 89.

☘ ☘ ☘

1) I like the ACPS inspections process the way it is.

12 RESPONDENTS SAID YES TO LIKING THE INSPECTIONS. TWO WERE UNSURE.

The comments:

— No, I will not have a pony inspected with all Americans as inspectors.

— There is room for improvement. Knowledge of type and quality of ponies in the U.S. has improved dramatically since inspections were introduced.

— Inspections are OK as long as any Connemara is eligible regardless of the inspection status of their parents.

— I’m rather indifferent to the inspection process. Think its purpose is vague and too open to bias.

— I am new to Connemaras and have nothing to base a decision on yet.

— I do not really know in any depth what the inspection process is. I think in theory they could be beneficial and should remain voluntary.

— Not very familiar with process.

— I know nothing about the inspection process and can’t be much help. sorry.

— I don’t know, had a horse inspected.

— I feel like the ACPS inspections are an evolving dynamic process, with members’ input welcome.

— I do not have breeding stock.

☘ ☘ ☘

2) I do not think we should have ACPS inspections.

12 ANSWERED YES TO NOT HAVING INSPECTIONS. THREE WERE UNSURE.

The comments:

— Perhaps changed.

— Not the way they are now at least. Or fix it.

— Not sure; we’ve bred Connemaras in North American for 30-plus years without inspections. It is difficult to pull back all those generations of ponies, and I’m not sure that we should.

— Definitely should have inspection. (Editor’s note: I believe this is my typo, and the answer should have included “not.”)

— We should have some standards.

— I don’t really see the advantage or the disadvantage. People are going to breed what they are going to breed.

— Respondent added onto the question “as a requirement for registration. They should be an option and include performance and temperament testing.”

☘ ☘ ☘

3) I have had ——— Connemaras inspected.

24 PEOPLE HAD CONNEMARAS INSPECTED

— 7 people had 1 Connemara inspected.

— 8 people had 2 inspected.

— 3 had 3 inspected.

— 2 had 4 inspected.

— 2 had 5 inspected.

— 4 had 6 or more inspected.

☘ ☘ ☘

4) I had a good experience at my Connemara’s inspection and thought it was useful. Please explain why.

11 PEOPLE SAID YES TO HAVING A GOOD EXPERIENCE. 1 PERSON CHECKED YES FOR HAVING BOTH A GOOD AND BAD EXPERIENCE.

The comments:

— I did not agree with every aspect of the inspection, but I learned more about what the team was looking for and got good feedback on my breeding goals.

— Our experience was OK. … Everyone seemed to know each other, so we were left to ourselves.

— I feel the inspections were a valid evaluation of my ponies’ conformation and temperament. The inspector from Ireland and the Americans involved had an excellent “eye” and were very open to what meets the “type” requirement. For your information, one of my ponies was a bay stallion with Little Heaven and the Arab Naseel. The Irish inspectors especially liked him and he was approved with “very good” scores. I also own a pony who failed to be approved as a stallion. I bought him after the inspection, but they were very correct in their evaluation. He is VERY old style with very little TB, but he failed! His classic looks did not compensate for his conformation fault. I also owned a stallion that was out of the Jiminey Cricket line and failed inspection.

— Inspectors comments on my pony were helpful. The results of other ponies were not disclosed, which was not helpful for me.

— It was informative, and it’s good for the future of the breed. Flawed ponies should not be passed. But can be used in other ways.

— The host farm was very hospitable.

— One inspection was at my farm; the second close by. All my ponies passes, so they were convenient and had a positive result for me. However, I don’t know that there was any particular benefit, and I would not bother with inspections unless they were very convenient.

— The comments pointed out weaknesses that I may have only suspected and sometimes had overlooked.

— They pointed out good things and poor things about my pony. Useful for breeding.

— I liked the personal discussion about my ponies. I especially value the Irish inspector’s input.

— I learned some things about my pony’s conformation.

— Thought they were a chore. We endured them. I thought (suspect) that the inspections float some weak boats (egos).

— Inspectors pointed out characteristics that needed to be improved with my stock and confirmed the quality of my stock.

— I see no purpose to inspect geldings.

— I have observed an inspection, thought it was useful in educating owners about conformation, type and correctness of way of going.

— My feelings about my ponies were confirmed.

— It helped to confirm that what I saw as my mares’ strengths and weaknesses was correct.

☘ ☘ ☘

5) I had a bad experience. Please explain why.

6 PEOPLE CHECKED YES FOR HAVING A BAD EXPERIENCE.

The comments:

— Not useful. My mare was approved, but certain conformation defects were overlooked for political reasons (My breeder was part of the inspection committee). I will not breed this mare.

— After we sold our wonderful stallion (wonderful temperament, great jump, etc.), he was allowed to fall apart conformationally (thin, etc.) and at age 10 he failed inspection! … He was very attractive, pretty correct, etc., and any child could ride. But he was gelded! He was show pony type.

— The inspectors didn’t explain what they were looking for or how it related to performance. One bad experience with with judging at Connemaras shows. The beautiful, capable Connemaras are passed over in all breed classes for chunky, stiff movers.

— The inspection I witnessed was very “hush, hush.” Like a secret society.

— I have owned Connemaras that others had inspected and found it totally useless. The basis of their inspection — or rather their lack of criteria other than their opinion of a “good looking” animal is invaluable to me as a rider.

— I had a mixed experience. Overall, the process was OK, however many comments on the inspection form were subjective, having nothing to do with type or conformation or quality of movement.

— Inspection was planned for 11 a.m. I invited four people who are interested in Connemaras. The inspectors did not show up until 4:30 p.m. It was a 90-degree day, and I was in the middle of feeding when they finally arrived. I feel it was totally mismanaged and poorly organized.

— The only area in the inspection report that my stallion had sufficient or below fairly good was the category for bone and limbs, so he did not pass, but he has 7 3/4 bone, which is within the standard but, I was told, not enough for a 14.1 hand stallion.

— My pony passed — but there were no “great” areas and they were very critical. She is now 8 (inspected at 2) and even an Irish inspector has called her “excellent in every way.” I am not sure that, at 2, a Connemara is often finished enough to tell how they are going to look — let alone perform.

☘ ☘ ☘

6) I do not plan to have any Connemaras inspected under the current system. Please explain why.

32 CHECKED YES FOR NOT PLANNING TO HAVE A CONNEMARA INSPECTED.

The comments:

— Am not planning on breeding at present. The horse we have is for performance right now. Maybe in the future.

— Travel and expense is a hardship; no longer have a stallion.

— 1) Witnessed biased and openly prejudicial judging with others who have taken ponies; 2) Do not like what current judges are aiming to approve; 3) We, in America, have American Connemaras, not Irish Connemaras.

— I am a competitor, not a breeder.

— I have a close friend who … has expressed to me that she stopped going to inspections due to biased opinions by inspectors.

— I am not breeding Connemaras.

— I own a stallion that under the current system won’t pass because his blaze is too big — nothing to do with his conformation, which is great.

— I am a long way from any inspections. Travel is very costly; I really can’t afford it.

— The American Connemara is better because of its variety.

— Why bother?

— I’ve attended two inspections and heard accounts of many … they appear very biased to me. Squeaky wheels get greased. Not consistent in application. I don’t concur with some requirements.

— Halfbred

— We breed halfbreds.

— My Connemara is 15.1 1/2 and is too tall to pass inspection.

— I think this is a popularity contest. The statement was made by an Irish speaker, speaking to ACPS, that in some areas, “they knew they would find no horses to pass.”

— No Irishmen or women in inspection group.

— Distance is too far.

— I don’t have breeding stock.

— Mostly, that they are never close to my farm. I think they should make it more convenient.

— I no longer have a Connemara.

— I have sold my Connemaras due to an accident.

— No breeding.

— If I have anything inspected, I will have them inspected with one of the sport pony registries.

— Inspectors play favorites according to the type they currently like, not according to the breed standard.

— They have a very specific idea of what is deemed acceptable, and I don’t agree.

— I don’t understand what they are looking for. In the standard, Connemaras should not paddle, but they still pass inspection?

— My ponies are performance.

— It is nothing more than a dog show at present. I actually sold all my Connemaras because of the “cliquiness” and ignorance of current officers and inspectors.

— I have a gelding so I don’t see any need for pursuing an inspection. If I had breeding stock I would probably look into it.

— Only have two performance purebred geldings.

— Don’t need to, in my opinion. All my ponies have proven themselves in the show world. Why bother?

— Have a halfbred.

— I am not involved in breeding etc.

— I have a halfbred.

— No purebreds.

— Plan to have one inspected at Florida site in fall 2005.

— I will have my ponies inspected when I have one that is not already (inspected).

— My mare is too old; I don’t breed.

— Too political and too subjective.

— I do not own any breeding stock; if I owned a stallion probably (would have stallion inspected).

— I have not had my ponies inspected simply because I have not taken the time and it is not a priority for me.

— I would (have horses inspected) if I had purebreds, but since 1990, I have only had halfbreds.

— I own a Connemara cross.

— I do not know if I would have a stallion inspected under the current system due to the fact that they don’t follow the standard when it comes to amount of bone.

— I do not own breeding stock.

☘ ☘ ☘

7) I believe some requirements should be changed in the ACPS inspections. Please list what you would change:

22 PEOPLE CHECKED YES FOR BELIEVING REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE CHANGED.

The comments:

— I think temporary permits should be given to youngstock. Look at foals of candidate and don’t reject before age 6 due to slow maturation of breed.

— There are too many “junked” Connemaras; by this I man 5 to 15 years old, no training. Something needs to be done to get these horses going.

— One would be to eliminate a bias toward color. The other would be the way a pony’s ability as a performer is assessed (looking at their potential as a hunter, jumper, dressage horse or eventer. In other words, beyond the ability defined in the standards.

— Competition, progeny and tractability should factor in.

— I think Irish standards should be followed, inspectors should not be breeders and more sites made, one in each region every year if need be. If old enough, ponies (should be) shown under saddle as well as in hand and free lunging.

— I believe there should be separate categories for performance sport ponies and more typey ponies. Looks should come into play in conformation, but behavior and movement should always be included.

— I agree with your ideas; we need athletes that are well balanced and have the temperament and tough qualities that make the Connemara great, not just a certain “thick” type. My first Connemara was 15-2 hands. My current one is 14-3. They both have competed in dressage up through the levels.

— A performance history and/or test. I think the Germans have it right in their Hanoverian

— Height limitation (allow oversized); wider variety of type (I personally don’t prefer too much bone or mass); conformation is important but there are other equally or more crucial (often nontangible) aspects to the Connemara breed.

— I don’t think the system is perfect, and I think we need to have a yearly evaluation process and more statistics available to the membership on overall trends.

— Performance testing for stallions; no size limitations.

— Anyone owning a stallion or a breeder should not be on the inspection team.

— I think it could stand to be updated to focus on performance rather than looks.

— Vet on team that specializes in conformation.

— I think type is important, but just as important, if not more, is temperament and soundness.

— Qualifications of inspectors, for one. Not all should be Connemara breeders. Let’s use people knowledgeable about the type and conformation.

— The inspectors should be chosen differently. I would prefer to have a system closer to European inspections with the option for a temporary approval to base final decision on get.

— I have met inspected and approved Connemaras that in my opinion should NOT have passed for bad temper and poor conformation.

— Add performance, gait, jumping and attitude measures.

— If Texas Hope is an accepted sire (re. gene pool in Connemara breeding), then Little Heaven ponies should be accepted as long as they meet measurable and acceptable breed standards.

— I think the inspections need better inspectors/horsemen; need to recognize that all Connemaras are essentially “mutts” and therefore there is no one type; need to have a reason for inspecting.

— I think they should not be required, period. I do not feel the necessity for joining European registry.

— Performance should be added.

— All Connemaras should be inspectable, not just ones who look a certain way.

— I believe it should be a learning tool for breeders. All comments on a pony, negative or positive, should be openly discussed. Not to embarrass, but for the improvement of the breed.

— Brains, performance and movement should be part of it.

— Performance, athletic ability must be incorporated into the current “beauty contest” — appearance is too subjective to base an inspection on alone.

— I support the inspection process but feel aspects of the process should be removed. I also feel there is a place for the more refined “sport pony” but possibly in a separate category.

— Inspectors need to more proficient in measuring. One of my ponies was measured three different heights with the same stick. They would be in a huge mess if they ever measured at an “A” horse show!

–Don’t pass ponies with poor conformation (I have seen this).

— Performance testing, possibly.

— Need to judge what a stallion produces to take that into consideration when judging if a stallion should be approved. Stallions that wing or paddle should not pass. Break into categories (similar to Welsh) but would only need two: Sport and Heritage types. Inspect ponies that pass into one of the two. Fail those with poor conformation, movement, temperament. Allow foals to be placed into whichever category they fit best when inspected. This would make all the breeders happy and still allow inspections.

— I believe we need a registry for all purebred (Connemaras), and if they like, an inspection that includes some form of performance and temperament analysis for inspections — but no inspection required for registration. Inspections are an extra option, not a requirement for registration.

— I think the idea of inspections is a good one. A group can have diverse opinions which should result in improvement of the breed. But genetics prove that the same breeding does not result in the same (offspring) every time.

☘ ☘ ☘

8) I think the ACPS inspections process should be halted until it is revised to include performance and behavioral testing in some reasonable form that would include Connemaras that are not competitors.

24 PEOPLE CHECKED YES TO HALTING INSPECTIONS WHILE THEY ARE REVISED.

The comments:

— If they don’t meet the draft pony appearance, they should still be Connemaras allowed to show in performance classes.

— Perhaps a new registry should be started; it’s very simple to do.

— Performance checks for brood stock would be good.

— Respondent underlined “performance horse” category and said. Good idea; I agree with this.

— And possibly stopped altogether. So the majority of ACPS members want inspections, especially as they are today?

— Don’t value it enough to care.

— Somehow performance needs to be recognized separately, whether be a true to size pony or a pony oversized.

— I want 2-3 Irish inspectors on the inspection tour. Irish, as real, from Ireland. I do think we should have inspections, but only if 2-3-4 are Irish, or all Irish. I think a breed standard should be maintained — not a “typey” look. A pony measure like a Connemara breed standard indicates and not a group of (name-calling deleted) women standing in a group talking about “type” as they wonder who among them is most important — boss mare.

— This change would leave me out. I don’t have time and money to participate in extensive testing. I am lucky to get to any inspection.

— Still prefer no inspections. This is a huge country with people desiring different types (still Conn. type) for different disciplines. A show hunter is different from a jumper from a cow pony from a driving pony or dressage horse. I do believe in correct conformation clinics nationwide. We do have breeders etc. who may lack knowledge.

— Performance and behavior testing would certainly be valuable addition to inspections.

— An in-hand obstacle or stress test? Condition?

— That would include another day. Our country is so large (regions), it would be difficult.

— I bought an inspected and approved stallion that was so rank and nasty that I recommended to his new owner that he be cut or never bred. I refused to have (name of horse) “judged” by the current inspectors due to their lack of knowledge and their apparent “conflicts of interest.” (I do believe they are all stallion owners — that is ridiculous!)

— I think this should be added to the process.

— Include progeny.

— No, performance testing is done in competition. Mare owners who breed to stallions who do not compete (or hunt) are accepting that unknown, as they are in not competing their mares, if that is their choice.

☘ ☘ ☘

9) I think the ACPS should break its registered Connemaras into separate categories, similar to what other breeds have done. Those categories could be: Performance Horse and Pony, registered by people with goals other than the horse looking a certain way; and maybe Draft Connemaras, for the people who specifically want to breed a set look and who want to be part of a group that maintains that look. If you have other suggestions for separate categories, please list them here.

16 PEOPLE SAID YES TO BREAKING REGISTERED CONNEMARAS INTO CATEGORIES AND 1 SAID MAYBE.

The comments:

— 1) Standard registration; 2) cob registration; 3) performance registration; 4) recognize and promote 3/4 and 7/8; 5) approved stallions for each division.

— Traditional and performance maybe?

— Maybe; Or possibly offering some basic categories based on type, or simply inspected or not inspected or …

— No, I think this is ridiculous.

— No! I would not like to see the Connemara pony turn into another breed like Morgans and quarter horses, which no longer look like their original types.

— Possibly over and under 14.2

— No. There already are other registries people can go to. We are too small to be dividing our forces. More unity, less division.

— No!! We are not a sport pony registry. We are a breed society.

— Big/little type? Like Welsh cob/pony. I think behavior/manner and their healthiness are their strongest traits, but it would be hard to do performance book. It limits those without funds for shows/trainers etc.

— I feel that the breed requires standards in conformation as in all other horse and dog breeds, and those standards must be maintained.

— Not a bad idea, people could have what they want and decide what they’re looking for.

— What about Connemara SP for sport pony.

— No, there should be one inspection standard or the process would become a fragmented joke.

— (Suggested category) Connemaras registered for breeding stock which conform to the standards for the breed set by the CPBS.

— No, most other horse registries don’t do this. Too drafty Connemaras should breed to lighter ponies, just as lighter ponies might need more bone. All have their place in the ACPS.

— I would not object to different categories — that could be a way to have a “win-win” situation.

— That could be very confusing. This might be where the geldings could be inspected. Everything else would be breeding stock, no matter what performance group.

— Oversize Connemaras in separate category.

— No separations!

— I think the simpler the category, the better. You can diversify too much. Let’s not make things more complicated than they need to be. It should stand up to the test of time, not be part of a trend.

— No. I feel that Connemaras should be recognizable as Connemaras in any company, and if properly trained can be competitive in any company.

— Respondent circled draft horses and said, this is foolish, no one wants this.

— “Sport” type: lighter type pony; and “heritage” type: heavier, drafty pony. But judge foals of pony into category it belongs in, on its own merit. Fail the stallions with poor movement and obvious conformation flaws and bad temperaments.

— Like the Welsh ponies — height and type categories to allow over 14-2, and “pony” type versus “performance” type.

— Not quire sure this is necessary.

☘ ☘ ☘

10) I think the inspections process and its requirements should be put to a vote of the members.

44 PEOPLE CHECKED YES TO PUTTING THE PROCESS AND THE REQUIREMENTS TO A VOTE OF THE MEMBERS.

The comments:

— Strongly agree.

— It already has.

— Yes, but voting is hard because of who is asked to count the votes.

— Only with sufficient information provided.

— No. Many are great horse people but not knowledgeable enough of this breed.

— If necessary, i.e. if the majority want a vote.

— I think this should be opened for discussion.

— Yes, let others get involved.

— It wouldn’t hurt if we were educated first on the process/requirements before a vote.

— The members already voted it in.

☘ ☘ ☘

11) I strongly object to Little Heaven offspring being a part of the breed.

NO ONE CHECKED YES TO OBJECTING TO LITTLE HEAVEN OFFSPRING.

The comments:

— Too late, he is, (thank God).

— No, I want them part of the breed.

— Not at all.

— All of my ponies have had Little Heaven in their ancestry.

☘ ☘ ☘

12) I have no issues with Little Heaven offspring being a part of the breed.

76 PEOPLE CHECKED YES TO HAVING NO ISSUES WITH LITTLE HEAVEN OFFSPRING BEING A PART OF THE BREED.

The comments:

— Great jumping bloodlines.

— As long as they pass inspections.

— Many legendary Connemaras and award winners have this pedigree, as do most American breds.

☘ ☘ ☘

13) I love horses with Little Heaven bloodlines.

42 PEOPLE CHECKED YES TO LOVING HORSES WITH LITTLE HEAVEN BLOODLINES.

The comments:

— I think mine does???

— My lines have Little Heaven and Naseel.

— As long as they look like a Connemara and not like Little Heaven.

— I wanted that line!

— Respondent noted that she would word differently, maybe “approved of” them.

— My friend had one; he was awesome pony.

— This is a nonproductive generality. I have loved all my horses and ponies.

☘ ☘ ☘

14) I own a horse with Little Heaven bloodlines. If yes, does your horse look refined?

57 PEOPLE SAID YES TO OWNING A CONNEMARA WITH LITTLE HEAVEN BLOODLINES.

The comments:

— Horse does not look refined.

— Absolutely gorgeous, every one.

— I love her. Great jumper, trail horse, pet horse, athletic and willing. Also reads my mind.

— Yes (looks refined).

— Yes, my horse does look refined.

— Depends on one’s perspective; mine don’t look like TBs; they look like Connemaras to me!

— Yes, looks refined.

— Yes, refined, but they are crosses.

— Not refined.

— No (not refined).

— Yes, looks refined.

— Yes, refined, but still pony.

— He is large, but not refined.

— One is refined; one is refined but has a full body.

— No (not refined).

— Possibly a little more refined.

— Somewhat (refined).

— No (not refined).

— Yes (refined).

— No (not refined).

— Is there a Connemara without any Little Heaven, Winter or Naseel?

— She is beautiful, finer than some, but not fancy as defined by the hunter world (has knee action). She is approved.

— Three, and one of those I would consider refined.

— Yes (refined).

— Pretty, maybe, but still loads of bone.

— Somewhat (refined).

— Yes (refined).

— Original stock came from Ireland; I would’t doubt it.

— I have bred horses with Little Heaven bloodlines, most have been sold. No (not refined), in general they were of good bone but were quite beautiful.

— Some do (look refined); some don’t.

— Some did (look refined) and some didn’t.

— Not particularly (refined).

— Not particularly (refined).

— No (not refined).

— No (not refined).

— No (not refined).

— No (not refined).

— Yes (refined).

— Not refined, but light to medium boned.

— Yes, but “more” refinement seems to come from different line.

— If being lovely, slick, good movers with good conformation means they are refined, then, yes, my Connemaras are refined.

— No (not refined).

— Yes (refined).

— Yes (refined).

— One is a draft type, heavy boned but pretty. One is a little lighter boned but he is very pony looking, stocky and cute. One is a halfbred, he’s gorgeous and has great feet and bone.

— Not especially.

— One did; two didn’t.

— Yes (refined).

— No (not refined).

— (Own) several; not too (refined).

— Way back in the pedigree.

— Little Heaven on both sire and dam lines. No, not at all (refined).

— Not really (refined).

☘ ☘ ☘

15) I breed or own my Connemara(s) for performance.

67 PEOPLE SAID YES TO BREEDING/OWNING FOR PERFORMANCE.

The comments:

— Yes, for dressage primarily.

— Greystones fit the bill for all sections (performance, looks, friendship).

— And he looks great at 23, and is my best friend, and is still competing at (high) level dressage, eventing and fox hunting.

— Why waste such tremendous talent?

— This is the primary focus of my breeding program; also primarily a crossbreeding program.

☘ ☘ ☘

16) I breed or own my Connemara(s) for looks.

44 PEOPLE SAID YES TO BREEDING/OWNING FOR LOOKS.

The comments:

— I am more concerned with horse’s temperament than looks.

— For good, solid conformation and reliable reproduction.

— No, but he is cute!

☘ ☘ ☘

17) I breed or own my Connemara(s) for friendship/joy.

57 PEOPLE SAID YES TO BREEDING/OWNING FOR FRIENDSHIP/JOY.

The comments:

— I breed my Connemaras for brain and temperament.

— Respondent added: temperament, sturdiness, jumping ability.

— Mostly, I love their temperament, calm, curious, etc.

☘ ☘ ☘

18) What type of look in a Connemara do you prefer, and you can use any adjectives you want to describe your favorite type of look?

The comments:

— I prefer the sport look — A bit heavier bone.

— I generally like the breed standard. No pony is perfect, and I don’t like the current height and bone obsessions. If everything else is wonderful about the pony, it should pass.

— Pretty, usable, sound.

— Jumping ability and personality are all I care about.

— I prefer my Connemaras to have adequate bone, free and fluid movement, well bodied (without looking heavy), a higher set neck, an attractive head with well set eyes, and to show good movement on the flat and use of hindquarters over fences. Also, an even tempered attitude and disposition.

— Round rump, heavy bone, good-sized hoof, medium neck blending into shoulder nicely; heavy jaw; big soft eye; wide brow; short back; big barrel.

— I want a tractable, attractive pony who’s a good mover, has a friendly personality and looks like a little TB.

— I have a joint ownership over my Connemara pony … We breed him for type, temperament and performance. My favored look is that of a small Warmblood, an elegant structure with good bone. However, I have fallen in love with many ponies closely related to Little Heaven … American Connemara ponies come in all shapes and sizes, and we may never be accepted by the ICCPS. They might love their ponies for their “perfect” type and find their ways superior to us Americans, but to me a good pony is a good pony, no matter what its type is.

— A Connemara should be an athlete and that means he/she will look good anyway and be balanced and a good moving pony/horse.

— I love a variety of types as long as they have good bone and substance and that kind Connemara eye and temperament. I personally prefer them not to be too meaty/bulky. Of course, good basic conformation is a given.

— I want the look to fit the standard. Balanced, strong, sound, broad, pony look, intelligent, alert.

— I did not buy my horse for any “look.” I did buy him for his sturdiness, disposition and heart.

— The more refined ones — they pin in the show ring — make Connemaras that much more versatile.

— Sturdy, pony looking, pretty, correct.

— I like the sturdy, stocky old Connemara. I have bred thoroughbreds and quarter horses to my stallion and get ponies who are slightly taller but look just like Connemara.

— I like the more “drafty” type of Connemara found in Ireland. A “kind” eye and ” good action” is also important.

— Classic type with good bone and feet, strong hindquarters, a pony that looks coarse to some. A pony or small horse that looks like they can do a day’s work. Balanced conformation and a soft eye.

— There are several looks and likes within Connemaras.

— Typical pony. Medium boned. Not too refined or drafty.

— Fairly refined but good bone … pretty head etc. Like show ponies/horses.

— Moderate. Not too thoroughbred or draft looking. Good movement and soundness is most important (after temperament).

— I prefer the typical pony look with good bone and sturdy built and nice head.

— I think there is a difference between good “type” and good conformation.

— More refined than too thick and drafty. Thick and drafty are not as graceful movers or jumpers.

— We love the look of our pony. He is a large 14.1 hand, lean leggy gelding.

— Friendly, intelligent, respectful and easy to train.

— Sport type, substantial body, bit more catty in movement.

— Strong, well-conformed, lots of bone.

— I prefer an attractive head, good length of neck, and nicely sloping shoulder, robust/sturdy body (but not too clunky, drafty, coarse).

— Solid –sturdy — like a small Irish Draught.

— For my purposes, I prefer the smaller Connemaras and those of somewhat more refined or “moderate” type. Personally, I do not care for the draftier or “heavy warmblood” types.

— One with good bone and an honest face and a kind eye. Balanced body, back not too long.

— I prefer 13.2 to 14.2, loose, balanced movement, correct angles, lines according to sound, functional conformation, great temperament.

— Stallions Duncan, Denver, Chiltern Colm, Laddie Boy, Tower Hill’s Owen.

— Love the classic, drafty Connemara, but also love the more streamlined fancier types.

— Handsome, balanced conformation, with good bone, lovely heads, plenty of natural jumping ability and good ability to move with long strides and good impulsion — ie, a good rear engine, great feet.

— I like all kinds, but, to ride, I’ll take a “sporty” type.

— Neck arched, four square on legs, tough feet.

— Hideaway’s Bantry Hope (age 34) and Hideaway’s Erin Tooreen (died in ’91).

— I love the cute pony face many of them have; mine is kind of a chunky monkey.

— I love them for the breed characteristics we all love, which enables them to perform in the sport horse disciplines I use them for. I do not expect a cookie cutter Connemara is size, type, color, disposition or size.

— My favorite look is irelevant. There is an international breed standard already. We should use the inspection process to increase conformity to that standard.

— One with quality, large eyes and nostrils, bone but not drafty.

— Good bone, balance in conformation. Good temperament. All the qualities described in the CPBS video on conformation.

— I prefer the more draft-type pony.

— I don’t care about “type” or “look.” I care about correct conformation, way of going, temperament and jumping ability.

— I prefer pony type but I also want my ponies to be attractive and very athletic with great minds.

— Handsome, athletic.

— Sport pony type, dressage/jumping program.

— Solid, good bone for size, nice topline, big eye, deep body, short cannons.

— Pony, balanced, medium substantial bone.

— I like a pony with heavy bone and joints, kind eye.

— Large (14-2), chunky.

— Good eye, bone, movement, conformation, disposition — size does not matter. Don’t like any coarseness but don’t want dainty pony with no substance.

— Pony look, sound and sensible.

— Large, kind eye, solid feet, good shoulder, broad chest, shorter coupled.

— Hunter pony — sporty.

— Not drafty, but not mini T’breds either.

— Pony face, large eyes, calm and intelligent look. I like lots of bone. I’d prefer a neck not too thick.

— I like good conformation, square bodies, good bone, nice necks, straight legs, nice heads on any breed. The better the conformation, the better the performance.

— Strong and correct, with plenty of substance and bone, deep heart girth, head full of character and intelligence.

— Conformationally correct, sound, balanced, athletic.

— I like the marble look, pretty but substantial, graceful and light on their feet, yet strong.

— Large eye, good bone but not necessarily drafty. I like balanced, good movers. A good, kind disposition most important. I see value in both types of pony.

— I prefer large pony size, large soft eye, medium bone, long neck (length of rein), but solid, calm, tractable temperament above all. Brave but sensible and trustworthy.

☘ ☘ ☘

19) I think certain Connemaras should be excluded because of their looks.

This was a confusing question, because I did not take into account conformation, and I apologize for that.

14 PEOPLE CHECKED YES TO THINKING THAT CERTAIN CONNEMARAS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED BECAUSE OF THEIR LOOKS.

The comments:

— Do they not meet the standards?

— Soundness should be paramount.

— Conformational defects.

— Obviously, yes. If they are a paint or look like a Welsh, they should be excluded.

— Because look goes to standard.

— Conformation.

— I think a performance category for more refined and a drafty category.

— Overly drafty. We are not draft ponies.

— Conformation.

— See attached (no attached).

— If they are too light in bone.

— I breed show dogs and some should not be allowed to place in shows, although some dogs are AKC and come from two AKC registered purebreds. I don’t think some are true to “type” and should not ever gain the title of champion.

— No, not if their conformation is good. I think the breed has always and should always admit many types with correct equine conformation and good temperament.

— I do think there needs to be types, but it’s so political as to be impossible. I don’t think they should look like a TB, morgan or Welsh, but I’m not sure what a Connemara should look like, only what I like.

— I don’t know about excluded, but I think the purpose of an inspection is to continue specs, such as a certain height.

— If they do not conform to the standard, but the standard should be (and is, as I understand it) broad enough to include some variations in type.

— I think breeding stock should be of conformation specified by CPBS.

— At some point, looks are important, but not just because a Connemara pony is refined. The pony does need to look like a Connemara.

— I think some should not be in the official “stud book” but should still be registered Connemaras.

— When you keep breeding over/over to a TB and get a horse that is 14-2 and looks like a TB — then yes.

— Only serious conformation flaws, i.e. vet failure.

— Only conformation faults. They should have the breed type that the Irish describe.

— Respondent inserted “from the stud book,” and said, yes, if looks includes conformation and type.

— Thoroughbred type.

— If they don’t look like a Connemara.

☘ ☘ ☘

20) I think all Connemara looks or types should be included in the breed.

47 PEOPLE CHECKED YES TO THINKING ALL TYPES SHOULD BE INCLUDED.

The comments:

— Hence different sections, like the Welsh.

— I believe there are four types, and they should be listed as such. I do think that some of the Connemaras have too much Little Heaven in their lines, as in the mares I lease should not be bred to Little Heaven lineage, I feel.

— Within reason.

— The gene pool is there, regardless of looks.

— I think you can have a range of looks that fit the type.

— A variety of looks or types should be included.

— Yes, but the goal should be to use these types to produce a typical pony, not a TB or draft horse. Refined TB ponies should be bred to complementary ponies with more gone. It takes many generations to put back bone. Stallions in particular that are too refined should not be approved. (Your stallion looks OK to me; have not seen him in person).

— As long as structurally correct.

— But crossed with types that will result in offspring tending toward “ideal type,” as in video.

— They shouldn’t be too refined.

— If they have good temperament and conformation.

— You shouldn’t try to change what’s established. It starts to look like a “fad” that could change at the whim of inspectors.

— I like all types as long as they have decent conformation.

— Not in the breed standard.

— If conformationally sound and correct.

— If there were two categories, then people could breed what they want without concern.

— Respondent added word “registry” to end after breed.

☘ ☘ ☘

21) I think Joanie McKenna is trying to bring positive change to a society that’s been divided for a long time.

57 PEOPLE CHECKED YES.

The comments:

— It’s about time something positive and openly honest was done.

— ?

— Let’s not divide!

— No information that would lead to an opinion.

— Good for you!

— Yes, yes (pointing to divided for a long time).

— Good luck!!

— Dialogue is good.

— Don’t know Joanie.

— Don’t know enough to answer but differing views and discussion are good.

— Don’t really know about divided, but change is always good.

— I understand why a person would be upset by comments like that — especially with a pedigree that goes back to the 1940s established by the Irish breeders.

— I think you are, but I don’t think this is a very good way to do it.

☘ ☘ ☘

22) I think Joanie McKenna is trying to be a negative force in the ACPS and should go form her own society and leave the rest of the ACPS alone.

FOUR PEOPLE CHECKED YES.

The comments:

— ?

— No.

— Absolutely not.

— No information that would lead to an opinion.

— No.

— No.

— A bit extreme.

— Not necessary (to leave).

— I think you are trying to turn a personal, emotional issue into a political one.

☘ ☘ ☘