# Could someone please explain hardshipping to me



## MiLo Minis (Oct 4, 2010)

I realize the AMHR is an offshoot of the ASPC registry but when they first created the American Miniature Horse Registry they wrote a breed standard describing a horse in Miniature: "A small, sound, well-balanced HORSE...", "Since the breed objective is the smallest possible perfect HORSE...".

At what point did the registry change it's mind and decide that we had a breed objective of the smallest possible perfect Shetland Pony? I guess it is when they closed the registry to all other breeds but the Shetland Pony.

Yes we have hardshipping across from the AMHA but that is another Miniature HORSE registry and the only other blood allowed in now is that of the Shetland Pony. Why is it then that we don't have a more specific breed description?

I suppose, if you are really patient, you can bring other breeds in to the AMHR by hardshipping into the AMHA at 5 years of age and then crossing the horse over to AMHR but what a convoluted and excruciatingly slow method of changing a look that is, guess we are really not meant to.

Just when I thought we were getting somewhere with the look and conformation of the Miniature Horse they abruptly changed the goal of the breed but don't seem to have the balls to put it in writing just yet...

Oh yes, Lavern, I am glad to see you have come to your senses, dumped the Shetlands, and returned to the STRAIGHT Miniature!


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 4, 2010)

Yes the breed standard is pretty vague. Any horse under 38" can be in as long as its AMHR, ASPC, AMHA, and Fabella. Like I've said before and I still stand by it how much better are we then a color registry?

I really wish AMHR could get together and come up with more of a breed standard. If it is towards the shetland style then so be it. Which IMO that is where AMHR is going towards.

Here is the way I see it. AMHR needs to think of a way to save its straight miniatures. If it doesn't soon you won't see them in the show ring. Many of them will go to AMHA or sadly drop off somewhere. Breeders won't continue to breed them. Sure they will stick around, but not as much as we will see it into AMHR.

Or go the other away around. AMHR wants to go towards the shetland. Close the hardshipping to both AMHA and Fabella, only allow hardshipping in of the shetlands then for sure we will have our Miniature Congress.

I'm trying to be more open towards the shetland cause I think thats the route AMHR is going. I still love the miniatures, and will still have my 2. But I have no breeding herd I can easily go AMHR/ASPC. I'm trying to learn more about them. I honestly don't have any negatives toward AMHR/ASPC ponies. I just don't want the straight miniature to go from AMHR.

The whole rulebook itself is vague they just need to sit down and rewrite the rulebook and the standard. Does AMHR want to become a breed or do they just want to stay where they are? I want to know what AMHR wants to become in the future.


----------



## Mominis (Oct 4, 2010)

Just an observation from someone who doesn't have enough sense to keep their mouth shut......

I'm pretty shocked. I have never seen a breed spend so much time shooting itself in the foot as I have since I've gotten into minis. It's funny to me that I don't see the pony people throwing fits about minis, but every second thread on the forums lately has been someone griping about the shetland influence on the miniature horse. Why would a breed that is a number-strong in a recession as the AMHR is spend so much time trying to exclude horses from it's membership? You would think we should be thankful for the opportunity to have so many under 38" participants from so many walks of life. I just don't get it. Maybe someone can explain that to me.

Stepping away and putting on my flame suit...


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 4, 2010)

But yet you don't see how many people dropping off their minis, dispersing them, or going to AMHA because of the shetland influence?


----------



## drivinghoss (Oct 4, 2010)

The goal of most breeders in AMHR is to produce the best horse, with the best conformation. Some people, breeders, and judges prefer one body style over another. A miniature Quarter Horse is equal to a miniature Morgan is equal to a miniature Saddlebred, is equal to a miniature Arabian.


----------



## disneyhorse (Oct 4, 2010)

You are arguing SEMANTICS, MiLo.

A "pony" IS a "HORSE". They are the same species. You can interbreed them, and you don't create a hybrid or any sort of sterile animal with mismatched chromosomes.

A miniature "horse" IS a pony. A pony, to the world of equines, is ANY "horse" that measures under 14.2 hands.

If you took your National Grand Champion halter stallion who measures 32" tall, burned the papers, shipped him to Spain, and sold him at an auction, do you think they would say "Oh, that's not a pony, it's a HORSE"?

Pieces of paper doesn't necessarily change what an animal IS. It just changes the semantics of what it is to some people.

Andrea

To me, they are all beautiful SMALL EQUINES. Horse or pony, I love them all!


----------



## ruffian (Oct 4, 2010)

Oh what the heck - this is going to get heated anyhow, so I might as well throw some gas on the fire!!





IMO - again - IMO - it's not about the height. It's about the MIND of the horse. A "miniature horse" has the attitude of a full size horse. It's pleasant, easy going, usually easily trained and amenable. Not terribly spooky. Easy to handle. Great around kids, adults, newbies and those who unfamiliar with horses. .

A "Shetland Pony" - IMO is smarter than a horse. Quicker, more alert. More reactive - thusly more animated in the barn and in the ring.

Yes, I've owned several Shetlands. IMO their minds are wired differently. Not WRONGLY - just differently.

To say that there are only semantics between Shetlands and Miniatures is the same thing as saying a Quarter Horse and an Arabian as the same thing.

If Shetlands and miniatures are identical, why did the original creators - Lowell Boone, Bud Soat, Ed Eberth, etc., even make such a break? Why not just keep promoting the Shetland?

OK - let the flames begin!!


----------



## disneyhorse (Oct 4, 2010)

ruffian said:


> Oh what the heck - this is going to get heated anyhow, so I might as well throw some gas on the fire!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're probably right. Saddlebreds, Hackney Horses, Arabians, Thoroughbreds, and other hot breeds are also probably not "full sized horses" because they don't have some of the traits that full sized horses should have in general. They don't have full sized horse MINDS as described above, all the time.

Andrea


----------



## disneyhorse (Oct 4, 2010)

disneyhorse said:


> You're probably right. Saddlebreds, Hackney Horses, Arabians, Thoroughbreds, and other hot breeds are also probably not "full sized horses" because they don't have some of the traits that full sized horses should have in general. They don't have full sized horse MINDS as described above, all the time.
> 
> Andrea


Instead of using a measuring stick, we could just employ Equine Psychologists to determine what size horse you have. The Shetlands, Saddlebreds, Arabians, etc. would become ponies and your AMHA miniatures, Percherons, Andalusians, and Quarter Horses would become Full Sized horses. Clydesdales tend to be kind of flighty, so they would measure a little bit smaller than the Quarter horses.

Andrea


----------



## alphahorses (Oct 4, 2010)

Mominis said:


> Just an observation from someone who doesn't have enough sense to keep their mouth shut......
> 
> I'm pretty shocked. I have never seen a breed spend so much time shooting itself in the foot as I have since I've gotten into minis. It's funny to me that I don't see the pony people throwing fits about minis, but every second thread on the forums lately has been someone griping about the shetland influence on the miniature horse. Why would a breed that is a number-strong in a recession as the AMHR is spend so much time trying to exclude horses from it's membership? You would think we should be thankful for the opportunity to have so many under 38" participants from so many walks of life. I just don't get it. Maybe someone can explain that to me.
> 
> Stepping away and putting on my flame suit...


Very well said...










disneyhorse said:


> You are arguing SEMANTICS, MiLo.
> 
> A "pony" IS a "HORSE". They are the same species. You can interbreed them, and you don't create a hybrid or any sort of sterile animal with mismatched chromosomes.
> 
> ...











The term "Horse" was applied for marketing. In the beginning, the public was told stories like "these are arabian horses that were bred down". I remember seeing that on TV as a kid. Bolony. They are almost all shetland ponies with a new name applied for marketing. And even the ones that are not shetlands are descended from ponies that developed in the same herds as the original shetlands. The difference is that they were either rejected by the UK registry (e.g. for having spots) or were never registered. But most miniatures are descendants of those original herds that make up the shetland pony.

Have Gold Melody Boy or Rowdy in your herd? They were shetlands who were used to produce miniatures. So you can't have Buckeroo in your herd w/out having shetland in your herd.

I've never been involved with a registry where people know so little about the history of their breed and are so willing to exclude good horses just to have a better chance of winning.


----------



## Cowboy905 (Oct 4, 2010)

Theres alot of things that will straighten out I beleive as registery grows and gets older and I think the new shetland blood will help make better moving driving horses, and improve on some confirmation traits. But people that make statements and don't completely think about what they are saying.... need to. Or we will find ourselves always running around in circles. I had read this post then went on to read the next post made by Midnight Star Stables on her recent purchase of a very nice *DOUBLE AMHR/ASPC *filly Mcarthy's Lonsome Dove. I read through everyones comments then found Milo's comment on the filly;

"I am so glad to know the three of you are home safe and sound! She is just GORGEOUS Des and I am soooo happy for you!!!

Seeing YOUR filly standing at centre ring at Nationals made my Nationals for me this year. The only thing better would have been having you sitting beside us!

Really looking forward to seeing you show her next year!!! "

*What is it you either like them or you don't? You can't swing back and fourth whenever it best suits you.*


----------



## stormy (Oct 4, 2010)

Mary Lou though you are likely right, it is very hard for us who have refined our breeding programs and selected so carefully to produce a horse in miniature to watch AMHR become the AMSPR. We love what we have made, enjoy them very much and just can not understand the Shetlands hostile takeover of the registry to the point where anything not shetland is despised and excluded. So we continue to try to gain recognition for the value of the straight miniature, not wanting to exclude the shetland miniature but wanting to preserve the straight miniature as a valuable part of the registry also.

I do not want to leave AMHR, love the people, love the shows, but do not want to raise shetlands. Why can both not be valued for what they are in the ring and out of the ring??


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Oct 4, 2010)

A number of years back we had this same sort of conflict in our Shetland Society (now these are real, hairy little ponies, no mistaking that these are ponies, not horses)

The Miniatures (under 34") were just not able to win, they were less likely to pass their license (for Stallions) they were, basically, less likely to do anything at all.....except SELL!!

We had people lining up down the road, who cared not two figs if the little bundle of fluff could win in the show ring and, again basically, the Standard Shetland people just did not like it, in fact they hated it. We tried to sort it out in a civilised fashion and actually got shouted at at an annual meeting, in front of everyone, and after we had flown up to Edinburgh so that we could be there, too!

Anyway, long story short we (well, not, you understand, me, but someone who I really respect) proposed starting our own, Miniature Society.

That REALLY started something, and a lot of nasty, angry words were said but the core of the revolution held firm and you know what? When everything came down off the ceiling it was all in a different order!

Suddenly we got out regional representation (before, all the council members had come from Scotland and Shetland) Suddenly we got our voice. We did not _need_a separate society because our own society was suddenly meeting our needs, and, as far as I can see, as I am not involved with Shetlands anymore, the society is still doing a great job with Minis and Standards. They just needed a wake up call to see that if the Mini people went they would have very, very few big breeders left, and that they were just going to have to accept the popularity of the Mini!

Maybe the time has come for a small and peaceful revolution?

If more people are actually against what is happening than are for it then they need to stand up and be heard.....


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 4, 2010)

Mary Lou - LB said:


> I am going to JUMP in to this FRYING PAN, though I should know better.. so REMEMBER.. this is my PERSONAL OPINION..
> 
> I see a terrible conflict in the AMHR at this time and in the future..
> 
> ...


Mary Lou I agree with you competely. I was also seriously considering going and showing in AMHA, but after hearing how cut throat this years Worlds was it was not for me. So I am sticking with AMHR. Like I've said I still love my "straight miniatures", but I realize thats not whats winning in the ring, thats what people involved into AMHR are wanting, then so be it. I certaintly don't want to keep going on denying myself and say we will be alright. Even my friends who didn't want to show anymore are now getting involved with the shetlands.

I feel like this years Convention is either going to help or break us. Thats why I'm going. Until then I won't say another word on this subject. Plain and simple no post is going to change anybodys mind. I honestly don't know why we have posts like these anymore, I don't know why I personally bother posting about it. I also don't know why the AMHR/ASPC breeders get so angry. Your ponies have a edge over the miniatures. No one can deny that. I just feel like its either you like it or deal with it, its here to stay. Fine, I don't think anybody is asking you to leave, I just don't want to see the miniatures go.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Oct 4, 2010)

What I find amusing here is that I did not say one word against the Shetland Pony. Go back and read my original post. I very much like and admire Shetland Ponies and in fact own one. She is a lovely little mare and very much loved. Do I breed her with my Minis? NO. Do I go back and forth on whether I love 'em or hate 'em? NO. Have I said that I would prefer no one breed Miniatures with Shetlands? NO. I can love and admire any Mini that is truly a Mini as long as it is well conformed and of the correct height. I also love and/or admire many breeds of full sized horses.

I have nothing but STRAIGHT Minis in my breeding herd. They are all under 38" and conform as best as I can get them to our rather vague breed standard and my own prediliction for a sound, quiet, well mannered, well conformed Miniature Horse that is capable of doing the job I want them to.

Do I realize that horses and ponies are all equines? YES. But I also realize that there are differences in conformation as well as temperament from breed to breed in pony breeds as well as full size breeds.

Do I realize that there is plenty of Shetland blood in my STRAIGHT Minis? YES. But I also have hardshipped in a lovely Welsh pony mare whose characteristics I love and appreciate and wanted to bring into my breeding pool. Why should I not be able to continue to do so if the registry is going to continue to be half open? Why not put it back to being completely open? OR close it completely and give us a definite breed standard that tells us where the breed is going rather than allowing a certain small group of people to dictate? (That would be judges in the show ring)

What I somewhat resent is being forced to consider nothing but the Shetland Pony for breeding stock and at the same time not being given a more concrete breed description. For those of you who say I can look to the AMHA for breeding stock if I want nothing but STRAIGHT Minis there is a problem with that because I breed for B size Minis that make good family ponies for performance as well as pets. It isn't that I don't admire the smaller Minis, they just aren't what I want to produce just as Shetlands are not what I want to produce. If the playing field was levelled with a more definite breed description I would know if I even wanted to continue to breed Minis.

There already is a Shetland breed and a registry to register those Shetlands into. The AMHR may well be an offshoot of that registry but it has evolved to become it's own entity with separate goals from that of the Shetlands. I really am not sure why, if so many of the Shetland breeders want to have miniature sized Shetlands they haven't introduced a new division in their registry to allow for that - they already have several other divisions.

The whole idea of closing a registry is to make the breed a breed. What I think needs to happen is that the American Miniature Horse Registry needs to poll it's members and see what the majority wants to see happen with the Miniature Horse for the future and then take steps to aim for that goal. Enough of this vague drifting with a small percentage of members making the decisions on what our breed should be.


----------



## midnight star stables (Oct 4, 2010)

I have good friends with both "Shetlands" and "Straight miniatures" so I am really stuck in a wedge myself. I like miniature horses as a whole, and most of my miniatures are AMHR only. I like a "good horse", and look past paperwork.

I have had 8 minis, and they range from Unregistered, AMHA only, AMHA/AMHR, AMHR, AMHR shetland bred and AMHR/ASPC.

The comment directed at the "minds" of shetland bred horses does bother me. First of all, IMO, *ALL* living beings are different. That said, all of my AMHR horses that have had "shetland blood" have been the quietest horses I have ever owned. All of my AMHA horses have had pretty vial temperaments. They are by no means "bad" tempered, but have proven more difficult to work with, whether it is clipping, separation from the herd or change in environment. Do I love them any less? No. Does this mean my next AMHA horse will be like that? No. But I am simply pointing out that horses should not be grouped.

When shopping, I the only papers I look for are AMHR - others are nice but not required. I like conformation over "type". I personally like a bold moving horse, with a large trot. You can find a good moving horse in AMHA, AMHR and with Shetlands. Not all are are good movers, but you can find good movers in each. The same can be said about any feature - heads, necks, legs. etc.

I have a hard time with understanding the discrimination of paper work. I'm one of the odd one out though lol


----------



## midnight star stables (Oct 4, 2010)

Cowboy905 said:


> Theres alot of things that will straighten out I beleive as registery grows and gets older and I think the new shetland blood will help make better moving driving horses, and improve on some confirmation traits. But people that make statements and don't completely think about what they are saying.... need to. Or we will find ourselves always running around in circles. I had read this post then went on to read the next post made by Midnight Star Stables on her recent purchase of a very nice *DOUBLE AMHR/ASPC *filly Mcarthy's Lonsome Dove. I read through everyones comments then found Milo's comment on the filly;
> 
> "I am so glad to know the three of you are home safe and sound! She is just GORGEOUS Des and I am soooo happy for you!!!
> 
> ...


_My_ shetland had 3 generations on miniatures on her paperwork; She has *12* AMHR horses listed on her AMHR papers. My AMHA/AMHR miniature Joy also has 3 generations of miniatures on her paperwork too; BUT only has *8* AMHR horses listed on her AMHR papers. I have a tiny, stocky AMHA only horse with even less heritage. I think he has 2 generations and only 4 horses on his papers. 

 

So tell me, which one is _"more miniature"_? 

 

I can understand some of the hard-shipping negative feelings, but when a horse is breed every bit as much as another, how can you clam different?

 

I'm only trying to prove a point. I love my horses, and as I said before, I don't overly look at pedigree, or bloodlines or papers. I also don't think that ASPC papers give your horse an automatic advantage. There are nice and poor examples of both. 

 

And in reflection to MiLo's post, she has a right to have the opinion to be happy for me. She knows I have been looking for a future show horse for many years. That is not saying that she herself would have bought the same horse. I think she would have been just as happy for me if I had bought a 28" falabella appaloosa - a different type of "miniature" that I know MiLo does not breed for.


----------



## kaykay (Oct 4, 2010)

> Oh yes, Lavern, I am glad to see you have come to your senses, dumped the Shetlands, and returned to the STRAIGHT Miniature!
> 
> 
> 
> :yeah


Just by virtue of using the word "dumped" it is definitely construed as derogatory tword shetlands. Well actually the whole sentence lets us know how you feel about Shetlands LOL.

Ironic that you pick Lavern (Renee) as her entire program is based off 2 of the most famous Shetland ponies that ever lived (Gold Melody Boy/Buckeroo and Rowdy)

Be careful though as Lavern doesnt like people posting about Shetlands or ASPC on the miniature forum. I never start a post about them on the miniature forum but I do reply to them







> My shetland had 3 generations on miniatures on her paperwork; She has 12 AMHR horses listed on her AMHR papers. My AMHA/AMHR miniature Joy also has 3 generations of miniatures on her paperwork too; BUT only has 8 AMHR horses listed on her AMHR papers. I have a tiny, stocky AMHA only horse with even less heritage. I think he has 2 generations and only 4 horses on his papers.
> So tell me, which one is "more miniature"?


Excellent point and one I have been saying for years but it falls on deaf ears.

I would really like someone to define "straight miniature". I know thats how Lavern advertises hers but they all go back to famous Shetlands?

So a miniature is only a "straight" miniature if its a Shetland you like?





Anyway its like beating a dead horse for sure.





Bottom line is if you dont like ASPC/AMHR Minaitures dont buy them or breed them. Its so simple to me


----------



## Karen S (Oct 4, 2010)

Ok,

Tell me how a miniature can be a straight miniature that has "Unknown" in it's background? Unknown what? Morgan, Arab, Harnessbred, Quarter, Welsh, POA, Thoroughbred? If by divine intervention from the great white spirit above, gives me a miniature out of two regular size horses of unknown heritage, I hardship that miniature horse into the AMHR, then does that make it a straight miniature? Please explain that to me.

Karen


----------



## Mominis (Oct 4, 2010)

MiLo Minis said:


> Do I realize that there is plenty of Shetland blood in my STRAIGHT Minis? YES.



Okay, right there...that is what I'm not understanding. If a horse is a Shetland, or at least has a good degree of Shetland blood, how does that classify them as a 'straight mini?' This is very confusing to me. Sorry.


----------



## Eohippus (Oct 4, 2010)

My whole take on this is Shetlands were used to establish miniatures, to establish lines and help create a breed. Much like the mustangs (who show up as "range mare", "range stallion", and "unkown") and thoroughbreds were used to establish the quarter horse. Yet the quarter horse is now an established breed. You get a quarter horse from two quarter horses, simple as that (granted they have a much more defined breed standard, but still you get the idea). So I think the arguement isn't "straight" miniature as in a horse that has no shetland, but rather a miniature horse that has no modern (within 2 generations/10 years/some time frame like that) shetland/isn't ASPC registered/etc. Thats my take on it at least.

I think Shetlands are impressive in their own right and miniatures are impressive in theirs. I happen to like AMHA more because I like smaller horses (not saying AMHR can't be small too! Just I see more small ones in AMHA




) not because of shetland blood or no shetland blood. But in some way I agree that if you want it to be a "breed" not a height registry then you need to close the registries and make a clear breed description.


----------



## horsehug (Oct 4, 2010)

Mominis,

I understand what you are saying for sure.

Many years ago when I got my first minis I kept hearing minis are horses bred down from horses and Shetlands are different.

But it just did not add up for me and as time went by I learned this was a marketing ploy. I had good friends who had raised shetlands for years and when they got the size down small enough they were able to register them in the AMHR and/or AMHA. They did NOT deny the shetland blood!!

So after learning the truth, all these years when people come to my farm and ask me that perpetual question about if they are bred down horses and different from shetlands. I have told them all these years that if people have told them that, they are either uninformed and do not know the truth or they are lying. I do NOT deny that my minis are primarily shetland blood..... bred down from shetlands and that as time has gone on we have tried to breed for more refinement than some shetlands were 20 + years ago, but they are still bred down shetlands By and Large!

I have always wanted the tiniest minis and have concentrated on double registered AMHA and AMHR.

I no longer show, and do not worry about the whole controversy. I find there has always been a market for my AMHA or AMHR or double..... up more at times and down more at times but a market nonetheless. And there has ALWAYS been a market for SMALL, which is why I wanted to get into minis in the first place. I LOVE the tiny minis (and no I am not talking dwarfs.)

I have no problem with people having AMHA or AMHR or AMHR/ASPC or ASPC or any other registries.

I DO wish people were honest about the shetland heritage and blood in MOST miniature horses whichever registry they are in!

I KNOW mine... from the 27.5" ones to the 35.25" one are of shetland heritage. Even though they are all either AMHA, or AMHA/AMHR, or AMHR.

Susan O.


----------



## Cowboy905 (Oct 4, 2010)

Eohippus said:


> thoroughbreds were used to establish the quarter horse. Yet the quarter horse is now an established breed.


Great point!

And even though Quarter horse is such a developed breed they still allow quarter horses to be bred to thoroughbreds and the resulting foal is considered an appendix quarter horse until it has recieved and ROM (15 points) in any division. Then AQHA sends out regular quarter horse papers for it.

So to think that AMHR is at a point that it should close its registry completey to become a breed is alittle premature.


----------



## Eohippus (Oct 4, 2010)

Cowboy905 said:


> And even though Quarter horse is such a developed breed they still allow quarter horses to be bred to thoroughbreds and the resulting foal is considered an appendix quarter horse until it has recieved and ROM (15 points) in any division. Then AQHA sends out regular quarter horse papers for it.


Now that would be great if AMHR (and possibly AMHA) did something like that. Its one step closer to becoming a "breed" but still allows horses who can *contribute something* to the breed to be fully registered and breed and pass on those qualities that make them so great. I would be a huge fan of this!


----------



## JWC sr. (Oct 4, 2010)

you know folks, everyone has a take on why the controversy is so vehement when it comes to different people and this shetland as versus miniature subject comes up. Bottom line for me anyway is I like small equine for any number of reasons. With that said we raise AMHA/AMHR mini's and ASPC shetlands. We even have a few that are AMHA/AMHR/ASPC registered.

I do though agree with many of you that todays mini's did originally come from a combination of shetland, poa, morgan, pit ponies(as they were called) etc. They are the Heinz 57 of the equine breeds and to me that is fine, I also rode and worked quarter horses for a number of years and they were originally a mixed breed if you will.

No amount of complaining or denying that we have shetland or other blood in our miniatures will make it go away. Further they sure do not breed true when it comes to type, movement or just general looks.

Will we as a miniature breed ever come to pass at some point in the future? Yes I think we will but that is a long way off. The powers that be in the different registries are attempting to move us in that direction and when the gene pool is large enough to deal with the problems of dwarfism, bad movement, etc.etc. that is fine with me. Till then I will represent my horses as exactly what the are "small equine" from various and sometimes unknown heritage.

As far as the shetland breed is concerned, the original shetlands (dumpy, ill tempered little devils that they were)imported back years ago are a far cry from todays American Shetland Pony. Hence the verbiage of "American Shetland Pony" is used to describe them with all their heritage and background. Hopefully one day miniatures will have that connotation also and can be known as "American Miniature Horses" the breed also.

Time will tell and hopefully it is not too far off!!


----------



## OhHorsePee (Oct 4, 2010)

Here is something I thought about today. If AMHR/ASPC changes the way they measure than by the standards of AMHR/ASPC the 34 inch AMHA horses will have to be hardshipped into an over division in AMHR/ASPC if they want to show both registries because they will be over 34 inches.

I also have to wonder what people think the Fallabella's are since they are from a cross of small thoroughbreds, welsh ponies and shetland ponies. To me none of this matters as I love my mins no matter where they originated just like I love my ponies.


----------



## OhHorsePee (Oct 4, 2010)

JWC sr. said:


> Will we as a miniature breed ever come to pass at some point in the future? Yes I think we will but that is a long way off. The powers that be in the different registries are attempting to move us in that direction and when the gene pool is large enough to deal with the problems of dwarfism, bad movement, etc.etc. that is fine with me. Till then I will represent my horses as exactly what the are "small equine" from various and sometimes unknown heritage.


John, could you please clarify what "the powers that be" are doing to move us in what direction? Thank you in advance!! And am I reading this right that it is BOTH registries? Please do correct me if I am not reading this correctlty.


----------



## Devon (Oct 4, 2010)

kaykay said:


> Just by virtue of using the word "dumped" it is definitely construed as derogatory tword shetlands. Well actually the whole sentence lets us know how you feel about Shetlands LOL.
> 
> Ironic that you pick Lavern (Renee) as her entire program is based off 2 of the most famous Shetland ponies that ever lived (Gold Melody Boy/Buckeroo and Rowdy)
> 
> ...





Karen S said:


> Ok,
> 
> Tell me how a miniature can be a straight miniature that has "Unknown" in it's background? Unknown what? Morgan, Arab, Harnessbred, Quarter, Welsh, POA, Thoroughbred? If by divine intervention from the great white spirit above, gives me a miniature out of two regular size horses of unknown heritage, I hardship that miniature horse into the AMHR, then does that make it a straight miniature? Please explain that to me.
> 
> Karen


Agreed Ladies;

I would love a defintion of a "straight miniature". If someone told me their mini was straight I could probably find as horse in it's background that had ASPC breeding.. Gold melody boy, buckeroo .. All the "unknowns" in our minis from the days of hardshipping. I bet most of the hardshipped in minis had alot of pony in them..

Honestly it is not impossible for a miniature to beat a shetland so everyone who loves these "straight minis" and dislike the shetlands just keep breeding for good conformation and you will be succesful.





No one is telling anyone to sell out their amhr horses and breed aspc/amhr ..

I agree kay it is certaintly like beating a dead horse..


----------



## Leeana (Oct 4, 2010)

Well for the 14,990,143 time..or is it 14,990,144 (I lost count - sorry!)...



Devon said:


> Agreed Ladies;
> 
> I would love a defintion of a "straight miniature". If someone told me their mini was straight I could probably find as horse in it's background that had ASPC breeding.. Gold melody boy, buckeroo .. All the "unknowns" in our minis from the days of hardshipping. I bet most of the hardshipped in minis had alot of pony in them..
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree with Devon more! The best thing about the diversity of the breed (well, registry) as you can really own, show, breed and enjoy whatever type of horse/pony or breeding you like. Honestly - I don't want "pets"...I want show horses. I want a pony that wants to SHOW and is what I consider to be attractive. There is NO reason for anyone to be so agianst the shetland influence that has always been there. There is NO difference between the ponies showing in AMHR - They are all miniature horses! I don't care if they have ASPC or AMHA papers on the side...they are miniature horses...miniature ponies, whatever you want to call them.

I generally toss them all into the "pony" catigory..however here at my farm "pony" is not a bad word...(I like the last part of that, I may have to put that in my signature!!! LOL)


----------



## Reble (Oct 4, 2010)

I must agree, if someone ask about how these horses got so small.

I say Shetland ponies and years and years ago a dwarf, which we are trying too better the miniature horses to have good conformation.

They are ponies and go by size not a breed.


----------



## Songcatcher (Oct 4, 2010)

Reble said:


> I must agree, if someone ask about how these horses got so small.
> 
> I say shetland ponies and years and years ago a dwarf, which we are trying to better the miniature horses to have good conformation.
> 
> They are ponies and go by size not a breed.


Whoa! While there was certainly at least one dwarf used (and probably more) it was not the dwarf that made them small. Their current small size would have been achieved even without the use of a dwarf. I just wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that they can reduce the size by breeding a dwarf.


----------



## Reble (Oct 4, 2010)

Songcatcher said:


> Whoa! While there was certainly at least one dwarf used (and probably more) it was not the dwarf that made them small. Their current small size would have been achieved even without the use of a dwarf. I just wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that they can reduce the size by breeding a dwarf.


Well we read that Bond Tiny Tim

and years and years ago a dwarf, which we are trying to better the miniature horses to have good conformation.

Miniature Horse - The term “Miniature Horse” was created in the 1970s because some breeders of midget ponies felt that a more deceptive name would make them more salable and desirable. Coining the term "miniature horse” is said to have been a marketing ploy by breeders, and the ancestors of many Miniature Horses were from the same midget ponies of the McCoy stud. The early Miniature horse breeders in America bred extensively with genetic dwarf horses such as the popular stud Bond Tiny Tim, a 19-inch tall dwarf horse that sired hundreds of offspring. This indigenous dwarfism has led to widespread birth defects and the creation of hundreds of tiny horses with serious health problems.

If anyone is interested here is a link about him below:

http://www.theminiaturehorse.com/historical/bondtinytim.htm


----------



## MiLo Minis (Oct 4, 2010)

Eohippus said:


> My whole take on this is Shetlands were used to establish miniatures, to establish lines and help create a breed. Much like the mustangs (who show up as "range mare", "range stallion", and "unkown") and thoroughbreds were used to establish the quarter horse. Yet the quarter horse is now an established breed. You get a quarter horse from two quarter horses, simple as that (granted they have a much more defined breed standard, but still you get the idea). So I think the arguement isn't "straight" miniature as in a horse that has no shetland, but rather a miniature horse that has no modern (within 2 generations/10 years/some time frame like that) shetland/isn't ASPC registered/etc. Thats my take on it at least.
> 
> I think Shetlands are impressive in their own right and miniatures are impressive in theirs. I happen to like AMHA more because I like smaller horses (not saying AMHR can't be small too! Just I see more small ones in AMHA
> 
> ...


Now you are someone that "gets it"! Use whatever term you want to describe them - the Miniatures from the recent past have acheived their own look separate from the Shetlands or other breeds that have been used to create them. The only reason I can see that we are going back to the Shetland look is that the powers that be have realized Minis are taking over and the prices on pure Shetlands have gone down. Okay so bring the Shetland back into it and suddenly they can commmand better prices for their Shetland stock. IF that is the way the Miniature industry on a whole wants to go so be it but bring it to a legitimate vote by ALL the members and see if indeed that IS the way we all want to go. At that point give us a breed standard that describes what we should be aiming for.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Oct 4, 2010)

JWC sr. said:


> I do though agree with many of you that todays mini's did originally come from a combination of shetland, poa, morgan, pit ponies(as they were called) etc. They are the Heinz 57 of the equine breeds and to me that is fine, I also rode and worked quarter horses for a number of years and they were originally a mixed breed if you will.
> 
> The powers that be in the different registries are attempting to move us in that direction and when the gene pool is large enough to deal with the problems of dwarfism, bad movement, etc.etc. that is fine with me. Till then I will represent my horses as exactly what the are "small equine" from various and sometimes unknown heritage.


I too believe that closing the registry now is on the premature side but what bothers me is that "the powers that be" seem to have made the decision for us that Shetland is the only way to go. They have made it difficult to bring any other blood in except that of Shetlands and I for one am not entirely sure that is the way to go. I am not in any way denying or begrudging the Shetland heritage but as you pointed out there are many other breeds that have influenced the Mini of today and I don't see why until the registry is fully closed those other breeds should not continue to have influence. I don't see them doing anything to further the industry's goals other than forcing everyone to bring Shetland blood back in and my personal opinion on this is that they aren't doing it to further the industry on a whole but to fill the pockets of the Shetland breeders whose prices had fallen just as they created the original Minis to fill another niche when prices were down. If a vote was taken and it was proved that the majority wanted only Shetland blood that would be fine. I am NOT in any way against Shetlands as I have said many times before. That is why I can appreciate Desiree's new filly - she is a lovely example of an equine. I met her at Nationals and was very impressed. As our breed stands now, Des, and anyone else who wants to breed in that direction is fully entitled to as I am fully entitled to breed the type of horse that I prefer BUT unless, and until, we have a standard of perfection that describes a specific equine, limiting us to the Shetland type, by closing the registry to all but Shetlands, is hardly fair. I have continued to enjoy success in the show ring with the Minis that I breed because they have overall good equine conformation so I am not in any way operating on sour grapes as some people seem to think. I have seen many threads on this subject and I think it is time that we found out for certain where our future lies by putting it to a vote by the entire AMHR membership. That would put an end to discussions of this type as we would all know what to breed for. This really shouldn't be a big problem as every breed I have ever been previously involved with or known has had a distinct breed description that has evolved with that particular breed and the breeders involved have also evolved their breeding to conform to the standards, or not, as their own choice. All I ask is that they level the playing field by giving us a proper breed standard of perfection so we are all operating on the same level and our judges can judge fairly OR open the registry back up to all hardshipping - don't leave us hanging in La-la Land!


----------



## Minimor (Oct 4, 2010)

> the Miniatures from the recent past have acheived their own look separate from the Shetlands or other breeds that have been used to create them


Have they really? From what I've seen there are several lines of Shetlands that look very much like what I think of as a "typical" Miniature...if I just saw them somewhere & no one told me what they were registered as, I would take them for Miniatures, not Shetlands. There are a few Miniatures (no ASPC papers) that could be mistaken for Shetlands--I've seen a few of those. And then there are those ponies--most often the taller ones--that are quite obviously Shetland and not Miniatures...and one of those is what I would like to have in Miniature size!
In many cases, though, I just don't see the difference that some claim exists.

Have Shetland prices dropped again? I haven't really noticed that--some are low, some are high, much the same as in the Mini market. I know a little while back several people had commented that they were seeing an increased interest in their Over division ponies--and those Over division ponies are too tall to ever show as Miniatures--so I'm not convinced that values on ponies have gone down. I know that prices are down at some of the sales, but that isn't just ponies, that also applies to the Minis at those same sales, and in many cases that is economy/recession related.


----------



## Songcatcher (Oct 4, 2010)

Reble said:


> Well we read that Bond Tiny Tim
> 
> and years and years ago a dwarf, which we are trying to better the miniature horses to have good conformation.
> 
> ...


That is true, but using the dwarfs did not make the "breed" smaller. Using dwarfs DID add widespread birth defects and serious health problems. If the dwarfs had not been used, the small size could still have been achieved by selective breeding without the dwarf gene.

Take a look at the 36 AMHA registered foals of Bond Tiny Tim. None of them are as small as Tiny Tim, and one of them measured 33 inches. Who knows how many were full blown dwarfs. Many of those mares he was bred to produced foals that outgrew the mare. My position is that Tiny Tim did nothing to downsize well proportioned horses, but did sire some small dwarfs. At that time, some breeders thought that was acceptable. Had those mares been bred to stallions of similar size (assuming the mare and prospective stallion carried no dwarf genes)They would likely have produced foals of similar size without the dwarf gene. Hindsight is 20/20.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Oct 4, 2010)

Minimor said:


> Have they really? From what I've seen there are several lines of Shetlands that look very much like what I think of as a "typical" Miniature...if I just saw them somewhere & no one told me what they were registered as, I would take them for Miniatures, not Shetlands. There are a few Miniatures (no ASPC papers) that could be mistaken for Shetlands--I've seen a few of those. And then there are those ponies--most often the taller ones--that are quite obviously Shetland and not Miniatures...and one of those is what I would like to have in Miniature size!


Part of the Classic Shetland Standard of Perfection goes something like "There is a broad diversity of types within the Classic Shetland..." and it goes on to base that on "form follows function". Why could we not have this same diversity of type in a Miniature Standard of Perfection while at the same time giving us a more definitive description of the animal we should be breeding for?


----------



## JWC sr. (Oct 4, 2010)

Fran,

Both AMHR and AMHA are making steps towards what they think will enhance and/or move the registry to where they can be considered a breed. By a number of things which I may or may not agree with, but to me that is their intent below are a couple of examples:

1. Closing of the registry by AMHA and allowing no more hardshipping after I think it is 2011.

2. AMHR has already closed it books to all but a select few horses of other registries.

While I personally have a problem with the approach in several different ways that is in essence what they are doing, additionally there are a number of ill conceived notions about control of pricing, numbers of horses etc. etc. that has gone into those decisions. Which I have taken a piece of in the past and made my thoughts very well known about them.

The one thought I will add is that the poster that was talking about the term "Miniature Horse" being a marketing ploy in the beginning hit things exactly on the nail head. You have to give the founders credit it sure has worked, look at the fervor in this conversation alone after all these years. LOL

Actually they are all more than likely chuckling at all of us taking ourselves (including myself) so durn serious. After all they are still just small and in some cases extra small equine.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Oct 4, 2010)

JWC sr. said:


> Fran,
> 
> Both AMHR and AMHA are making steps towards what they think will enhance and/or move the registry to where they can be considered a breed. By a number of things which I may or may not agree with, but to me that is their intent below are a couple of examples:
> 
> ...


I hope you are not saying that if they were full size horses or ponies they would be taken more seriously? They may have started out as someone's genious marketing ploy but they have, as many things tend to, snowballed into something rather huge and also rather equitable which has gotten away on them and I see them scrambling to try to get them back. The simple solution would be for them to create a Miniature Shetland division in their shows and registry allowing those of us in the Miniature Horse registry's to carry on with our Miniature Horses and those that want Miniature Shetlands to have a place to show them as well separate from the AMHR or AMHA. We could then choose to either open our registry back up and write a specific breed standard or close our registry to hardshipping creating a Miniature Horse breed as it is (which I think is premature).


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 4, 2010)

Did anybody go to the breeders committee during Nationals? And what was that discussion like? I didn't get to go because of class. John are they wanting to close the registry for AMHA and Fabella registeries? I couldn't understand from the proposals but thats what I got.


----------



## JWC sr. (Oct 5, 2010)

Lori,

personally I agree with your stance on closing the registry, I do believe that it is premature to close the registry, but I am not in a position to make that call. I do't agree with you that there needs to be a separate shetland mini division though. Inclusion is the key that has made R as strong as it is and anything done to divide or limit us is a mistake on the part of the registry in MHO.






As far as making the statement that if they were big horses they would be taken more seriously, I in no way meant to slight what we all do. If so I would not have invested 25+ years, literally 10's of thousands of dollars in equipment. barns etc and yet even more money well up in the 6 fiqures to raise, improve and showcase these little guys. If I had I would be a bigger fool than I am.





We have lived and breathed mini's and in the last 3 years shetlands for a long time. Not sure what gave you that idea, but but I do at least laugh at myself sometime when I get so passionate about them. When some others aren't. Which I guess I can somewhat understand in light of the way we as a group tend to carry on sometimes.





JMS, Yes AMHA is slated to close in either 2011 or 2012 as a by law change was passed several years ago to that effect.

Hope that answers your question!!!


----------



## OhHorsePee (Oct 5, 2010)

Thank you John for clarifying! There are times where I just need a little more to really understand where someone is coming from.

I still do not get the huge hate for ponies and I will give an open invitation to anyone who would like to come play with ours to please do so. Come in the pasture with me and you will be loved on by them. Everyone of them are easy catch and handles. Is this a form of shetlaphobia or is this the same as where some people think that all dogs in a certain breed are bad? If you train an animal to be controllable and loving then that is exactly what you will have.


----------



## stormy (Oct 5, 2010)

As all of us have said before this is not about hating ponies, I raised shetlands for many years but decided miniature horses were the way I wanted to go, I prefered the Miniature horse look and still do. We are not Shetland haters, no one has said they hate shetlands ever...over and over it has been stated we appreciate shetlands, enjoy seeing them as shetlands, like watching the high stepping action, just don't want to raise them ourselves!

WHAT WE ARE ABOUT IS PRESERVING THE MINIATURE HORSE!! Having a place for both. Appreciating both as seperate registries and types.

(I could just as easily point the finger the other way and say what is up with the Shetland breeders that they so hate the miniature horse they want to completly wipe them out of the registry!)


----------



## OhHorsePee (Oct 5, 2010)

stormy said:


> (I could just as easily point the finger the other way and say what is up with the Shetland breeders that they so hate the miniature horse they want to completly wipe them out of the registry!)


Stormy, I have never seen ANY shetland breeder ever say that. Not once! I have minis and love them just as much as my ponies. There are quite a few shetland owners/breeders that have minis as well. I just do not hear them say bad stuff about minis at all.


----------



## Songcatcher (Oct 5, 2010)

OhHorsePee said:


> Stormy, I have never seen ANY shetland breeder ever say that. Not once! I have minis and love them just as much as my ponies. There are quite a few shetland owners/breeders that have minis as well. I just do not hear them say bad stuff about minis at all.


Wish I had a dollar for every time I have read on this MINIATURE HORSE forum where someone has said, "I want a horse that is _big enough to really do something_."


----------



## stormy (Oct 5, 2010)

So lets just please leave that out of future discussions, this is not about hating one breed/type or the other breed/type. This is about liking and enjoying differant types and wanting to preserve them and have them seen as equally valuable within their respective registries.

I would not want to see Shetlands changed to look like Miniature horses...I like the Shetland look on a Shetland, as a Shetland. Neither do I want to see the Miniature horse turned into a Shetland...they are unique and should be allowed to remain uniquely differant (and appreciated for that differance that has made them so popular as a breed and brought so many new people into ASPC/AMHR).

Just an aside I was thinking of last night. Next weekend I will be going to a huge draft horse show. All draft breeds will be competing both as seperate breeds and together in hitch classes. All breeds are judged together in the hitch classes and believe me there is a lot of difference between a Percheron hitch and a Shire hitch yet all will be judged on there individual merits not on one "type" and the best hitch of whatever type will win. Nice concept, being able to appreciate all types individually and together while valueing the differances and uniqueness of each.


----------



## Watcheye (Oct 5, 2010)

stormy said:


> So lets just please leave that out of future discussions, this is not about hating one breed/type or the other breed/type. This is about liking and enjoying differant types and wanting to preserve them and have them seen as equally valuable within their respective registries.
> 
> I would not want to see Shetlands changed to look like Miniature horses...I like the Shetland look on a Shetland, as a Shetland. Neither do I want to see the Miniature horse turned into a Shetland...they are unique and should be allowed to remain uniquely differant (and appreciated for that differance that has made them so popular as a breed and brought so many new people into ASPC/AMHR).
> 
> Just an aside I was thinking of last night. Next weekend I will be going to a huge draft horse show. All draft breeds will be competing both as seperate breeds and together in hitch classes. All breeds are judged together in the hitch classes and believe me there is a lot of difference between a Percheron hitch and a Shire hitch yet all will be judged on there individual merits not on one "type" and the best hitch of whatever type will win. Nice concept, being able to appreciate all types individually and together while valueing the differances and uniqueness of each.


I like what Stormy has to say.


----------



## Reble (Oct 5, 2010)

Songcatcher said:


> That is true, but using the dwarfs did not make the "breed" smaller. Using dwarfs DID add widespread birth defects and serious health problems. If the dwarfs had not been used, the small size could still have been achieved by selective breeding without the dwarf gene.


Ok, I am willing to learn, what do I tell these people that ask how did they get so small to get the miniature horse years ago?


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Oct 5, 2010)

stormy said:


> (I could just as easily point the finger the other way and say what is up with the Shetland breeders that they so hate the miniature horse they want to completly wipe them out of the registry!)



Stormy I have never heard anyone say that either...why would they -without the majority of money coming in from AMHR ASPC would be up a creek without a paddle

That has nothing to do with preferring one over the other that is nothing but a plain and simple- black and white fact- although I am sure that will be lost on the few that will come jump on what I say LOL

ANY MEMBER can call the office and speak to Joe and request the same financial info packet we will be given at Convention. It shows how much money is brought in thru AMHR registrations and transfers and how much was spent on Nationals and how much was brought in from ASPC registration and transfers as well as Congress.

It also shows what is spent on promotion-the Journal as well as other things. Pretty informative.

Reble- I am not a genetic expert by any means so do not know if this statement I am going to repeat is based in truth or not.

I have always heard that the use of dwarves in early breeding programs did enable the decreasing of size to happen much quicker. So perhaps it did not make the breed but again just how it was explained to me is that it helped reduce size a lot faster?


----------



## OhHorsePee (Oct 5, 2010)

~Lisa~ said:


> Stormy I have never heard anyone say that either...why would they -without the majority of money coming in from AMHR ASPC would be up a creek without a paddle
> 
> That has nothing to do with preferring one over the other that is nothing but a plain and simple- black and white fact- although I am sure that will be lost on the few that will come jump on what I say LOL
> 
> ...


I would love to know that number, Lisa. I would also like to know how much revenue comes in from people hardshipping ASPC ponies to AMHR as well.

FB


----------



## Reble (Oct 5, 2010)

~Lisa~ said:


> Reble- I am not a genetic expert by any means so do not know if this statement I am going to repeat is based in truth or not.
> 
> I have always heard that the use of dwarves in early breeding programs did enable the decreasing of size to happen much quicker. So perhaps it did not make the breed but again just how it was explained to me is that it helped reduce size a lot faster?


Thanks Lisa. that is what I have also been told, and as I try to tell people dwarfs do not have good conformation, so we have tried to better our miniatures.

I also tell them, they are not a breed they go my size only. AMHA 34" and under & AMHR 38" AND UNDER


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Oct 5, 2010)

OhHorsePee said:


> I would love to know that number, Lisa. I would also like to know how much revenue comes in from people hardshipping ASPC ponies to AMHR as well.
> 
> FB


Well Fran I am sure you will get your copy at Convention or like I said call Joe after Convention and you will be able to see for yourself


----------



## Reble (Oct 5, 2010)

MiLo Minis said:


> AMHR has a Standard of Perfection not a breed discription.
> 
> I do not believe it will ever be a breed being we will always be going by height.
> 
> ...


----------



## Songcatcher (Oct 5, 2010)

Reble said:


> Ok, I am willing to learn, what do I tell these people that ask how did they get so small to get the miniature horse years ago?


Quite simply by selectively breeding the smallest to the smallest over a long period of time. Using dwarfs may have quickly reduced size by creating more dwarfs, but not in creating properly conformed horses.


----------



## Mominis (Oct 5, 2010)

Is there anywhere on the web that a person can find out how many horses that are registered with AMHR actually show? When I talked to the secretaries at Nationals, it seemed that the show had well over 1800 individual horse entries. It would be neat to find out what % of those that do show hold both ASPC and AMHR papers.

I say this because I have been told that AMHR piggybacks the ASPC quite a bit. In fact, this was cited to me as the reason that the pony people don't gripe about the minis like the mini people do about the ponies. Now, with those numbers in mind, I wonder what the change would be if all horses who are ASPC/AMHR were forced into Mini-ASPC classes. How would that effect the futurity money? How would that effect the Nationals entries? How would that effect resale values on the non-ASPC minis? How would that effect the prestige of a National title?

I am new to all this, you guys know that. But what I have noticed is that in the Journal and on this site in the banner ads, most of the advertisers have ASPC/AMHR horses. Those farms are promoting and generating sales with the new people coming into the breed. I can say that from experience. lol If the primary advertisers and leading farms put those kinds of dollars into ASPC rather than AMHR, where would that leave the AMHR? Also, there are so many people who hold office with AMHR that are also breeders of the ASPC/AMHR horse, would they take their expertise and move over to the ASPC shows were the AMHR to 'kick them out?' Of course they would. I think that separating the two would have much further reaching consequences than just lowering the number of entries.

The yearling over colts at Nationals was a 52 horse class, for an example. How many of those guys were double registered horses? How many breeders of those horses would abandon ship and move over to ASPC with their horses? That's a nice chunk of change that AMHR would lose in one fell swoop.

I can say that I wouldn't sell my horses or change what I'm doing. I would just go to a market that was more friendly to the type of horse that I own...the ASPC/AMHR horse. Now, I'm not a breeder nor do I wish to be. I am a gelding owner and I pride myself on owning high quality geldings. I think that the gelding market is very important to any breed. If there's no market for geldings then there are thousands of stallions standing around breeding Lord-knows-what and depleting the overall quality of the breed.


----------



## JWC sr. (Oct 5, 2010)

Good for you with the high quality geldings, at some point folks will realize just how great geldings are in this industry. Dependable, steady, beautiful and easy to work with are all adjectives that come to my mind when I think of the geldings I saw at nationals.

As far as your questions are concerned, we won the two year old futurity class with Rhapsody's Majestic Reign who is a registered shetland and AMHR stallion we own. This was his third year to win the futurity for us. His mother is a tiny National champion also. If I remember right she was a national champion in the under class a few years ago. And her small size was one of the reasons we bought him as a weanling. He will be going into the breeding pen this coming year which we are excited about in our continuing quest to produce small (less than 34")perfect horses with movement. He will primarily bred to AMHA/AMHR double registered horses. We have a few on the ground from other crosses that I would defy anyone to pick out of the herd as shetland crosses or as some call it straight mini's. In a lot of cases you cannot tell the difference within the herd. We have been breeding for years to produce a refined, quality horse and this is just another step in that direction.

As far as the mini's supporting the entire registry, from what I know the minis do in fact produce the vast majority of the income for the registry. But with that said, without the original registry and some of the founders foresight we would not even have a mini registry. So I do not begrudge anything along that line myself personally. ASPC and then later AMHR is the oldest and most widely used registry for mini's and the key to their success is again inclusion, not exclusion as I always say.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Oct 5, 2010)

Watcheye said:


> I like what Stormy has to say.


ME TOO!!!

It seems that every time this subject comes up Shetland people immediately jump in and say "oh why do you hate Shetlands so?!" I DON'T! I just think that having them forced down our throats by eliminating hardshipping of any breed but Shetland is changing the face of our Miniatures and I am not entirely sure I like the direction it is heading. Am I alone? NO I am not and I would like to know where the majority stands as it is my opinion that the registry should be directed by the majority and not just a few. Changing the thread to a "why do you hate Shetlands" deal takes away from the actual intent of the thread. Several people have said they own both Shetlands and Miniatures and they seem to be able to recognize them as the separate animals that they are. Could we just for the sake of this discussion pretend the only breed allowed to be hardshipped in is Connemara's for instance? I don't hate them either!

My suggestion for the ASPC to have a Miniature division does not necessarily mean that I feel Shetlands should be excluded from the Miniature registry - it is just an interim solution until we the AMHR membership decide what direction we should be taking with our registry. I feel that it is premature for us to have a closed registry but I also don't feel we should be forced in the Shetland direction only. With the inclusion of many other breeds over the years I like the result of how the Miniature Horse has evolved and would like to see it continue to do so.

The Classic Shetland has "a broad diversity of type" to allow "form to follow function" and yet they are a breed. I could see the Miniature Horse following this example and still be their own separate breed.

I would like to see a more accurate breed description and a fully open registry for all types under 38" for at least a few more years.

"As far as making the statement that if they were big horses they would be taken more seriously, I in no way meant to slight what we all do. If so I would not have invested 25+ years, literally 10's of thousands of dollars in equipment. barns etc and yet even more money well up in the 6 fiqures to raise, improve and showcase these little guys. If I had I would be a bigger fool than I am." _ I didn't really think you did John _



_ but I didn't want anyone else to think that either. I think the registry needs to stop laughing, give us some respect and listen to what their members have to say _


----------



## Reble (Oct 5, 2010)

MiLo Minis said:


> listen to what their members have to say


Try a poll here and see what most want?


----------



## Mominis (Oct 5, 2010)

I would be very interested in seeing a poll done here with regard to this issue too. Would someone please start one? If I knew more about the topic, I'd do it, but I think it's better left in the hands of someone with more than a few months in the breed under their belt lol


----------



## MiLo Minis (Oct 5, 2010)

Mominis said:


> I would be very interested in seeing a poll done here with regard to this issue too. Would someone please start one? If I knew more about the topic, I'd do it, but I think it's better left in the hands of someone with more than a few months in the breed under their belt lol


I don't personally feel this is the place to activate a poll regarding this subject. Although this is a huge, wonderful, and well read forum only a very small percentage of our registry's membership are actually active on this forum. I don't feel it would give a true picture of the memberships feelings either way. It needs to be done through the registry and sent to each and every member.


----------



## Field-of-Dreams (Oct 5, 2010)

MiLo Minis said:


> I don't personally feel this is the place to activate a poll regarding this subject. Although this is a huge, wonderful, and well read forum only a very small percentage of our registry's membership are actually active on this forum. I don't feel it would give a true picture of the memberships feelings either way. It needs to be done through the registry and sent to each and every member.


Isn't this a lot like Convention where a few members are permitted to vote and change everything for all?






I think there are enough people here to give an idea of what we'd like...


----------



## Minimor (Oct 5, 2010)

> I say this because I have been told that AMHR piggybacks the ASPC quite a bit. In fact, this was cited to me as the reason that the pony people don't gripe about the minis like the mini people do about the ponies. Now, with those numbers in mind, I wonder what the change would be if all horses who are ASPC/AMHR were forced into Mini-ASPC classes. How would that effect the futurity money? How would that effect the Nationals entries? How would that effect resale values on the non-ASPC minis? How would that effect the prestige of a National title?


That's what I would like to see too. Numbers and $$$ amounts not just for AMHR registrations vs ASPC registrations, but out of the AMHR registration totals, including transfers, how many of the registrations and applications & permanent applications and how much of the dollar amounts for each of those can be attributed to horses that also hold ASPC registration? If you take out all of the ASPC horses, what do the remaining figures look like? I think these days if you subtracted those horses that have ASPC registration there would be a fair sized hole in AMHR numbers.

I don't imagine that Joe's report has the info broken down quite that way?


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 5, 2010)

Field-of-Dreams said:


> Isn't this a lot like Convention where a few members are permitted to vote and change everything for all?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Trust me you will get more member responses here then you would at a Convention. You get what maybe 50 people at Convention that vote and decide whats best for AMHR. That needs to change.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Oct 5, 2010)

JMS every convention I have ever been to has way more then 50 people

Holly and Fran I would guess? that while not totally accurate if you took the dollar amount of ASPC horses registered in one year then say applied 1/4 of that you would get a guesstimate of how much is going from ASPC to AMHR for registraion. Now before you jump on me I am very aware that this would be a guesstimate. From that guesstimate you would be able to get a GUESSTIMATE percentage of how much income ASPC horses are generating into AMHR

I would be more then glad to post those numbers given at Convention here on this fourm when I get back for anyone who is interested.


----------



## Jacki Loomis (Oct 5, 2010)

Deleted, sent partial, unsigned reply by error.

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]


----------



## JWC sr. (Oct 5, 2010)

Lisa,

I will be looking forward to meeting you there. Cindy & I are planning on being there. Maybe we can all get a beverage or somenthing. This convention should be an interesting one.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Oct 5, 2010)

John I would love it and will make sure to look you up


----------



## Minimor (Oct 5, 2010)

Actually, Lisa, it was Mominis, not Fran, who first posted the question about the ratio of AMHR to AMHR/ASPC in the various breakdowns of any financial report.

Then there was her (Mominis again) question about Nationals numbers. If you removed all ASPC registered animals from Nationals, how many would be gone, how many would be left? I had several people tell me this year that the Over division at Nationals was all Shetlands, so if you pulled all those entries out, how many would be left? If the owners of those entries didn't come to Nationals at all, how many more horses would be gone from the show, just because many of those exhibitors must also have Under division horses, some of which will not be ASPC registered, some of which may be ASPC as well. Just curious what AMHR Nationals might have looked like in 2010 if those horses had not shown up.


----------



## Songcatcher (Oct 5, 2010)

JMS Miniatures said:


> > Posted Today, 03:07 PM
> > Field-of-Dreams, on 05 October 2010 - 12:41 PM, said:
> >
> > Isn't this a lot like Convention where a few members are permitted to vote and change everything for all?
> ...


I think this forum is a wonderful place and a very valuable tool. It may be true that there are more people here than there are at convention. BUT, that is not the way the rules are written. If people just decide, "heck with the rules, we're going to do it the way I want to", There will be total chaos. If you don't like the rules, work to change them, but you can't just say, "This is better, we're going to do it this way", without first changing the rules.

Although I don't think there is any question about this being the largest, most widely read Miniature Horse forum in existence, I don't think the majority of Miniature owners and breeders come on here and express their views.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Oct 5, 2010)

Sorry see post below


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Oct 5, 2010)

Minimor said:


> That's what I would like to see too. Numbers and $$$ amounts not just for AMHR registrations vs ASPC registrations, but out of the AMHR registration totals, including transfers, how many of the registrations and applications & permanent applications and how much of the dollar amounts for each of those can be attributed to horses that also hold ASPC registration? If you take out all of the ASPC horses, what do the remaining figures look like? I think these days if you subtracted those horses that have ASPC registration there would be a fair sized hole in AMHR numbers.
> 
> I don't imagine that Joe's report has the info broken down quite that way?



I am sorry Holly this is the post I was answering

The question what would numbers be like at Nationals if no ASPC/R horses were there could be answered with how many more horses would come back out and show?

But really since it is not a reality the answer to that question really doesn't matter since no way to know the actual answer.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 5, 2010)

Yes, but I wasn't asking about any future show, I was wondering specifically about the 2010 show! sorry, I may not have been quite clear enough on that. With so many complaints about Minis carrying the Shetlands, I would like to know what percentage of the most recent AMHR Nationals was made up of dual registered Shetlands



and their owners, plus the number of other entries that were there only because they rode along with their ASPC/AMHR cousins & friends.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Oct 5, 2010)

I am confused here.....why wouldn't those Shetlands that are registered Miniatures not be at the National show if they chose to be? I think you guys are off on that Shetland hating tangent again.



Just to be clear - what I would like to see polled is NOT whether you like or dislike Shetlands or whether or not to allow hardshipping of Shetlands but rather whether or not the registry should be completely closed OR reopened to hardshipping horses from any breed that are 38" or less and whether or not you would like to see a more definitive Standard of Perfection for the Miniature Horse.

I am going to say it one more time - this is not, and never has been, about Shetlands for me. It is about breeding what you love in a Miniature Horse. I don't want to stop those of you that love a Miniature Shetland any more than I want you to stop me from breeding a Miniature Warmblood type



or Joe down the road from breeding his Miniature draft type or........you fill in the blank! I know people that are breeding Miniature Hackneys and others that are breeding Miniature Curlies and if they are successful at getting them under 38" I don't see why they shouldn't be able to register those horses as Minis. I am NOT against Shetlands - I am against ONLY Shetlands.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 5, 2010)

Nothing at all to do with Shetland haters Lori, honest!! I asked that only out of curiosity, just because I wondered how many of the horses actually supporting the AMHR Nationals are in fact Shetlands. The question came about because of previous threads where people have complained that Shetlands are being carried by Miniatures...and so I just had to ask how many horses would be gone from Nationals if the "ponies" weren't there one particular year (2010 was the sample year I chose)...without the ponies being shown, what would the financial statement for this particular show look like?


----------



## Karen S (Oct 6, 2010)

If you really wanted to know the number of ASPC/AMHR registered miniatures that participated at the AMHR Natinals, go into the show program, print off ALL of the horses entered. Then if you have a paid membership to the stud book on line, you can spend your free time taking each and every one of those horses and check the Shetland registry for their name. Some may have a slightly different name from their miniature papers, but you will never know unless you know the horse, the majority of them do carry both names on the miniature and Shetland side.

If any of you really want to know, then get together, break up the number of horses and find out. That will give you and idea of how many were there.

Karen


----------



## stormy (Oct 6, 2010)

Minimor your question is really a dual question.

How many of the animals showing at Nationals were dual registered ASPC/AMHR or rode with some in the trailer? Have I got that right?

The counter question would be:

How many AMHR only horses/owners have stopped going to Nationals(esp in over classes)because of the clear favoritism towords the Shetland type in judging.

Remember Shetlands are classed as a minor breed with only a few thousand (I believe it is between 10 and 20 thousand)in the registry.

Miniature horses (AMHR only) are a much larger group numbering over a hundred thousand.

Even if half of all shetlands are dual registered they are still a small percent of the total AMHR registered animals.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 6, 2010)

stormy said:


> Minimor your question is really a dual question.
> 
> How many of the animals showing at Nationals were dual registered ASPC/AMHR or rode with some in the trailer? Have I got that right?
> 
> ...


Forget it--you're not getting the point at all, and yes, I realize that you don't WANT to get the point, and that's okay.
It doesn't matter how many Shetlands are AMHR compared to how many non-Shetlands are AMHR registered; it doesn't matter how many non-ASPC horses might come if the Shetlands weren't at any particular show. Point is, for all the complaining about AMHR always carrying ASPC, the dual registered ponies do contribute a lot to Nationals....though the die-hard straight Miniature people don't like that in any way, shape or form.


----------



## stormy (Oct 6, 2010)

And my point is they may contribute to Nationals but to the overall income generated by AMHR they contribute very little and may indeed be decreasing total $$$ to Nationals by discouraging the AMHR only owners from showing.

In otherwords I know what you were aiming at but there is a flip side to that.


----------



## Mominis (Oct 6, 2010)

stormy said:


> And my point is they may contribute to Nationals but to the overall income generated by AMHR they contribute very little and may indeed be decreasing total $$$ to Nationals by discouraging the AMHR only owners from showing.
> 
> In otherwords I know what you were aiming at but there is a flip side to that.



But, how can this be when the ASPC/AMHR horses are the majroity of what is advertised in the Journal, on the forums, and in most other places? I would say that the ASPC/AMHR probably contribute equally once the show revenues and advertising dollars as well as the memberships (requirement to show) and that sort of thing are calculated.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 6, 2010)

Stormy I get what you are saying and I agree.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Oct 6, 2010)

Mominis said:


> But, how can this be when the ASPC/AMHR horses are the majroity of what is advertised in the Journal, on the forums, and in most other places? I would say that the ASPC/AMHR probably contribute equally once the show revenues and advertising dollars as well as the memberships (requirement to show) and that sort of thing are calculated.


I do not believe you can count who opts to advertise in the Journal as what is the majority. Many choose not to advertise for whatever reason. Some feel why advertise a Sept Nationals win in a ad that will reach mailboxes sometime in Feb.I have heard many say by then a new show season has started or is right around the corner and the importance to anyone other then themselves has long passed.

Some may feel they do not get any response or it is not the best way to advertise their farm. Whatever the reason is to say that it is a huge revenue of shows be it National or local will never truly be known- as there is always the question of if they were not there who else would show up.

But then again I am not sure it really matters anyway ?




They were there showing in 2010 and will be showing again in 2011 and longer


----------

