——

This summary of the survey results was lightly edited in 2020.

July 25, 2005

Dear ACPS members,

I took on more work than I knew with my paper survey of members of the American Connemara Pony Society about Thoroughbred Little Heaven and Connemara type in May 2005.

At the end of the day, there are two main and somewhat opposing camps on the topic of Connemara type. One camp says the research shows many different breeds went into the modern Connemara, and the huge diversity in genes is why there is such a variety in appearance, which is not an issue for many.

The other camp says that the breed standard defines a Connemara as a specific type, and all Connemara breeding stock needs to be held to that standard and “to look like a Connemara.” No one in that camp offered historical information that said the native Connemara always looked exactly a certain way. For all the people who said a Connemara needs “to look like a Connemara,” I wish you had sent photos, because it would have been great to have examples of each person’s ideal of that “look.”

Someone who wasn’t in either of those camps noted that the inspection process is trying to preserve a “particular set of characteristics, which may, in fact, only have applied to a small subset of the breed.” That was the statement that stuck with me the most.

I sent out 757 surveys (there were 759 members in the 2004 directory; I did not send a survey to myself or Garnet Irwin in Ireland); 89 were sent back; 15 were returned as undeliverable.

Passionate Connemara lovers

I learned never to ask or expect passionate Connemara lovers to be brief. I apologize for it taking so long to get the results back to everyone, but it’s taken me more than 20 minutes per envelope to process many of the surveys due to the depth of the comments. In the end, the comments were much more interesting than the quantitative numbers. The “big picture” comments appear in the Comments page; these are a must read. As for the actual survey results, if you get tired of reading through the comments in there, be sure not to miss No. 18, which asked owners what kind of Connemara look they prefer. It’s very interesting for its diversity and for how much we expect from our Connemaras. I’m sure I will be accused of including too many comments throughout, but what do you cut? Many people sent me their e-mail addresses if I wanted to respond. I would have LOVED to; there simply wasn’t time.

Several ACPS members, mostly in phone calls, referred to former Edinburgh Professor James Cossar Ewart’s study of Connemaras in the early 1900s, a study constantly cited by Connemara people, and the fact that Ewart defined five distinct types of Connemara at that time. I can find many references to Ewart on the Internet, but not the actual study, so I couldn’t elaborate on that more.

As I’m sure you recall, the survey was a direct result of a dispute between me and one ACPS inspector, who stated in writing to me in an e-mail and then a follow-up letter that: 1) She had failed a pony that was nice by anyone’s standards and that was black and sleek, reminding her of my stallion, Lynfields Kiltuck, but the inspected pony was not the right type and therefore not approved; she thought it was a grandson or great-grandson of my stallion; 2) All black, sleek, fancy-looking ponies remind her of my stallion; and 3) My stallion (a Little Heaven grandson) does not “fit the standard.”

Two or three people said it was a private situation, not a political one, and I shouldn’t try to make it a public one (the same message I received from the ACPS president). I beg to differ. Even if I were willing to give the inspector the benefit of the doubt that her comments weren’t meant to insult, this is still an ACPS inspector who passes or fails a lot of horses, and all of her opinions regarding what is acceptable type and what “fits the standard” are not only relevant for discussion but should be of interest to every member. The same is true of every other inspector and his or her feelings about type.

Inspections affect all Connemara enthusiasts

Many nonbreeders with performance horses said they knew or cared little about the inspections and hadn’t given it any thought. But, they, too, will be affected by the process when they are buying horses down the road. One person said that if her nice stallion had failed his inspection (he passed), she would have gelded him and looked for something more “typey.” Another said a stallion she sold failed an inspection and WAS gelded; the first person was fine with that thinking; the other was definitely not. Both were examples I didn’t want to hear. For the gelding, those genes are now gone. That is how it affects all of us. It wasn’t a case, cited often by ACPS officials, where a “failed” stallion could go on to breed complementary mares and produce great offspring. Those genes are simply gone, because three inspectors who were having who-knows-what-kind-of-a-day said the pony wasn’t good enough, and the owner then discarded his genes.

The inspector in question has been critical of my stallion and his genes as being too refined since he was 2; I made a public forum out of it now, 28 years later, only after I saw it affecting someone else’s horse and wondering how many more had been affected. I actually tried to write a paid ad for the American Connemara magazine in 2002, when she had criticized my stallion to someone else, to say to all ACPS members, “Can’t we all just get along?” The magazine’s editorial board said it didn’t want to print anything with negative overtones. So, I started typing in the membership directory at that time and was going to do something. But, I got distracted. The email about the failed inspection of the black horse was the last straw.

Not only do I think this whole “type” issue is an important public one, but I think the ACPS should have done a survey on the topic before it launched its inspections, a survey conducted by people who are experts in gathering public opinion.

Incidentally, several people said they had felt that same prejudice against their dark-colored, pretty Connemaras, even though there were no Little Heaven genes involved. Would that suggest that, if a Connemara merely reminds inspectors and judges of Little Heaven, it is crime enough, or would it suggest that this current group of officials just dislikes the darker colors, period?

Three people said the inspections WERE put to a vote of the members. My memory recalls one item on a ballot asking if I would vote for the ACPS to have inspections. I never remember getting asked to weigh in on what the requirements would be or anything else, because I would have had plenty to weigh in with. A performance requirement would have been at the top of the list. It’s my understanding from someone who was involved in the planning of inspections that the recommendations for how inspections were to be conducted changed midstream without many of those on the committee knowing it, and several of them complained about that change to no avail. If the committee doesn’t even know what’s going on, who created the current process anyway?

Attending meetings

Do I attend meetings myself? No (with one exception). I do not have a staff or family at home to keep things going while I’m gone. If the board could do the meetings by video conference, I would take part. But, as you will read, several people told me, don’t waste your time and money.

Several very knowledgeable, successful Connemara people said, on the phone, that they simply have given up on the ACPS. Some have gotten out of the breed; some will continue to breed or show but want nothing to do with the organization.

I was at the 2004 fall meeting only because it was in St. Louis. There was much lament by the board that there were only 40-something people in attendance. The group even formed a Destination Committee to try to come up with a fun-type location that would get more people to attend.

Several callers said they weren’t going to spend the money to go to meetings anymore because their questions and criticisms about inspections and other things were discounted; they were basically “run out.” Two people used the term “run out,” and I don’t think they know each other. If opposing views are not welcome or considered, then all the Destination Committees in the world won’t fix that reason for the declining numbers. I also might point out that, while I have not followed the membership numbers, I did notice that the 759 members in 2004 was down from 835 in 2000. Maybe that’s normal. It’s not a very big group.

One caller said she had newcomers interested in her horses, but after they saw all the hassle it took to own and breed Connemaras, they turned to other breeds. She added, “You shouldn’t condemn a Connemara for what people in the society are doing.”

One of the most often repeated complaints was that the ACPS is evolving into a society of “haves” and “have nots,” and the board is more affluent than ever, leaving everyone else behind and not really caring. A few noted the ponies are being split, as well, into “my pony is better than yours.” I would say the fancy new gold seal on the registration papers of approved ponies would seem to bear that out. How about a tri-color seal on the papers of any Connemara who has received any achievement points? And a red seal on the papers of Connemaras who have put a smile on the face of a human? I personally would design and pay for those seals if this board would simply recognize the performance and friendship attributes as equally or more important.

Reasons for inspections

The inspections were in part about joining the International Committee of Connemara Pony Societies. Our board has become increasingly filled with people who have the money and time to travel often overseas and hang out with the breeders of other countries. To join the ICCPS and take part in its functions, member nations have to have mandatory inspections of all animals registered in their stud book. Most countries have only a stud book.

I’m told our ACPS board was smart enough to know that mandatory inspections weren’t going to happen in this country without open revolt. But, if the method of registration were broken into two processes, a Stud Book for registering inspected horses and a Registry for everyone else, then America would have mandatory inspections for its Stud Book. At this moment, all registered horses can be used as breeding stock, not the case in many countries.

The ICCPS knew we were, shall we say, bending the rules and gave America approved status anyway. There is little agreement that what we have is a good thing. On the survey, 12 people liked the inspections the way they are; 12 wanted no inspections, and everyone else had opinions in between that were all over the map. Even as a tiny group, the ACPS has no consensus on inspections and yet it has inspections. How? And is that how it wants to run this society?

The inspections process also was about getting our ponies in compliance with the inspections rules of other countries so that our ponies could be sold abroad. How many American Connemaras have been sold overseas? By my count after reading through six years of “transfers” listed in the magazine: None. I actually was told the number was zero, as well.

While I was waiting for the surveys to come back, I went through the last six years of American Connemara magazines and took note of every single word on inspections. In the January/February 2003 issue, there was an article on the 10 requirements (one needs to meet only six of them) for becoming an inspector, and the last two are “unquestionable integrity” and “possess a discreet, tactful manner.”

Pretend this inspector wrote you a detailed note about the inspection of a horse she failed, information that was not supposed to be shared, and said that horse reminded her of yours. Wouldn’t you want someone to take a closer look at all parts of that?

Amateurs or professionals?

One board member did offer the explanation that they are all just amateurs (maybe she said volunteers) trying to do their best. And, yet, we are expected to think of them as the highest professionals when it comes to the inspections, and they are determining the future of the breed. People are spending large amounts of money to attend these inspections and get these people’s opinions, plus the society is reimbursing the inspectors for their costs. There is no room for anything less than professionalism in this process anymore.

Many members of the board and the inspectors are not strangers or enemies to me. They are friends of my late mother and father, people of whom I once thought fondly, former owners of Little Heaven offspring who went on to become champions in many areas, people who kept Kiltuck at their farm, etc. So, I’m scratching my head all the more that I even need to remind them to respect and include the current offspring of Little Heaven and to remember the doors that Little Heaven, as well as Winter, Naseel and others, opened for all of us. Shame on those ACPS officials. At the moment, none of them appears to want to have anything to do with me. I can live without friends, but I won’t live with discrimination.

Questions about some of survey content

One survey respondent mentioned that she found “it difficult” to believe that the ACPS is prejudiced against Little Heaven, because, in the May/June 2005 magazine, which came out about the same time as the survey, there were many tributes to horses with the Little Heaven bloodlines. I wasn’t going to bring up that magazine, because I thought it would be my own cheap shot, but it made my point all the more. The society has always been full of praise and pride when it comes to the Connemaras that put it on the map, most of whom carry Little Heaven or other thoroughbred genes, but now a group of people has decided it is defining the “real” Connemara as something else, marketing something different. As you will see, some very knowledgeable people in the survey offer insight into the myth of the “real” Connemara, and I, for one, will be much less tolerant in the future of people who try to tell me what a true Connemara is.

That respondent also mentioned Kiltuck receiving the 2004 Tooreen Laddie award and again questioned my allegations of bias. I didn’t put this in my survey because I needed to keep it to five pages for cost reasons. So, here is the award story. I started nominating Kiltuck for the Tooreen Laddie award in 1996. His application, full of information and printed color photos, was “lost” for years without me knowing it, and the committee kept announcing it had no winners because it had no suitable candidates. I finally asked what else the committee needed to bring his application up to speed, and the chair that year said she had no nomination for him at all. I redid the nomination, complete with more reprinted photos, and a few years later was told he was better suited for the performance category; why didn’t I nominate him for that one? I said I was not changing my plans. I was told the breed award was about numbers of offspring, and my application did not focus on that. I didn’t really know how many offspring he had for the second generation and beyond, so I did some homework and redid his nomination again. About that time, the committee changed the requirements; he no longer had enough fullbred offspring to meet the new requirements and was kicked out of the nomination process; I raised the roof, and thanks to a few helpful ACPS officials, he was grandfathered back in, along with the other horses nominated before the new requirements went into effect. Again, are we amateurs or professionals? I can’t watch the total chaos of one ACPS process and then be expected to believe in the integrity of another.

One person said I implied that Kiltuck had failed an inspection when in fact he never was put up for one. If I did that, I am sorry. He has never “been presented,” as they say, for an inspection. For one thing, I, like some respondents, don’t think we should have inspections at all, so even if the inspectors were known to like him, I would stay away on principle. Plus, knowing what I do about this one inspector’s bias and suspecting the same in a few others, I would NEVER give them the opportunity to rate him in that kind of secretive setting. However, I was willing to enter Kiltuck, 30 and all, in a stallion conformation class at the 2005 Region 7 show in Missouri, but the class was listed as not to be judged. When I asked why, I was told that this was an effort not to hurt anyone’s feelings. Which meant that the stallions couldn’t enter the championship conformation class and weren’t eligible for achievement points. An ACPS inspector helped make that decision. So we’re OK with stallions being gelded after an ACPS inspector fails them, but we’re not willing to hurt owners’ feelings in a show ring? There is so little consistency in the message and actions of the ACPS, how do we know what to think? I was willing to risk last place for the chance to have an impartial and extremely experienced local hunter judge, along with a lifetime Connemara owner and breeder, weigh in on Kiltuck’s conformation in front of everyone.

People do agree on loving their ponies

I’m really glad that this survey happened because this information may never have been gathered otherwise. About the only thing people agree on is how much they love their own ponies. As you will see, there is an immense range in how people view the Connemara and its history.

There is little agreement on what the definition of “refined” is; one person made me laugh out loud when she said there were worse insults than being called too pretty.

There is also quite an array of comments on what people think of the inspections and the inspectors. There are those who believe the inspectors are pure of motive and know what they’re doing. However, there are also those who think the inspectors lack knowledge in the areas of equine conformation and health and have a huge conflict of interest since they themselves are stallion owners or breeders and are judging the market competition. Many respondents simply asked for other inspectors, people who are trained judges, veterinarians and inspectors of other breeds with much experience and no conflicts.

Some survey respondents were clearly worried about board members retaliating against them or their ponies, and these people didn’t want their comments printed. However, there were just as many who gave me comments to print, and a couple specifically said to go ahead and use their names. I used one person’s name. For everyone else, I removed any information that might identify people, such as the mention of a horse or competition level.

One woman was very critical of me in a three-and-a-half-page note and said she sent a copy to the ACPS board. I still left out her name because I did not have her permission to use it, but I’m running most of her letter. One person who seemed like she was going to be critical said to “see attached,” but there was no attached, so she will not find those remarks in here for that reason only.

I also left out or worked around all compliments about Kiltuck — music to my ears but unnecessary to share. A big thank you.

One last thing. This is a democracy. If people don’t like what’s happening with the ACPS and inspections, these board members can be changed. I would ask that the candidates for office be very specific in what they represent inspection-wise in their biographies that appear on the ballots. Someone wanting very limited approval of only a specific look should be very detailed about that on his or her list of goals. Let the rest of us decide if that’s going to work for us.

Thank you to everyone for your huge effort on this. It was worth every second.

Joanie McKenna

——