|
Post by clobo121082 on May 15, 2007 11:07:13 GMT
Can i be thick here and ask as to what the main differences are between fells and dales. At some shows I have struggled to tell the difference and wonder what I am missing. What i seem to be able to tell is Dales often/should have ribbons in their tails, they often seem to be of a slightly different colour to fells and larger? with a more high stepping extravagent action. Are any of these points true? I have read both breed descriptions etc but sometimes finder it harder to put into practice and notice the differences.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by diffs on May 15, 2007 13:03:45 GMT
Fells are generally much more "pony" than dales, when you stand the 2 up together the difference is quite clear! What you say is quite right though about the movement, but colouring both can be black/grey/brown/bay and dales can be roan (not sure about fells) Best to look on the websites of some studs- www.littletreestud.com (quality fells and good website) www.penells.co.uk/nipna (proper, true to type dales ponies)
|
|
|
Post by diffs on May 15, 2007 13:05:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Guestless on May 15, 2007 13:50:08 GMT
The main problem in telling the difference relates to the fact that they are so closely related - at one point the studbooks crossed over. A traditional Fell tends to be a bit deeper-bodied than a Dales, not quite as leggy and has a smaller, more pony like head. Fells upper height limit is 14hh but the average is only 13.2hh whereas the Dales are usually 14hh to 14.2hh. It can be quite difficult to tell if you have an up to height Fell or a small Dales without something else to compare it to.
|
|
|
Post by not sure on May 15, 2007 15:47:59 GMT
I'm not so sure about the moevment thing. You are saying that dales are more extravagent - I beg to differ. I think the dales cover more ground and have a very powerful hock action, but I think the fells are slightly more extravagent. A fell pony is more pony than a dales usually with a samller head and deeper in the body.
Their feather is not normally as abundant as the fell pony. Obviously the height thing as previosuly mentioned.
They are both beautiful breeds but as with all there is good and bad in every breed.
|
|
|
Post by Enthusiast on May 15, 2007 21:06:07 GMT
The main problem in telling the difference relates to the fact that they are so closely related - at one point the studbooks crossed over. A traditional Fell tends to be a bit deeper-bodied than a Dales, not quite as leggy and has a smaller, more pony like head. Fells upper height limit is 14hh but the average is only 13.2hh whereas the Dales are usually 14hh to 14.2hh. It can be quite difficult to tell if you have an up to height Fell or a small Dales without something else to compare it to. Sorry guestless but i disagree, a Fell is a Fell & should be easily identifiable, regardless of size it should have all the correct breed characteristics which make it a Fell, likewise for the Dales. I think that it is much harder to tell a poor Fell from a poor Dales!
|
|
|
Post by explain on May 15, 2007 21:11:27 GMT
Enthusiast, would you please explain the difference then.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Guestless on May 15, 2007 21:25:12 GMT
Sorry guestless but i disagree, a Fell is a Fell & should be easily identifiable, regardless of size it should have all the correct breed characteristics which make it a Fell, likewise for the Dales. Easily identifiable if you are used to looking at them but not IMO for someone who isn't - otherwise, why would the question crop up again and again.
|
|
|
Post by Enthusiast on May 15, 2007 21:26:16 GMT
Enthusiast, would you please explain the difference then. Thanks I'll give it a go in the morning but it is very difficult especially without pictures & my bed beckons!! Mr Boustead or Mr Sutcliffe would be much better qualified to answer this question as they have far better knowledge of the Dales Pony than I.....
|
|
|
Post by dalesfan on May 15, 2007 21:26:41 GMT
They are similar but thats due to stud book crossing, a lot of our Dales ponies go back to Fell ponies close to the end of WW2 due to the Dales being so close to being lost.
A fell is a much more compact animal, generally shorter body, shorter legs but still containing substance and bone. They are more pony looking and are of course smaller in height. The feather is silkier on a fell.
A Dales is a larger animal, with less compaction all round, good head that is still pony like but often less 'pretty' than a fell (more workmanlike traditionally) ime. Good flat bone. Movement is more ground covering and certiainly shouldn't 'potato' mash. Dales are trotting animals, they should be going somewhere when they trot and should be able to trot all day.
It really is easiest to just explain pictorially. A good dales is clearly distinctive from a good fell, the blur occurs when you have poorer examples.
|
|
|
Post by Enthusiast on May 15, 2007 21:55:16 GMT
Sorry guestless but i disagree, a Fell is a Fell & should be easily identifiable, regardless of size it should have all the correct breed characteristics which make it a Fell, likewise for the Dales. Easily identifiable if you are used to looking at them but not IMO for someone who isn't - otherwise, why would the question crop up again and again. I think you misunderstood what i meant. I didn't mean that people shouldn't be confused, yes i can understand why people are. What i objected to was your point about size, when you said that it is difficult to tell an upto height Fell from a small Dales; conformationally the pony should not change, regardless of size & i don't think that size is altogether the reason that people get confused. There was a very prolific winning Dales mare that was only 13.2hh yet the only Fell to have won Olympia to date was 14hh. The best of breed Fell & Reserve Champion at Olympia this year was also upto height.
|
|
|
Post by Guestless on May 15, 2007 22:29:52 GMT
What i objected to was your point about size, when you said that it is difficult to tell an upto height Fell from a small Dales; I said "it can be...." not that it is. And yes I agree height isn't the only factor that can make it difficult, but having owned a 14hh Fell and having him mistaken several times for a Dales pony (and even a Highland once!), height did appear to be an issue. I don't think I've had the same mistake made about any of my 13.2hh Fells (even my brown ones, lol!) so I'm going by personal experience. He probably did have a plainer head than many of the Fells in the show ring today, but he was still a decent example of the breed.
|
|