New Definition of Breeder

[Termite]

We are about to embark on the 1st season since the definition of the official breeder was changed in what can only be described as a hushed and rushed process by HRA last year. Under the new definition the official breeder is the person who owned the mare at the time of conception.

This appears to me as a change which would only benefit large breeders - in some cases those who own their own stallions - who turn over a lot of mares in foal at dispersals. I believe that a foal is bred when it is on the ground and feeding from it's mum. The only person who incurs all of the cost factors of breeding a foal is the person who owns a mare at the time of foaling.

We now have a situation where the person who incurs the breeding costs isn't always the person who can access the lucrative vicbred breeders bonus and breeders share of vicbred prize money. I really can't see any need for this change in the first place and called Andrew Kelly to express this view last year. When I aired my vicbred concern he assured me that allocation of the vicbred bonuses would be unaffected and continue to be awarded to the foal notifier. However having just looked at vicbred eligibility for foals "conceived" in the new season this is NOT THE CASE.

What do others think?

Do we know of any large breeders who may or may not own their own stallions who turnover a lot of mares and may have the ear of HRA?

[Flashing Red]

Without getting into a debate and without having read the breeders report and the pages of discussion on here, I will make one comment. I 100% see where you are coming from, but I think there is also a strong argument that the breeder is the owner at conception. They were the person that planned the mating etc. The person who subsequently buys the mare, despite incuring costs, didn't. All horses cost money, I can't see how someone buying a mare in foal should make them entitled to regard themselves as the breeder because they fed her and paid her vet expenses during the pregnancy. They did not plan the mating?

I have no vested interest in this topic, the definition (at the moment) does not effect me either way. Just some food for thought...

[aussiebreno]

Josie has a baby. She puts it up for adoption. Jenna adopts the baby.
Who is the babys breeder?

Pretty simple stuff imo.

However, when costs are paid by the new owner for a race series the payer of the costs should recieve the prizes.

[Termite]

Thanks for your thoughts flashing. I see it as almost a chicken and the egg debate - did one breed the mare or breed the foal. Agreed that the initial owner chose the consort for his mare and probably paid for such (unless pay on live foal). This person bred the MARE. The new owner also in effect made a choice of stallion by purchasing mare in foal to such and stallion service fee would usually be fairly factored into purchase price. New owner then absorbs all further expenses until FOAL is bred. Agistment, foaling supervision, veterinary treatments, vaccinations, foal registration, futurity payments, etc.

I believe the vicbred bonus and breeder payments are in place to make breeding foals more viable and to reward the person who not only incurred the bulk of expense but cared for and prepared a foal to achieve it's maximum earning potential on the track.

[Termite]

Thanks for input breno. I think ther are two factors to this - one being the dollars side, the other the definition side. I think the definition is hard to establish, but we are not talking about buying a mare with a foal already at foot - I have no problem with that scenario.

Further, the stallion nominator still gets his 5% of vicbred proceeds so it seems unfair that foal nominator doesn't.

[thesushitrain]

i was told nsw will be changing the rules so that it becomes the foal notifier who receives the bonus'

so i don't see the point of this? the 'breeder' gets a trophy from a breeders association??? there is no way 'planning' a mating entitles someone anything, most horses are booked into 2/3/4 stallions and its a flip of the coin which they go to.. if its 'planning' then anyone who employs third party planning should be handing over all trophies and bonuses to the people who wrote the algorithm or advised them

[thesushitrain]

Further, the stallion nominator still gets his 5% of vicbred proceeds so it seems unfair that foal nominator doesn't.

don't get me started on stallion nominator payments

horses that make the final of breeders challenge get absolutely nothing if they finish outside the top 5, what a joke

[Flashing Red]

i was told nsw will be changing the rules so that it becomes the foal notifier who receives the bonus'

so i don't see the point of this? the 'breeder' gets a trophy from a breeders association??? there is no way 'planning' a mating entitles someone anything, most horses are booked into 2/3/4 stallions and its a flip of the coin which they go to.. if its 'planning' then anyone who employs third party planning should be handing over all trophies and bonuses to the people who wrote the algorithm or advised them

Someone can consult and pay a third party for breeding advice, recieving advice doesn't change who the breeder is. And whether a mare is booked to 1 stallion or 4, most people have some sort of method to their madness, be it pedigree, price, recommendation, siblings, fertility - I have yet to meet someone who puts a bind fold on and tabs a few random stallions in a stallion guide Buster.

[thesushitrain]

there is no way in the world anyone deserves to be paid 5k in victoria, 2.5k in nsw to 'plan' a mating... nobody

[Flashing Red]

I understand where you are coming from and concede that you have a point