Letters to the Editor: More Reactions to JC Cap

[Wandering Eyes]

After a proposed mandate by The Jockey Club to cap stallion covers at 140 annually, we solicited comment from the industry, and published numerous replies. After our series ended, however, the replies continued to flood in, and we are including some of the additional responses below.

JAMES KEOGH, GROVENDALE
I have watched the stallion book limitation debate with much interest. I am opposed to placing a cap on stallion books.

As a Central Kentucky resident for over 30 years, I have witnessed tremendous growth and development in this area of the country. Central Kentucky truly is the Thoroughbred capital of the world and one reason is that many of the best stallions in the world reside here.

Caps placed on stallion books will significantly impact the amount of money a stallion master can pay for a potential stallion. In order to recover the investment a strong stallion market goes hand in hand with a strong yearling market.

I’m in agreement with Mr. Arthur Hancock on two points only, that “the bull is half the herd” and that this will affect the DNA.

Our competition in Japan should be thrilled with the prospects of implementation of a limited stallion book. With a cap in place, American stud farms will no longer be able to compete for the finest stallions in the world and could see stallions leave due to the restrictions.

Free trade and open markets is what this country is based on. I urge the people behind this movement to reconsider their stance as it is counter-productive to producing world-class horses. Parochial thinking has no place in the world of international commerce.

GEORGE ADAMS, HOUSATONIC BLOODSTOCK
I think the proposed cap is a fantastic idea, and overdue. As has already been pointed out by numerous commentators, stallion owners will be able to limit the economic losses that they might incur from such a cap by simply increasing a horse’s stud fee. That will only aid that next tier of stallions who will end up being the beneficiaries of some of the “overflow” mares, with stallion owners likely able to raise the stud fees of those horses as well. Whether this next tier includes young stallions or proven stallions who, for whatever reason, have not quite achieved commercial super-stardom, there would be no dearth of worthy horses for mare owners to breed their mares to.

The argument that genetic diversity will not aided by the 140-mare limit because breeders will simply turn to a stallion’s son if they get shut out from his book is a specious one. A breeder who has a mare that they were going to spend $150,000 on to send to Into Mischief, if forced to go elsewhere because of the cap, is not going to choose one of Into Mischief’s sons at a fraction of that price.

They’re going to choose another stallion who is a good cross at or near that stud fee level because they’re breeding for the commercial market, or they believe that their mare is of such quality that she deserves to be bred at that level–to suggest that there are a plethora of breeders out there who would pay one-tenth of a six-figure sire’s stud fee to go to one of his sons instead simply to achieve that specific cross is just not credible.

Having just brought a new stallion to Maryland in Force the Pass, we can only hope that the 140-mare limit might also result in a few regional breeders leaving their mares to be bred to stallions in those regional markets, rather than sending them back and forth to Kentucky for more “commercial” options. More mares to a broader swath of stallions, giving more stallions more chances to establish themselves and to therefore boost their regional programs, can only be a good thing–for the regional breeders, regional stallion owners, and therefore the industry as a whole.

DIANE AKERLIND
As a person who loves the racing and the history of the thoroughbred, I think it’s a good idea to limit the amount and give the lesser stallions more of a chance to make it instead of shipping it to another country. No one wanted Sunday Silence and look what he did for Japan.

DAN VELLA
I am a trainer in Canada for many years and lover of horse racing for just as many. I just want to ask The Jockey Club and the large breeders who control that end of our industry if they have thought about artificial insemination in our industry’s future. This type of breeding is done in all other horse industries and is 100% foolproof with the use of DNA testing when registering foals. I understand that it would be a huge change for us but I believe that if we can allow all breeders to have access to better and sounder stallions throughout North America, it would go a long way towards helping our major problems in our industry today–that being sounder animals that need less medication. We as a industry need to stop fighting among ourselves and work towards a strong future or we won’t have one and it starts with the powerful people making the right decisions from the way we breed to the way we race. I see a lot of breeders fighting against Lasix. Let’s start at home and allow people access to sound stallions that had no need for medication and that would be a huge step toward saving our industry.

RYAN MCLEAN
I think the breeding world should cap the stallion’s first three seasons at 100 mares, then open his book up after that. That would get the breeders’ focus on the best book mares for the stallion. Prices would be probably be higher for breeding fees and at sales because there wouldn’t be flooding in the market. We don’t need to find out four years after the stallion put out 400 foals on the ground that they aren’t worth the grass they are eating. We need to focus on quality with the diversity to keep our breed going in a positive direction.

The post Letters to the Editor: More Reactions to JC Cap appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

View the full article