# What is YOUR standard of perfection



## MiLo Minis (Jul 21, 2008)

I am seeing the beginning of what to me is an alarming trend. At several shows I have attended this year I have seen what are essentially Hackney Ponies being exhibited and winning as Miniature Horses. What I find alarming about this is that we all know what wins in the show ring is what becomes the goal to breed for. I started out breeding Miniature Horses because of my love for what they were - wonderful, sweet natured, family friendly small horses. I did not choose to breed Hackney Ponies because I don't find them to be what the Miniature Horse is. That is not to say that no one else can love them but if they do, and they choose to own and breed them, there are already venues out there for them to show their ponies. I realize that the Miniature Horse registries are height registries alone but we do have a breed standard of perfection in our rule book and it does not to me describe a Hackney or Modern Shetland type. Perhaps it is time that we have a more distinct, less open to interpretation, standard of perfection written for our breed?


----------



## Leeana (Jul 21, 2008)

I have not seen any miniature horses showing that even imo come close to resembling a hackney or modern.

Of course we all should breed what we like, but if we want our horses to be able to compete at the highest levels ..then in my opinion your going to have to take into account what type/traits are winning and why they are winning. If you really do not like the look, then of course you do not have to sway your program towards that.

....i WISH there was a 34" modern or hackney pony ..i would snatch up one of those in no time




.


----------



## disneyhorse (Jul 21, 2008)

Sorry Leeana... I have seen some Modern Pleasure type ponies that are mini size in person... and know of a few Roadster and Fine Harness Moderns that ARE mini size



These ponies are going to be beee-a-utiful in the driving ring.

I personally don't mind the "tiny Shetland" look. I think with most breeds, the high-bred horses you see in the show ring aren't always the only ones out there. Lots of backyard breeders breed off-type horses of ALL breeds.

Take, for instance, the draft horses. The "hitchy" show-type horses are leggy and upright and kind of hot. However, the average Amish farmer or Joe-shmoe who rides their draft on the trail have less hitchy show types. This is pretty normal for breeds.

I just see people clinging to the "old type" and denouncing the "new type" because they are resistant to change. But, the show ring does change as exhibitors and breeders strive to improve the breed.

Yes, "improvement" can be subjective, but obviously a LOT of judges, breeders, and exhibitors must like the Shetland type because that is what's winning. If the majority felt the other way, it probably wouldn't progress like that.

Juuuust my opinion! I have seen a few National Grand Champion ASPC/AMHR horses in person and they are TO DIE FOR and YES my "standard of perfection" for sure!

Andrea


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 21, 2008)

If that is your standard of perfection then by all means go out and get yourselves a Hackney or Modern Shetland *PONY* and breed them down to whatever size you want but if you want a Miniature *HORSE* don't bring that into the Miniature Horse breed. Our original goal was to breed a HORSE in miniature and I am not any too sure that this is an IMPROVEMENT to our breed.


----------



## bingo (Jul 21, 2008)

It is a rare horse that is Hackney in type but mini in size. Yes there is plenty of double even triple registered horses however I have not seen a 36 in mini that could truly compete in the modern division at Congress.

I think that many people view movement differently and some see anything that has a bit of oomph to it as hackney like others see anything with any admitted shetland blood in them as Hackney type.

Many seem to think the only horses winning are the double registered ones and they are the wave of the future. IMO they are simply admitting and being proud of the past. I do not believe you have to have a double registered horse to win.

That said I think at some point they will have to stop picking judges that seem to be more into the pony world then the minis be it thru breeding, training whatever to judge Nationals. Of course that does dictate what wins. I doubt they would have judges known for mini breeding and training judge Congress.

I do think the pendulum will swing back the other way as many will feel like the OP if they want a pony they will go and show ASPC there does need to be a distinction between the 2. I do not think it will swing all the way back but do think it will balance out.

Already long gone are the days that anything ASPC/AMHR registered will bring in big bucks simply due to the papers. You can already see the decline in quality in alot of double registered papers as many tried to bank on the fad and bred whatever they could to whatever they could to get those papers.


----------



## strass (Jul 21, 2008)

I've seen a few Hackneyish minis. Under certain judges, they win. There was a Hackney judge doing the money classes at Congress a few years back…man was that a long day. It was obvious where he was from. I’ve seen a couple do quite well at Nationals in the last couple of years as well. It wasn’t disguised at all...the trainer that brought the last one in the ring was a well known modern shetland and hackney trainer.

Personally, I love the classic shetland look. It was the baseline for the original miniature horses and most of the most popular bloodlines are derived from it. I’m not a modern shetland or hackney fan. I have nothing against them. (No modern shetland or hackney pony has ever done anything wrong to me.) I just can’t get past those heads. I also find their movement (that some people describe as graceful and beautiful) to be (in my opinion only) fake and unnatural.

Now, before we go and start getting all fired-up on some kind of anti-hackney crusade: Just remember that there’s a HUGE probability that there’s some shetland in your mini and there is also a small chance that the shetland in your mini might have been crossed to a hackney at some point in it’s ancestry.

I reckon that’s why they say that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There’s a horse out there for everyone.

Bingo made a very good point in that it’s not the papers that make a horse great. However, on the part about mini people judging ponies: Lee Crutchfield is judging Congress this year. He’s pretty much a mini-guy.


----------



## ontherisefarm (Jul 21, 2008)

I agree with Lori. I want to breed miniature horses not hackney ponies. I am not saying I dont appreciate some of refinedment in the newer minis but I think we need to think about conformation in the aspect of form to function. Just like in AQHA where thier Halter horses are powerhouses on too little legs I would be afraid that we are gonna breed frailty in our minis and also lose some of thier sweet dispositions breeding for hotter horses. Alot of people get into minis because for some reason they cant do biggies anymore but if thier disposition is hot it would still put some of those people off. Just a thought...


----------



## disneyhorse (Jul 21, 2008)

MiLo Minis said:


> If that is your standard of perfection then by all means go out and get yourselves a Hackney or Modern Shetland *PONY* and breed them down to whatever size you want but if you want a Miniature *HORSE* don't bring that into the Miniature Horse breed. Our original goal was to breed a HORSE in miniature and I am not any too sure that this is an IMPROVEMENT to our breed.


Wow, well remember "type" IS subjective. I don't like Quarter Horses at all (don't tell my Quarter Pony that!) so would I tell people who breed for QH type minis to just stick to QHs??? Or people who have miniature POA types (spotted and pretty little heads and some substance to them) to go away and just stick to their POAs and don't bring any of that POA stuff to the mini breed???

The breed is moving towards improvement, and I think the National Grand Champion of the past couple of years HAS been improved upon compared to the National Grand Champion of twenty or even ten years ago.

I just don't believe in sour grapes, that's all.



ontherisefarm said:


> I agree with Lori. I want to breed miniature horses not hackney ponies. I am not saying I dont appreciate some of refinedment in the newer minis but I think we need to think about conformation in the aspect of form to function. Just like in AQHA where thier Halter horses are powerhouses on too little legs I would be afraid that we are gonna breed frailty in our minis and also lose some of thier sweet dispositions breeding for hotter horses. Alot of people get into minis because for some reason they cant do biggies anymore but if thier disposition is hot it would still put some of those people off. Just a thought...


The Hackney was specifically bred form to function... they are performers. They were not bred to "look good" persay, as they are quite noted for having an "unattractive head" among other things. Refinement does not instantly make a horse useless. Consider the dainty Arabian. Arabian horses are bred to be indestructible and endure, and they sure have endured! They can do a LOT with those spindly little legs and pencil necks that a thick horse can not. Heavy horses often have less stamina than a lighter bred horse.

Some people get into minis because they can't do "biggies" anymore... but that doesn't mean they don't come from a hotter horse background. Plenty of people into "biggies" like a hotter horse like the Thoroughbred, Arab, Saddlebred, etc. I think the most fight you will get for a more mellow mini will be because of the number of amateur-horsemen and children that are interested in the breed.

Minis are great because there ARE a lot of types... the Park type driving horses will attract those interested in a hot horse with lots of motion, and there are draft classes for the heavy draft type mini without a lot of action but more mellow. SEE? To each his own with the mini. I have always thought that was what is so special about minis. There IS no "one type." And the Shetland is another special small breed of equine. They have Foundation (mini "type" you could say) all the way up to the fancy hot Moderns.

I hate it's a "mini" versus "pony" that just steams me, because I LOVE them BOTH. BOTH breeds are wonderful, and YES there are equines who are BOTH.

Andrea


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 21, 2008)

strass said:


> Now, before we go and start getting all fired-up on some kind of anti-hackney crusade: Just remember that there’s a HUGE probability that there’s some shetland in your mini and there is also a small chance that the shetland in your mini might have been crossed to a hackney at some point in it’s ancestry.


I am not on an anti Hackney crusade and I did try to make that clear in my thread



I AM on a PRO MINI crusade!



I am quite certain there is a ton of Shetland in most Miniatures and I am okay with that and if there is any Hackney blood in my Minis I can happily say that the evidence of it has been well bred out of them!


----------



## New2Minis (Jul 21, 2008)

I agree with Milo Minis....Miniatures are Miniatures and Ponies are Ponies!!!!!


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 21, 2008)

disneyhorse said:


> Wow, well remember "type" IS subjective. I don't like Quarter Horses at all (don't tell my Quarter Pony that!) so would I tell people who breed for QH type minis to just stick to QHs??? Or people who have miniature POA types (spotted and pretty little heads and some substance to them) to go away and just stick to their POAs and don't bring any of that POA stuff to the mini breed???
> The breed is moving towards improvement, and I think the National Grand Champion of the past couple of years HAS been improved upon compared to the National Grand Champion of twenty or even ten years ago.
> 
> I just don't believe in sour grapes, that's all.
> ...


There are no sour grapes here Andrea, they don't make for good whine



People that are breeding for QuarterHORSE types are still breeding Miniature HORSES. They are becoming few and far between as that is not what is winning in the show ring which is my point exactly. They don't have the short back and tiny jowl of a pony and would fit into a breed standard of perfection describing a horse.


----------



## Minimor (Jul 21, 2008)

You know, I really think that the biggest problem still comes down to measuring. My biggest objection is to having ponies that are 42"...not 42" when measured as a pony but 42" when measured as a Mini, at the last mane hair....get measured in as 38" and are given their Mini papers. Then they go to shows and get measured in again so that they are allowed to show. That is what I really object to!

And yes, before anyone comes on and denies that this happens, IT DOES! I believe that once in awhile there's even one taller than 42" that gets measured in as being 38" or under and it's a farce. Once in awhile those ponies get protested and actually lose their papers, but it doesn't happen often enough. And there isn't enough penalty. When a pony gets measured in and gets it's AMHR papers, and then later gets protested and measures out...not by a half inch or even an inch but by several inches....it is my opinion that the steward that measured that pony in and the judge that witnessed it should both be fined and/or lose their cards.

If you can find a Modern Shetland that HONESTLY measures in as 38" or under then it is your right to have that as a Mini. That is, after all, within the rules of AMHR. That isn't the look that I personally want in a Mini, but I can't complain if others have that look. And I won't complain as long as that horse doesn't look like it's 43" at the last mane hair! I do hope, however, that there will still be a lot of judges that will prefer something different than that when they are out there in center ring!

My standard of perfection? long legs, short back, long hip, long neck that is set on high, long laid back shoulder, pretty head with big eyes, fine muzzle with thin walled nostrils and small teeth, no bulge to the forehead, dished face not necessary as long as the face is not convex--wider between the eyes than between the nostrils...tippy ears--they can be more like horse ears, as in a bit longer than the little short tippy pony ears we see on Minis (and I do love those short little pony ears too!) as long as they aren't too long and are well set on...3 good gaits with good extension. My ideal Mini would actually look a lot like my ideal Morgan!


----------



## Birchcrestminis (Jul 21, 2008)

I think the question was what is YOUR standard of perfection.

Just asking people what their vision of the perfect miniature

horse is. This is mine...

Araby type head with big eyes and little in tipping ears

moderate length of neck with a nice arch in it

short strong back

level croup with high set tail, carried in a pretty flagging

arch when animated

smooth body with some substance

straight legs with good bone and well shaped hooves

Thats what the mini of my dreams looks like!


----------



## Leeana (Jul 21, 2008)

disneyhorse said:


> Sorry Leeana... I have seen some Modern Pleasure type ponies that are mini size in person... and know of a few Roadster and Fine Harness Moderns that ARE mini size
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Andrea, I did not say there were not ANY modern pleasure / moderns that are of mini size ...i can think of several off the top of my head but i do not think there are that many at the moment. I have not seen that many out YET ....but i do think they will be great influenced in the breed in the future. I am very excited about this personally



.

Have you seen the conformation these hackeys and moderns have?



. I am highly impressed with the consistant quality in the shetlands ....but i have recently for fun been checking out some hackney breeders and the conformation and consistant quality is just amazing.


----------



## bingo (Jul 21, 2008)

Leeana said:


> . I am highly impressed with the consistant quality in the shetlands ....but i have recently for fun been checking out some hackney breeders and the conformation and consistant quality is just amazing.


Not to argue but I hear this from a couple people and honestly I think the Shetlands are not immune to poor breeding choices and poor quality as is minis and any other breed. Sadly i have seen more then a few :-(


----------



## disneyhorse (Jul 21, 2008)

No, Bingo... the Shetland isn't "immune" to poor breeding or conformation but the VAST majority is better quality compared to the VAST majority of miniatures!

I cruise the horsestudbook.com website daily and see what is being registered... the majority of the Shetlands are decent quality, free from huge glaring conformational issues.... while the majority of the Minis are dwarfy weird fuzzy things...

Andrea


----------



## Leeana (Jul 21, 2008)

disneyhorse said:


> No, Bingo... the Shetland isn't "immune" to poor breeding or conformation but the VAST majority is better quality compared to the VAST majority of miniatures!
> 
> I cruise the horsestudbook.com website daily and see what is being registered... the majority of the Shetlands are decent quality, free from huge glaring conformational issues.... while the majority of the Minis are dwarfy weird fuzzy things...
> 
> Andrea


Going off those horsestudbook.com photos ...i know personally when i go out to take registration photos, i more just try to make the pics "useable" and meet the amhr/aspc requirements...it takes me forever to get a photo that meets the requirements. None of my horses look like show horses in those pics, sorry



. My Congress Reserve Grand Champion and 4x congress champion on his registration papers do not do him justice but shows him how amhr/aspc requires for the pics. None of my reg photos do them justice, so i just do not find that an accurate way to define quality. Im sure others, like i, are just trying to get the photos to meet the requirements.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 21, 2008)

This is illustrating my point perfectly. We have had 2 people reply that they love Hackneys and 2 people reply with their standard of perfection which describes a horse type. For those that love Hackney Ponies they already exist and there are venues for showing them. IF they happen to be truly under 38" we have no choice but to accept them in the Miniature Horse registry, as Minimor states, as it is a height breed and our standard of perfection is so loosely worded any equine can fit the description. IF it was reworded to describe the standard of perfection of a HORSE than it would be more correct and it would eliminate the ponies from our breed as the judges would have reason to place them appropriately at the bottom of the class for having less than perfect HORSE conformation.

I do love a more hot blooded horse, always have and always will, but I expect them to be well mannered and easily handled with good temperaments and good conformation.

I have seen the nice conformation that many Shetlands and Hackneys have - VERY nice PONY conformation but as Bingo says there are also quite a few with not so nice conformation. I find quite often the Hackney types have a Roman profile which is not even acceptable in the Modern Shetlands which have quite a lot of Hackney blood in them and yet they quite often place in those classes too which if I were a Shetland person competing against them I would find upsetting as well as they are then changing the standard of perfection for that breed.

I also agree with Minimor that any steward measuring in any type of horse that is blatantly OVER the height limit for our breed should be censured severely. After all being a height registry that is THE most important consideration when accepting a hardship and if we can't depend on our licensed stewards to uphold our rules how can we expect any of the members to?


----------



## ontherisefarm (Jul 21, 2008)

Birchcrestminis said:


> I think the question was what is YOUR standard of perfection.
> 
> Just asking people what their vision of the perfect miniature
> 
> ...


I do believe you and I have the same dream......


----------



## crponies (Jul 21, 2008)

If you are going to further define the breed standard as horse instead of pony, which type of horse? There is so much variation out there in horses too. Also, Hackneys are more than ponies. There are also Hackney *horses*. I really don't think you could narrow down the breed standard much more without picking a specific type of horse and that would upset a lot of people. Also, there are always going to be people who do not like the look that is popular in the show ring. As others have said this is something that takes place in other breeds as well such as Quarter horses, Arabians, and Shetlands. If I ever get into breeding again it will probably be with more the classic Shetland type whether they be registered as miniatures and/or ponies.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 21, 2008)

crponies said:


> If you are going to further define the breed standard as horse instead of pony, which type of horse? There is so much variation out there in horses too. Also, Hackneys are more than ponies. There are also Hackney *horses*. I really don't think you could narrow down the breed standard much more without picking a specific type of horse and that would upset a lot of people. Also, there are always going to be people who do not like the look that is popular in the show ring. As others have said this is something that takes place in other breeds as well such as Quarter horses, Arabians, and Shetlands. If I ever get into breeding again it will probably be with more the classic Shetland type whether they be registered as miniatures and/or ponies.


Our horses have always been known as Miniature Horses not ponies so I don't think it is out of line to ask for a definition of what we are breeding for to describe a more horse type. I know that there are Hackney horses out there but I highly doubt you will EVER get one of them bred down far enough to compete in the Miniature show ring although I do know there WILL be people that try to get them qualified




Really, whats to stop them? If we allow 44" horses in now and call them 38" or under eventually when all the horses in the show ring are 44" we aren't that far from allowing a 14.3 hand horse in are we? Seriously, people are saying how much the Miniature Horse has improved over the years and how our National Champion is such a nicer animal now than they were back when they were HONESTLY measured at 34" or whatever - its like comparing apples to oranges.

The Shetland in our same rule book has very completely identified what they prefer to see in the way of perfection. I don't see why the Miniature Horse can not be described as accurately with a bent towards describing a horse rather than a pony. As in any breed you can have a 'form follows function' clause allowing for variety in type to a certain extent.


----------



## bingo (Jul 21, 2008)

disneyhorse said:


> No, Bingo... the Shetland isn't "immune" to poor breeding or conformation but the VAST majority is better quality compared to the VAST majority of miniatures!
> 
> I cruise the horsestudbook.com website daily and see what is being registered... the majority of the Shetlands are decent quality, free from huge glaring conformational issues.... while the majority of the Minis are dwarfy weird fuzzy things...
> 
> Andrea


Well lets be honest part of that is simply due to the sheer numbers of minis registered compared to ponies. We all know it is the minis that are the major $ when it comes to registration for our registry.

So I am sure if you compared them percentage wise that way it would be pretty simiular.

I also feel that really the horsestudbook.com is not the best way to decide the quality of any breed as the photos submitted for registration are not always the best to begin with depending on time of year taken, amount of help available while taking pictures as well as the distortion that can occur in the process of getting them on the papers and into the system.

Of course everyone seems to feel that their breed of choice is so much better then someone else's which is why I guess it is their breed of choice



And many times in life breeds of choice can change so what someone once thought was the best may not be the best for them forever.

There is not a breed out there that does not have their fair share of horses with glaring conformation faults, being bred for color be it solid or multi, being bred for what is on paper or just being bred in the hopes of making a buck. It is not a mini only problem nor a shetland only problem. It doesnt matter if you are talking about our registry, or QH, Friesians,T/B. Arabs whatever the breed you will find poor quality.


----------



## dreaminmini (Jul 22, 2008)

Some organizations emphasize breeding of miniatures with horse characteristics, others encourage minis to retain pony characteristics.[8]

The AMHA standard suggests that if a person were to see a photograph of a miniature horse, without any size reference, it would be identical in characteristics, conformation, and proportion to a full-sized horse.[1]

According to the AMHR, a "Miniature should be a small, sound, well-balanced horse and should give the impression of strength, agility and alertness. A Miniature should be eager and friendly but not skittish in disposition."[7]

(Above is quoted from Wikipedia.)

I find this leaves a lot open to interpretation. But both registries make it clear in my opinion that they want the miniature horse to look like a horse with horse like characteristics.

Being very new to miniatures, I hesitated before answering this thread, not wanting to sound stupid. But, I feel that when I chose to buy a miniature horse with the intentions of training it to drive, I did choose a miniature horse because that is the look and temperament I wanted. I did not choose to buy a Hackney Pony/Horse or a Modern Shetland or an Arabian Horse. I like the Miniature Horse as it's name is what it is. I am not saying anything against these other breeds which are all quite fine. But why dilute one breed's characteristics with anothers until one day we will find that it has just become a melting pot with no clear defining characteristics or anything such that makes it remarkable or different from another breed or have it disappear altogether.


----------



## Jill (Jul 22, 2008)

Looking back at the last 5 or so years' AMHR National Grands are right in line with "my" standard of perfection


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 22, 2008)

"The Hackney horse has a well-shaped head, sometimes with a slightly convex profile. Their eyes are expressive and generous in size. Their ears are cleanly formed, usually sized proportionately to their head. The neck is carried arched and upright, arising high from the top of the withers. The chest is broad and well-defined, the shoulder is powerful, long and gently sloping. The horses have compact backs, muscular, level croups, and powerful hindquarters. Their ribs are well-sprung. The tail is set high and carried high naturally. The legs are strong with broad, clean joints, long forearms and gaskins, with hocks low, and pasterns medium in length, and are attached to round, tough hooves. The breed is known for its soundness and enjoyable gaits."

"The Hackney pony may not be above 14.2 hands (hh) and usually range between 12 and 14 hh. It should have true pony characteristics, and should not be a scaled down version of the Hackney Horse. The pony should have a small pony head, carried high, with alert and pricked ears and large, intelligent eyes. The neck should be muscular, arched, and carried proudly. They should have powerful shoulders, a compact back, and a light frame. The legs are strong with good joints, but the bone is usually fine. The feet are very hard, and are usually allowed to grow long in the toe to accentuate the action of the pony. The tail is often set and is carried high. They usually have even more exaggerated action than the Hackney horse, knees rising as high as possible and hocks coming right under the body. The action should be fluid, spectacular, and energetic."

These decriptions are taken from Wikipedia. IF the Hackney registry can define its two divisions so clearly making one a pony and one a horse why can our Registry not define Miniature Horses to be clearly horse-like in looks keeping it separate from the Pony divisions? IF this isn't done than there eventually will be no Miniature Horse, we will just be a smaller height division of Shetlands. IF a smaller division of Shetlands is desired why not create one in that division of the registry and have them show at the Pony shows NOT at the Miniature Horse shows. This would eliminate the problem of having oversized Moderns competing against our Miniatures as they would not be acceptable in conformation let alone size.

History repeats itself?? Yes the Hackney has been useful in forming the Shetland and Miniature Horses we have today by adding their refinement to our breeds but we need to be careful that we don't follow in the footsteps of the Shetland by becoming an entirely different breed such as the Modern Shetlands did or we will be looking at having class divisions of Miniature Horses - Modern and Classic.


----------



## Erica (Jul 22, 2008)

I haven't read this thread entriely just a quick skim.....

One of the things about the miniature horse I love, is that I can personally own, bred, show, promote, advertise, love, feed, look at .......the TYPE of miniature horse I want.

Just because the next farm down the road prefers something different, doesn't mean I _technically_ have to follow suit.

Of course my goal is to continually improve and produce horses that are either able to hold their own in the show ring and hold their marketablity......but also to keep producing those horses that I like, as it's me at 5:30 having to get up to feed them before work and me up at the barn at 1am clipping for the next show....with as much time and effort as we put into each of our programs you have to have/produce the type of horses you like.


----------



## midnight star stables (Jul 22, 2008)

Now I do agree with Milo on this one, on that there should be a way to tell miniature horses apart from other small breeds; but it would be very very hard.

Miniatures are a hieght breed and there are many types and styles within. And type is just that - a type.

I personally love the shetland look, but I am overall a miniature horse person. I don't mind "sharing" our breed with other small horses. But that's it, they have to be SMALL. Okay, 39-40" ponies that get in, okay, usually a hoof trim can help in this area.... But I just don't want 43", 44", 45", + ponies (when they ARE standing square) in our miniature breed. Plain and simple.

Change is great! But lets be hoset about it.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 22, 2008)

midnight star stables said:


> Now I do agree with Milo on this one, on that there should be a way to tell miniature horses apart from other small breeds; but it would be very very hard.
> 
> Miniatures are a hieght breed and there are many types and styles within. And type is just that - a type.
> 
> ...


Ponies that size in our show ring are what will make our registry a laughingstock with the rest of the equine world.


----------



## Jill (Jul 22, 2008)

MiLo Minis said:


> Ponies that size in our show ring are what will make our registry a laughingstock with the rest of the equine world.


Unfortunately, I think there are some other issues that make this the case to much fo the other equine world already.


----------



## bingo (Jul 22, 2008)

Jill said:


> MiLo Minis said:
> 
> 
> > Ponies that size in our show ring are what will make our registry a laughingstock with the rest of the equine world.
> ...


Jill I could not agree more!


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 22, 2008)

Mary Lou - LB said:


> Lori, I seen this trend of Shetland/Hackney types in AMHR for years now and I feel it is gaining popularity fast.. I am not against it as I love the looks of those flashy ponies.
> 
> You may want to consider AMHA registered Miniature Horses.. I threw a major fit (as you all may know
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, although I like the way the AMHA has defined that they want their Miniature Horses to LOOK LIKE HORSES IN MINIATURE, I don't like the height of them. I prefer the taller flashy *HORSE * look in Miniature.



If you take a look at my website you will see that the majority of my horses are B size and I like them that way - big beautiful B size Miniature *HORSES*! If I wanted a flashy pony I would get myself a Modern Shetland or Hackney Pony.


----------



## midnight star stables (Jul 22, 2008)

Shetlands split, maybe miniatures will have to too. Foundation, Classic, Mordern Pleasure, Mordern... Or maybe Stock, QH, Arabian, TB, Hackney.... What do you think?


----------



## bingo (Jul 22, 2008)

Well one has to remember that there is several different thoughts as to what a shetland look is. On this fourm alone their is currently a post about a mini who is thought to look like a Modern Shetland he is a beautiful mini no doubt but to my eye nothing at all shetland about him let alone Mondern Shetland.

I think sometimes people see a horse that is refined and leggy and call it a shetland type when in fact it truly is a refined leggy miniature horse type.


----------



## willowoodstables (Jul 22, 2008)

If anyone can get me a genetics printout on a miniature that tells me it is 100% HORSE than I will have to agree that a mini is a horse. Other than that it is a pony.

My ideal mini is long hingy-necked, sloped shoulder, dippy back, long hip, level croup, long legged, with a longer fetlock..om my I just described a HACKNEY...AND an Arab, Saddlebred etc..your finer driving machines IMHO. So if you have an ideal, breed or shop for it, but we really shouldn't poopoo the trends, unless we go backward towards dwarves!

If I could get these in mini size, I'd have a 100.





















The pony above really didn't fit the mold-trend of the newer hackney BUT seems like my breeding program still worked, hence the World Championship at Louisville.

Kim


----------



## Marty (Jul 22, 2008)

_One of the things about the miniature horse I love, is that I can personally own, bred, show, promote, advertise, love, feed, look at .......the TYPE of miniature horse I want._

Just because the next farm down the road prefers something different, doesn't mean I technically have to follow suit.

Good words from Erica. With Miniatures there are quite a few bandwagons available to jump on if you choose,. from Arabian, to Draft, and everything in between. All depends on what style and type that suits you. You can still improve your quality at your farm with your "style" of horse without loosing the type that you prefer.


----------



## willowoodstables (Jul 22, 2008)

Lori,

Wikpedia is not a great source of info as anyone can add to it.

Try American Hackney Society for true definitions. Or here Introducing the Hackney

Going more on what Erica said, here is a blurb on the Hackney site written by Karen Nowak regarding Hackney Horses, but I think that you can insert any breed here.



> Few breeds are static and stop developing. With any breed, including human beings, there is rarely a point where they can be said to have reached their full potential. The same can be said of the Hackney! Breeding of successful show horses has established a link between conformation and the predisposition to step high


Not on my high hackney, but after 30+ years I have seen trends that I didn't like, so I stuck with my ideal, and it hasn't hurt me in the ring. Granted there I times when I THOUGHT I should win, but really it is ONE man's opinion on that day. I don't breed minis, but I shop minis, and as in my post above, I WANT mine to look like that.

Kim


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 22, 2008)

Those certainly are beautiful horses you have pictured here Kim and IF all 100 of your Saddlebred, Hackney Horse types were TRULY UNDER 38" they would be welcome in our registry!





Which brings us full circle to Minimor's comment that perhaps it isn't the breed standard that needs changed but that our stewards need to be held accountable for upholding our rules and regulations. .

What I see is that the Miniature Horse is being gradually undermined by OVERSIZE horses being allowed in and that is the responsibility of our stewards. If a horse is found to be oversize by a substantial amount he loses his papers BUT NOTHING IS DONE ABOUT THE STEWARD THAT MEASURED THE HORSE ORIGINALLY!!!

I have been a horseperson all my life and I will be the first one to say that our Miniatures are really only very small ponies but my goal in breeding them has always been to achieve as close to a horse look as possible AND *UNDER 38"* as that is what our breed was intended to be

If there were the threat of losing one's license and a substantial fine we would not be seeing these huge ponies in our show rings. I have no desire to see dwarfs shown either and have been very careful to try not to introduce that into my herd either. I have always bred, and will continue to breed, what is my taste in Miniature. There was a day when I was the only one or one of 2 or 3 that showed in the B classes. I am happy to say that now the competition is much stiffer and I am glad for it BUT my horses have ALWAYS been honestly 38" or under. IF they measure over they are no longer Miniatures and they don't show. I too will stick to my ideals but I would like to see some support from our registry in the manner of *sticking to our rules!*


----------



## mininik (Jul 22, 2008)

Are you kidding me? Soo, where would one find this example of "perfect HORSE conformation?" Arabians, Quarter Horses, Paints, etc. are mostly being bred to specialize in events the last time I checked. There is a general standard, sure, and then there are a bunch of interpretations for what best competes in Halter, Dressage, Western Pleasure, Reining, Hunter Pleasure, Hunters, Jumpers, Cross Country, English Pleasure, Park, etc. Beyond that, who's to say what breed of HORSE the Miniature Horse should follow? If Hackney Ponies are out (because you don't think they fit the standard), what about Saddlebred looking Miniatures? Oh wait, she wants to breed "Quarter Horse type," while that breeder prefers "Arabians in Miniature" and this one "Miniature Warmbloods." But sorry! You don't fit in because you prefer "Hackney Ponies in Miniature," even though this breeder's "Quarter Horse type" looks awfully similar to some poorly bred Welsh Second A Ponies, and this breeder's "Arabian type" more closely resembles a DWARF. Of course, let's not forget that in each of those prior examples there will be many variations depending upon what type of Quarter Horse, Arabian, Saddlebred or Warmblood the individual prefers. I also don't think we should forget that by definition, a pony is simply a horse under 14.2h. Finally, I am curious what Miniature Horses (read: PONIES) you really think would be left standing in the ring if they were judged as "horses" according to their supposed type? Your's?





An Arabian winning Park at Nationals:

http://www.usef.org/images/wir/arabian_nationals_2004_2.jpg

An Arabian winning Western Pleasure at Nationals:

http://www.rickgaulttraining.com/images/US...3_Verroneau.jpg

Distinctly Arabian, but vastly different in type.


----------



## The Simple Life Farm (Jul 22, 2008)

strass said:


> However, on the part about mini people judging ponies: Lee Crutchfield is judging Congress this year. He’s pretty much a mini-guy.


I would want a Shetland judge at Congress. Same as a mini judge at Nationals. If we pay that much money, we need and deserve a judge that is very versed in the breed.

From someone that is CONSIDERING a Shetland, I think the 2 ought to be seperated. Since a shetland is a "breed" horse, how can it be registered as a "miniature horse"? A miniature horse can not be registered as a Shetland. This has always confused me, can anyone explain this?


----------



## Erica (Jul 22, 2008)

> From someone that is CONSIDERING a Shetland, I think the 2 ought to be seperated. Since a shetland is a "breed" horse, how can it be registered as a "miniature horse"? A miniature horse can not be registered as a Shetland. This has always confused me, can anyone explain this?


Minis are a* HEIGHT* breed.............so anything measuring in our height requirments can technically be registered as a miniature (or qualify) - or course with AMHR they have closed hardship for all except AMHA or ASPC horses.


----------



## mininik (Jul 22, 2008)

"I would want a Shetland judge at Congress. Same as a mini judge at Nationals. If we pay that much money, we need and deserve a judge that i s very versed in the breed." The Simple Life Farm

Give me a break. Lee IS an ASPC Modern/Classic "Shetland judge." He is also an AMHA, AMHR, POA, WCMH and CHMC judge. (See a quote from his website http://www.alohapuppies.com/about.html below for more info. Qualified enough for ya?) MOST judges are carded with more than one association. You don't have to "only" judge whatever breed you are mainly involved with.






"Lee Crutchfield

Lee has had over 18 years of experience breeding dogs as well as breeding, training and showing National Champion Horses in a variety of disciplines; during which time he has owned and operated two successful businesses from 1989 to 1998. He has shown multiple horses to over 50 National titles; including National Championships and two Reserve National Grand Championships. He has also assisted several amateur and youth handlers to their own National Championships. Lee also has experience selling and exporting horses to Puerto Rico, Japan, Brazil, Australia, Saudi Arabia and England. Lee is a recognized Senior Carded Judge (by age 30), has judged more than thirty sanctioned shows, several Regional Championship Show, two National Shows, a World Champion Show, and an International Show! He currently holds a judge’s card with the AMHA, AMHR, ASPC, Modern/Classic, POA, WCMH, and the CMHC. Lee is also on the AMHA’s LOC committee."


----------



## strass (Jul 22, 2008)

Color me silly, but I'm not real worried about Lee screwing something up. As mininik pointed out, he's an accomplished judge. Which, is the point: If a judge can truly be honest to the organization that he/she is judging and not try to influence it with their 'preferred' organization's type, then everything will work out.

Sure, there will always be differences of opinion. All I care about is that there isn't an agenda.

Now, can I ask a question: Why is this same old argument being played out AGAIN?

How about this instead: I like Blue and I think Green is hideous. If you like Green, you are wrong and should not be allowed to play with my toys. Blue was in the sky before Green was on the ground so it is clearly the superior color. Also, Green cannot exist without Blue, so even though they are of the same bloodline, Green-liking people are morons for saying that Green is it's own color.


----------



## Jill (Jul 22, 2008)

strass said:


> How about this instead: I like Blue and I think Green is hideous.


Funny you should put it that way, because I've been wondering for awhile now if my preference for purple is offensive to some?



It's exactly how I've been thinking and wondering why others have to find hurt feelings or rudeness when a person gives their opinion about something being discussed. Maybe I'm too hard headed, but I haven't ever been hurt by someone else's opinion... OH! I either agree or disagree but that's about it



The rare time that it really does get to me is when I figure I need to make sure that I'm really secure in that particular opinion of my own. Usually it means I've got more thinking to do


----------



## Nostalgia (Jul 22, 2008)

To each their own - we all have different opinions and breed for different things and different judges will pick different horses. Stock horse judges might prefer a stock horse type and arabian judges mor of an arab type - however both registries make every effort to educate our judges to pick the best horse of any type (the nice quarter type should place higher then the so so arab type and vice versa)

I have been told by a judge that they didn't like the refinement of one filly I was showing and at the same show the other judge gave her Grand.

Kim, this is close  My mother comes from Morgans and Saddlebreds - she doesn't like the heavier bodied horses so we breed for horses with more leg, longer-upright neck, etc. Below is a picture of Nostalgias Lets Roll, World Champion Jr. Stallion, this picture was taken of him last year as a yearling measuring 31.5", he has nothing but AMHA/AMHR miniature horses in his pedigree - nothing that is also registered as a pony. Not that I don't love some of the double registereds



Jet Set Go owned by the Rays is one of my favorites.





And just so everyone knows - I grew up riding saddleseat equitation, dressage, horsemanship, reining, hunters, and driving road/harness ponies - so I like them all and have an strong appreciation for each breed. This is just what I like to show, of course if you see my 23 yr. old miniature mare that we raised when I was 4 she looks much different - but I love her the same.










"If I could get these in mini size, I'd have a 100.




"

Natalie


----------



## Jill (Jul 22, 2008)

Oh, and I think that it takes red and blue to make purple -- 1st and 2nd place.

Green is made of blue and yell -- 1st and 3rd place.

Clearly, Mike, Purple is a little better than green



But then admittedly this would mean blue is better than purple



Unless we want to talk supreme


----------



## mininik (Jul 22, 2008)

You can keep your colors. I'm all for dark matter...


----------



## strass (Jul 22, 2008)

Jill said:


> Oh, and I think that it takes red and blue to make purple -- 1st and 2nd place.
> 
> Green is made of blue and yell -- 1st and 3rd place.
> 
> ...


Well, we did breed Red Alert to a mare named Blue Dawn this year, so I am truly hoping that Purple turns out to be a winning combo.



> You can keep your colors. I'm all for dark matter...


Too cute.


----------



## whitney (Jul 22, 2008)

Libertys Miss Kentucky!

The only thing that mare lacks is the little tippy ears.

If people need a breed standard IMO she's IT.


----------



## JWC sr. (Jul 22, 2008)

I always love to see all the different comments that are made in a thread such as this. With the exception of the ones where personal shots are taken at someone because of the respective likes or dislikes.

Personally and remember personally because if you ask my dearly beloved you would get more than likely get some different answers! LOL I like the looks of Classic Shetlands, but do not care for the moderns. I love to watch them, but have no desire to own one. I love the look of a great through bred, but do not want one of those either.





I love the look of Miss Kentucky "When she shows well" and have held her on several occasions between classes etc., but even with her I would change a few things in my minds eye. I personally don't like the hackney look either, but that is just me.





With all that said and not to demean any other breed, it is just my likes and dislikes.





I also think the miniature horse has one of the best dispositions of any breed in the equine world. Not to mention the fact that they have their own look even though it is constantly changing, which I think is beautiful. I also think the normal run mini’s of today would wipe the floor with the horses that won back in the beginning of the breed. They get better every year.





What we at Cherryville Farms are trying to breed is a horse that looks like a miniature Arabian, with the heart, temperament, functionality and conformation to allow them to do well at driving, halter and performance. I know that is a tall order, but that is what we continually strive towards. So I guess that would be my “Ideal Miniature”, which in my opinion has not been produced completely yet. There are some that are close, but there is still room for improvement.





As far as the judges are concerned, one of the best things I think we could do for them in order to make them consistent is to produce a visual model of the ideal miniature horse with all the nuances such as shoulder movement, neck tie in, length of neck, leg placement etc etc.. Thereby giving them what is a consensus "ideal" American Miniature Horse. A tough job to produce this, but many other breeds have done it so people have an idea of what one is supposed to look like and move like. As versus the rambling verbal description that we currently have that is so open for interpretation. OH!


----------



## willowoodstables (Jul 22, 2008)

Nostalgia said:


> :


Nostaligia...YEPPERS that is one of the 100 I'd have..love the hingy-neck (which makes setting the head at the poll sooo much easier and prettier!)

As for colors, preferential to blue and kelly green myself, so heavens Lisa, we'd clash LOLOLOL

Kim


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 22, 2008)

So, once again, we ALL AGREE - we cannot agree on a defined breed standard *OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT OUR BREED IS NO MORE THAN 38" TALL * - correct?

How do we ensure that the one standard that we do ALL hold to be true and that we ALL AGREE on is upheld?

 


Some of you may find this a silly and worthless discussion but then you could always stay off the thread if it is a waste of time to you rather than clogging it up with what has nothing to do with what we are discussing - it would be appreciated.


----------



## mininik (Jul 22, 2008)

"The one standard that we do ALL hold to be true and that we ALL AGREE on" is height, right? Now this "alarming trend" you're seeing of ASPC Modern/Hackney looking Ponies in AMHA/AMHR is all about them being measured unfairly?


----------



## Jill (Jul 22, 2008)

MiLo Minis said:


> So, once again, we ALL AGREE - we cannot agree on a defined breed standard *OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT OUR BREED IS NO MORE THAN 38" TALL * - correct?
> 
> How do we ensure that the one standard that we do ALL hold to be true and that we ALL AGREE on is upheld?
> 
> ...



I don't even understand what you are asking OH! Is this just another measuring thread 



 Are you saying the ONE standard we agree on is the height? (which, btw, is fine by me -- 38" worth of horse for us each to decide what we like in our own minis...)


----------



## Genie (Jul 22, 2008)

JWC sr. said:


> _ _
> 
> _
> What we at Cherryville Farms are trying to breed is a horse that looks like a miniature Arabian, with the heart, temperament, functionality and conformation to allow them to do well at driving, halter and performance. I know that is a tall order, but that is what we continually strive towards. So I guess that would be my “Ideal Miniature”, which in my opinion has not been produced completely yet. There are some that are close, but there is still room for improvement.
> ...


----------



## mininik (Jul 22, 2008)

"We too have been striving for "the smallest example of the perfect full sized horse" and if I were to be asked for the "look" I would say "Arabian" as well.

I have to say I love the movement of the hackney and wouldn't mind that action in the little horses on our farm." Genie

You could always breed for Arabian type Miniatures like these:




^ Watching that, I have a very hard time believing you've seen anything of the sort at any AMHA or AMHR show, MiLo.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's confused, Jill.


----------



## MinisOutWest (Jul 22, 2008)

took my thoughts off after I thought about it, but left the last part up....

please do not yell at me, cause I just had to get that off my mind. but no matter what kind of horse it is. I still like my minis because when it comes to cleaning stalls, their little piles are fun to clean, I do not need to hire a front end loader and dump truck to clean their stalls. ha ha. Cause I did have to clean these HUGE piles when the ponies and barrel horses decided to unload right in front of my stalls... ha ha ha


----------



## bingo (Jul 22, 2008)

I guess my own confusion with this topic is what is a mini? You can still hardship into AMHA so in reality with all the hardshipping in both registries it is simply put a pony under 38 inches or under 34 inches.

Breed means nothing. Be it Arab, Hackney, Shire, whatever if it is under 38 inches it is a mini and has every right to show in the ring and win doesnt it?


----------



## Jill (Jul 22, 2008)

bingo said:


> if it is under 38 inches it is a mini and has every right to show in the ring and win doesnt it?


That's my perspective as well


----------



## shelia (Jul 22, 2008)

Jill said:


> bingo said:
> 
> 
> > if it is under 38 inches it is a mini and has every right to show in the ring and win doesnt it?
> ...


Mine too!


----------



## Irish Hills Farm (Jul 22, 2008)

IMPO this thread IS about measuring miniatures / ponies due to an incident that happened at a show this weekend.

I personally feel that it is the JOB of the SHOW STEWARD to look for that LAST HAIR OF THE MANE and measure at that point. NOT at the end of the "trail" the owner left halfway down the mini / ponies back.

I also feel if a horse / pony can be measured in legitimately under 38", be it a quarter horse, arab, hackney, whatever, I say let it in.


----------



## Lisa Strass (Jul 22, 2008)

TrailersOutWest/MinisOutWest said:


> I usually try not to comment on this type of topic. Because I believe a mini is a mini and pony is a pony. but this is what I and others saw at the Area 6 show . There were old style stocky minis, the newer slimmer minis, the shetlands galore being shown and winning in the mini classes. Actually the owner of one of these shrimpy shetlands came up to me and said, 'isn't she gorgeous and she can get in as a mini now.' my rude comment back to him, which really ticked him off was- " well, if she's a shetland, then she should be in the shetland class no matter how tall she is." ooppss he did stomp off. And then what I thought to top it off, here come the hackneys in the shetland classes and then a shrimpy hackney was in a mini class and WON. yuck, yuck, yuck. so what could get worse than that, right. Well, here it goes- I swear I saw a very little 1/2 arabian being shown in the pony classes. it blew me away along with 5 other people, we all saw this horse separately at different times and later that day when we all sat down to think about what we saw that day, we all about fell out of ours seats when one of us mentioned the same arab horse, we just thought we were over reacting, but realized that is what we saw. So the next morning, we sat as a group at my stalls and started looking out for this arab, there it was agin. and it won.
> 
> dont get me wrong, i know people are going to start screaming, where do you think the mini came from. I know, I know. but lets leave the minis alone and not bring the stylier shetlands into the minis and especially keep out the hackneys and now the arabs.
> 
> please do not yell at me, cause I just had to get that off my mind. but no matter what kind of horse it is. I still like my minis because when it comes to cleaning stalls, their little piles are fun to clean, I do not need to hire a front end loader and dump truck to clean their stalls. ha ha. Cause I did have to clean these HUGE piles when the ponies decided to unload right in front of my stalls... ha ha ha


Would you like my "newer slimmer mini" more if I threw away (denied) his/her Shetland papers? You can tell me all day that my small Shetlands should be shown as such... because they are.




All of the Shetlands that we show as Minis have also been shown as Shetlands. We have a mare that we took to Congress and Nationals last year, and she's going to both again this year.

A lot of horses are double registered Pinto and AMHR, and we don't tell their owners to pick one or the other. A lot of 34" and under horses are registered AMHA and AMHR, and we don't tell them to pick one organization either.

I think I know the "1/2 Arab" you're talking about, and it's not half-Arab. It IS a VERY nice Classic Shetland. I'd love to have this horse in Mini size!


----------



## Leeana (Jul 22, 2008)

Jill said:


> bingo said:
> 
> 
> > if it is under 38 inches it is a mini and has every right to show in the ring and win doesnt it?
> ...


Yes exactly, the standard of perfection is fine just how it is. Lori, there are people that do not and will not like the same type or style of horse as you do ....why do you feel that we should be "pushed" out of the breed? Another issue, the judges do not see registration papers when you walk your horse into the ring ...when you have a horse in the miniature ring ...it does not matter if its AMHA/AMHR or AMHR/ASPC....its a MINIATURE no matter what the other set of papers say (of course, if its under that 38" height mark legally.

You want a standard of perfection?






There. 19 consecutive local Grands (18 different judges), 2 Area Grands, and a National Grand that was Unanimous all the way through, plus Halter Horse of the Year and a few All-Star Titles thrown in for good measure. All in a package that is WELL UNDER 38”.


----------



## Erica (Jul 22, 2008)

Lisa you quoted it before I did, as I went back and it was deleted, but I also know this horse she's talking about.......or I'm 99% sure I do, as I know I'm thinking about the same one you are and he is VERY NICE........and he's not a arab, but an awesome classic stallion that's pretty small too.

What I don't get is no one is pushing anyone else to breed something they personally don't like....don't want to go a certain route, don't?

I personally see no reason not to introduce a horse (or horses) that can help the gene pool and create a better horse down the road.....it's called evolution of the breed. I personally am very happy to see how far the miniature horses have came in the last 10 years....

and I guess people who maybe don't like what's winning in the show ring, they have just as much right to get their judges card as anyone......but I personally see several different types of horses winning at the shows we attend, not just a single one.....


----------



## strass (Jul 22, 2008)

> You want a standard of perfection?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you Leeana. I couldn't have hoped for anything nicer if I had written it myself.


----------



## Irish Hills Farm (Jul 22, 2008)

strass said:


> Thank you Leeana. I couldn't have hoped for anything nicer if I had written it myself.








Mike you crack me up.


----------



## Minimor (Jul 22, 2008)

This is the best thread we've had on here in ages, if you ask me--which of course no one ever does.





This thread at least has clarified that the only thing anyone can agree on (supposedly) is the height rule, yet that’s the one rule that doesn’t get enforced.





I haven't seen anyone--even MiLo Minis--disputing the fact that it's a case of to each his own. Each & every one of us breeds/buys for what we like, and it's nice if each & every one of us can be accepting of the fact that what we like may not be what everyone else likes, and it may not be what is winning in the ring. What I am curious about now, though, is this.

How far are you willing to go with this 'to each his own' idea? Those of you who like the Modern Shetland/Hackney look--are you willing to sacrifice the height rule for the sake of getting more Modern Shetlands into AMHR? Are you okay with others hardshipping in ponies that measure an honest 42 or 43 inches when measured like a mini? Would YOU hardship in such a pony if you can find a steward that will measure that pony in? Or will you stick to the rules but be happy to look the other way when "the other guy" hardships in that 43" mini and then shows it in the 36"-38" class? Or will you actually compliment that other guy on his lovely pony and tell him what an asset that pony is to the Mini world, in spite of the fact that it's 5" over the height limit for Minis? Or do you just stick your head in the sand and tell yourself (or maybe you honestly believe this and don't have to stick your head in the sand?!) that every Mini in AMHR is really 38" or smaller and you don't believe there are any that really measure over that?

I think one topic leads into another here--in fact I sort of led this thread that way with my earlier post!--because from what I have seen there would be a lot fewer Modern Shetland type Minis now if the height rule were strictly enforced.

There are probably a few small Moderns out there, but I'd think that they're very few in number yet just because anything with Hackney pony in it is usually taller. So, by enforcing the height rule, the vast majority of the Moderns will be eliminated from AMHR, at least at this time. And that actually brings us back to MiLo Minis original post! Does "your" standard of perfection include losing sight of the height limit???



> if it is under 38 inches it is a mini and has every right to show in the ring and win doesnt it?


No one has said it didn't! But....if it isn't under 38" are you still happy to have it out in the ring, winning or not?? When that over 38" pony beats your honest to goodness 36" Mini, or your 37" Mini or whatever, will you go to the handler of that other pony and say "CONGRATULATIONS, you DESERVED to win!"??
And no, none of what I have said here is sour grapes. At the shows I attend we don't have any Shetlands showing as Minis. (well, that's not strictly true, this year there was one Shetland filly....and she was shown in the under division, measured in honestly too I am certain) Here there is absolutely nothing to complain about in terms of too-tall horses being measured in. I'd be the last one that could complain about tall horses, because I probably have some of the tallest Minis in this area--and they still measure in just fine without having to be stretched or have their backs pushed down.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 22, 2008)

I think everyone agrees that pretty much the "standard of perfection" is breeding for a conformationally correct horse that stays 38" & under (AMHR).

Anyone can pick at what style they want too breed for, what size, and what tempermant.

I think the biggest problem we have in both registeries is when it comes to measuring our horses. We are a height registry, no question about it, we need to get these height right.

Also perhaps stop getting dwarfs registered into AMHR.



We do have pics now.


----------



## mininik (Jul 22, 2008)

"No one has said it didn't! But....if it isn't under 38" are you still happy to have it out in the ring, winning or not?? When that over 38" pony beats your honest to goodness 36" Mini, or your 37" Mini or whatever, will you go to the handler of that other pony and say "CONGRATULATIONS, you DESERVED to win!"??" Minimor

What a victim's stance. PROTEST!


----------



## The Simple Life Farm (Jul 22, 2008)

I really think this thread has stepped on a few toes, or stomped on them.

But for MY educational purpose, I am still confused as to how a Shetland can be registered as a mini, but not the reverse. If a horse does have shetland parents, then it is a shetland, right? *Am I to understand that the * *miniature horse is NOT a breed, but only a height horse*? Cause I would think if any 'Breed" of horse, as long as it is 38" and under, it can be registered AMHR. So does this mean a shetland, POA, Hackney, etc can be registered in AMHR? Seriously, this is something I honestly do not understand. Does this same thing apply to AMHA, as long as it is 34"? Someone explain this, maybe this would help others understand.

Has the mini not been set as a "breed" yet?

I do understand that AMHR is a height registry. So if this is the case, and all 38" horses are allowed to be registed, should we split them like the shetlands? That would make sense to me. Maybe it would make everyone happy.

Example: Schnauzer dogs have 3 different sizes...

Miniature Schnauzer

Standard Schnauzer

Giant Schnauzer

They are all basically the same, but are considered different "Breeds". I guess this is why I am so confused. Granted I am not a big dog breeder, but how could you register a Standard Schnauzer if one parent is Giant and the other is Standard?

HELP........


----------



## Minimor (Jul 22, 2008)

Yes of course mininik--and I would protest it. Many won't though, for whatever reason. And that's what I wondered--are most okay with this practice? are people afraid to protest? And how do these oversize ponies get measured in anyway? Like I said, when it's a half inch over, that can be accounted for by all sorts of factors--a tense horse, a different farrier/different hoof length--but when it's INCHES.

Should not a steward be held accountable for measuring in a horse that is in reality INCHES over the 38" limit??


----------



## Irish Hills Farm (Jul 22, 2008)

JMS Miniatures said:


> Also perhaps stop getting dwarfs registered into AMHR.
> 
> 
> 
> We do have pics now.



Jamie, IMO the thing with the dwarfs being registered, I think the registeries would be setting themselves up for a lawsuit for determining a horse to be a dwarf. The world is sue happy and someone would in a heart beat scream their mini isn't a dwarf, that the registry is slandering their name, name of their horses, etc, and file a complaint with the closest lawyer in a NY minute. I don't see why a breeder would want to register a dwarf anyway but to each their own.

Now if the horse has dwarf characteristics, that would be open to debate as it has been seen here several times, as to just what characteristics there are and how severe those characteristics are. The best we can do as breeders is to educate ourselves and when it comes to buying, selling, breeding, be selective in your stock, do your homework, and hope for the best.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 22, 2008)

To get a pony registered into ASPC it MUST have 2 ASPC REGISTERED parents. The ASPC pony is a breed registry.

AMHR and AMHA right now are both considered height registeries. Neither one will become a breed registry until both registeries have closed. Now AMHA has decided to officially close their registry in the next 5 years so this years current foals and older horses are still eligible to be hardshipped into AMHA, but next years foals are not. BTW the horse must be 5 years of age to be eligible for AMHA hardship registration, but any horse can be eligible for AMHA hardship registration as long as they meet the confirmation requirements and they are under 34".

AMHR in a way has closed there books too some but not to others. AMHR still accepts horses from AMHA, ASPC, and the Fabella registry. As long as they are under 38" then they are eligible for registration and they MUST be registered in one of those registeries.

AMHR does have 2 divisions, the under (A) division 34" and under and the over (B) division 34"-38".



Irish Hills Farm said:


> JMS Miniatures said:
> 
> 
> > Also perhaps stop getting dwarfs registered into AMHR.
> ...


You are right Sheyrl unfortuantly that is the case



Some of these pictures I have seen from the horsestudbook.com just makes me go crazy at some of them but no one can do anything about it.


----------



## OhHorsePee (Jul 22, 2008)

I love the sleek look of a classic! As long as they measure honestly into the class I don't have a problem. Now as for the measuring. I think, and someone else I know expressed this to me, that the buttock of the horse/pony being measured should be placed flat against a wall. That way there is no stretching allowed. ALSO I think the cheater hairs should be made to be taken off. I have seen them in such a long strip it was pathetic and understood how some got in under the line.


----------



## mininik (Jul 22, 2008)

The Simple Life Farm -

Toy, Miniature and Standard Poodles are all one breed based on bloodlines. If a Toy measures over 10", it is a Miniature up to 15". Anything over 15" is a Standard.

Miniature, Standard and Giant Schnauzers are all separate breeds based on bloodlines. If they are over or under height they are faulted or disqualified in the ring, but not eliminated from registration, nor are they are free to cross with similarly sized Schnauzers (ex. over-sized Miniature to Standard, etc.).

Shetland Ponies are a breed based on bloodlines. Miniature Horses are purely a height breed, with no bloodline requirements.

"Now as for the measuring. I think, and someone else I know expressed this to me, that the buttock of the horse/pony being measured should be placed flat against a wall. That way there is no stretching allowed." OhHorsePee

What about the horses this would effect that are naturally camped out?





"Should not a steward be held accountable for measuring in a horse that is in reality INCHES over the 38" limit??" Minimor

There's a thought, but then shouldn't the exhibitors be held accountable for not protesting a horse that they "know" to be over height?


----------



## Minimor (Jul 22, 2008)

> There's a thought, but then shouldn't the exhibitors be held accountable for protesting a horse that they "know" to be over height?


How do you mean? In what way would "I" be accountable for protesting someone else's horse? It's silly to say that the onus should be on fellow exhibitors to protest any horse(s) that they know to be oversize. So, just let everything in & let exhibitors police the height limit? There's a bad idea, just because it would be an incredible waste of time to have to keep stopping the show and doing the protest measuring! Besides, is it still the rule that you can only protest if you have a horse showing in the same class as the horse you want to protest? That rule can seriously limit the potential protests in some classes.
If you're meaning there should be some penalty for a person who protests because they think they "know" the horse is over 38" and in reality the horse is not oversized....well then the protester is out his $100--and I believe it's enough of a penalty that it will stop most people from making protests just to harass someone.

If a steward measures in a horse for its AMHR papers and then however much later that horse is protested and found to be 43", I believe that steward that originally measured the horse for AMHR registration should be fined, or lose his card--as should the judge that witnessed it. Have there be a 1/2 inch or even a 1 inch "grace", but if the horse is found to be 2" or 3" or more over 38",

bye bye steward's card. For that matter, if a steward at a show measures in a horse--whether he allows stretching, pushing down on the back, long hair left to the lowest point of the back to make a "fake" last mane hair--and if that horse is then protested and measures over, that steward ought to be fined as well.

If the possibility of a fine and/or losing his card isn't enough to convince a steward to be accurate at measuring, then perhaps it would help to have AMHR officials back him up, so that he feels less pressured to give in to the exhibitors' wishes and demands. A steward might be afraid of being sued if he measures a horse honestly & takes away its papers for being over. AMHR needs to stand behind that steward. If the steward is doing his job and is upholding the rules of AMHR, then if a horse owner wants to take on that steward, the horse owner should also have to take on AMHR. Right now, I don't think it works that way.


----------



## OhHorsePee (Jul 22, 2008)

What if an individual not affiliated with AMHR/ASPC is brought in to do the Nationals/Congress measuring? That way it is taken off of the stewards back. Could you imagine what that job has to be like? Shewy! I could see where it would not be an easy position for them at all!


----------



## midnight star stables (Jul 22, 2008)

mininik said:


> "We too have been striving for "the smallest example of the perfect full sized horse" and if I were to be asked for the "look" I would say "Arabian" as well.
> 
> I have to say I love the movement of the hackney and wouldn't mind that action in the little horses on our farm." Genie
> 
> You could always breed for Arabian type Miniatures like these:



I'm going to step in here for Milo. Now given that they may be shod differently, there are Mordern shetlands showing as miniatures.. Weather they are 38" or not.

Again I love miniature and shetlands and I feel a mixture of the two is nice. I'd preffer that the AMHR/ASPC horses were under 38" but even if they are not, crossed with smaller horses, they Will better our breed - in time.

BTW



Minimor and Leeana!


----------



## mininik (Jul 22, 2008)

Minimor, please see where I edited my post to say "not protesting" before you posted. I'm sorry you had to waste time replying to something that wasn't what I meant. Sometimes my laptop likes to eat important little words like that.


----------



## Minimor (Jul 22, 2008)

Ah, that makes more sense that way!

I'd agree that if an exhibitor doesn't protest a horse that he knows is over 38" then he shouldn't complain about that horse being shown. But, I maintain that the stewards should do their best to measure accurately and honestly and not give into pressure from owners to do otherwise! and there should be repercussions for them if they do cave in and go along with the demands of owners who don't want an honest measurement.


----------



## shelly (Jul 22, 2008)

Birchcrestminis said:


> I think the question was what is YOUR standard of perfection.
> 
> Just asking people what their vision of the perfect miniature
> 
> ...



DITTO-DITTO-DITTO












HE IS FINE!!!


----------



## Matt73 (Jul 22, 2008)

shelia said:


> Jill said:
> 
> 
> > bingo said:
> ...



I understand what MiloMinis is saying. But, I agree; the only breed standard for a mini, unfortunately, is that it be 38" and under; there are no inspections etc. as there are for other breeds ie. Hanoverian, Dutch Warmblood etc.


----------



## dreaminmini (Jul 22, 2008)

This is actually an interesting thread. Thank you Milo! I enjoyed reading others opinions and as I am new to miniatures it gave me food for thought and I try to learn something...

I realize and believe that everyone is free to breed their type of miniature "horse", but I think what is trying to be said is "Horse" is the operative word. As in AMHR and AMHA unless I am mistaken have as their standard use the word "Horse" not "Pony". If we start bringing in pony blood such as Hackney and Modern Shetland then we are now essentially breeding miniature ponies and that is a whole other conformation standard. The other problem as was mentioned is the height restrictions and those being allowed to compete and win when they don't fall under the 38" measurement. When a horse is measures over it is considered a pony and should be shown in it's respective division. I also believe it to be correct when a pony goes over it's height restriction it can no longer show in it's respective division.

Do we maybe need an extra division that is a miniature pony and therefore we can cross in the Hackney and the moderns? This would allow people who like the higher movement their choice and they could have a higher height restriction going up to 42" or 44". Therefore allowing the miniature horse to maintain it's integrity as a horse whatever the "horse" body style it may be and allowing for form and function.

There could also be some crossover classes that allows both to compete together, obstacle came first to mind.

It is not my intention to say that anyone should or shouldn't belong, but maybe we should think of the miniature horse as a breed and what could become of it years down the road if steps aren't taken to protect it for what it is. What about the rights as a buyer for me to choose what type I like and want to buy. If I want a miniature horse that's what I want not a miniature hackney or miniature modern shetland. But there are those who want that and probably could care less it it was called a miniature horse, miniature pony or miniature hackney.

I have nothing against any of these breeds and am only using them as examples as they have already been mentioned previously. There is no disrespect intended. I love and find beauty in all horses. But the beauty is also in their differences and I also love them for that.


----------



## shelia (Jul 22, 2008)

I would like to see the day come when the miniature horse develops separate breeds within it. There are many breeds of large horses. Why can't miniatures also have have many breeds. I believe miniature refers to the size only, not the style.


----------



## JWC sr. (Jul 22, 2008)

Actually all of you are wrong and I am the only one that is right! LOL Just kidding. I am enjoying all these different points of view. Thanks everyone!!!



OH!


----------



## nootka (Jul 23, 2008)

Personally, I pursue the best possible proportion.

Even if I might like the "Arabian look" I have a LONG way to go until I find one in any size other THAN an Arabian, that comes anywhere near the look.

For example, the "dishy" face that is attributed to Arabian ends up coming off as "odd" when the proportions are off. Leg length to back and neck length are often the first giveaway when I see a photo of a Miniature horse. Add to that the density of bone proportionate to those and you have a horse that needs a lot of careful breeding management to attain the goals set out: "smallest horse in miniature" to me reads that we are looking for a horse, only smaller, not necessarily squashed to fit the measuring standard.

Even if I found a perfect "QH" in miniature, I would grab it up if only for the proportions, because any horse with proper conformation and excellence in proportion, is worth breeding for.

The height thing is really beside the point.

If that Hackney looking mini was better proportioned (highly likely) and had less conformation fault than another "mini looking mini" then they deserved to win the class. Period.

L.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 23, 2008)

If we can't achieve a more defined breed standard for Miniatures can we come up with suggestions on how to help enforce the measurements of hardshipped horses? Some suggestions of my own and ones given to me by others:

A stiff fine and/or suspension/removal of the offending stewards license.

Suspension of offending owner's membership.

Fine for owner of oversized horse.

Remeasurement of all of the offender's show horses with further penalties assessed if justified.

These penalties would be incurred by horses measuring say 2 or 3 inches or more over the 38" limit so as to avoid penalizing either steward or owner who innocently measures inaccurately as there are many ways a measurement could be off by an inch or so either way but when you get up to 2 or 3" you know darned well there has been something hinky going on.

Perhaps a blood sample could be drawn at the time of the measurement by a licensed veterinarian for drug testing and he/she could then witness the measurement - if you are already paying for his time you might as well get something out of it.

A photo taken of the horse with the stick on it to show its stance when being measured.

Anyone else have any ideas?



nootka said:


> Personally, I pursue the best possible proportion.
> 
> Even if I might like the "Arabian look" I have a LONG way to go until I find one in any size other THAN an Arabian, that comes anywhere near the look.
> 
> ...


----------



## Miniv (Jul 23, 2008)

I LOVE so many TYPES for so many different reasons!

Frankly it's silly to argue over the different "types". It's like arguing over Apples and Oranges......or if you don't like oranges, then Grapes and Pears!!!





Our "B" Minis and Miniature Shetlands happen to look a bit like the Arab "type", but with some substance. The modern Arabs have lost some of their bone, IMO. We also happen to own a full sized Arab.

Our "A" Minis are more medium boned and remind me of another full sized horse we also own, which happens to be a Morgan/Arab cross!

Here's a Test......Take your "perfect" A or B sized miniature horse......no matter WHAT SIZE and place them in a backdrop where you can't tell their height. It needs to be a side shot. Then, look at the length of leg, the slope of the shoulder, the hip, tail set........how the neck comes out of the chest........the triangle and shape of the face/head. If everything looks balanced and it's as if the horse is FULL SIZED......That horse has PASSED.


----------



## susanne (Jul 23, 2008)

I'm a bit confused by different folks' perceptions of ponies and horses and how different minis compare.

In my opinion, more Classic Shetlands look like the proverbial "horse in miniature" than do most AMHA and AMHR horses. The minis who best fit that description are (again in my opinion) those that are double registered or the tall Bs that look like American Shetlands.

I love all the different types of minis, so I'm NOT maligning any size or type so long as they are well-conformed or criticizing anyone's preference. We have quite a variety in our little herd of four.


----------



## Minimor (Jul 23, 2008)

> If that Hackney looking mini was better proportioned (highly likely) and had less conformation fault than another "mini looking mini" then they deserved to win the class. Period.


That statement should be qualified. If the Hackney looking mini is an honest under 38" then yes, I will agree with you. But, if we are talking about a Hackney looking mini (or anything-looking mini--whether it looks like a QH, an Arab, a Morgan or whatever) that is 2 or 3 or 5 or 6 inches over the 38" height then no, it should not win over anything. Any horse that is over 38" should be turfed out of the class (out of the entire show actually) no matter how nice it is.
If height doesn't matter then we should do away with measuring. Make it a real breed, so that any horse with two registered parents is automatically a Miniature, hardship in any and all the Shetlands you want and then show any and all of them, no matter what size they are.

Otherwise, I like MiLo's list of suggestions. Perhaps it's time to draft a proposal to change/add some rules?


----------



## shelia (Jul 23, 2008)

I know the original question was about AMHR and didn't say anything about oversize horses, but since the subject has come up I would just like to add this.

I was just reading on the AMHA website and it says all measuring may be videotaped. (then goes on to explain how the measuring is to be done). I don't know if it has always said that or not, but that is a very good idea.

I haven't been to an AMHR show in a while. I am shocked that someone said there would be horse 4 or 5 inches too tall!! I am just as shocked that everybody didn't contest it! If there is no doubt in your mind that the horse is too tall then do something! When people see this does anybody do anything about it?

At AMHA shows I have seen horses that I thought were taller and watched them being measured and they were not. Some horses just seem taller to me than they really are. There was no touching or stretching, just honest measurement.

If I were in a class and lost to a horse that was clearly too tall to be there you bet I would say something! Maybe everybody is worried about being called a sore loser. You say they don't enforce the rules but you also have a responsibility to do something if you see this. Everybody just seems to keep leaving it up to someone else, so nobody does anything.


----------



## Genie (Jul 23, 2008)

Miniv said:


> Frankly it's silly to argue over the different "types". It's like arguing over Apples and Oranges......or if you don't like oranges, then Grapes and Pears!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the above post. These are my thoughts as well and I could not put it into words.

On the side topic of "oversize horses" competing, my view is that it's sad they want to win so much, or need the prize money so badly.

When I show for ribbons and prize money, (I have never shown for points)there have been odd occassions I have observed an obvious over size horse.

I have also been told of competitors bringing in horses to competition I did not attend, that were too tall.

Everyone that's been around a while can see the obvious ones that are too tall and the mini horse community just tends to talk about the breeder to everyone that will listen, and who needs that "word of mouth".

In fact one lady brought a horse that I actually sold to her because it was over 34", and she put her in an "A" sized class at the local fair.

In these cases my feelings were "it's too bad that they need to win so badly that they would lie, and they are welcome to the ribbons, if that's what it takes"

As I always told my kids , "If you always tell the truth you don't have to remember what you said"

I tend to believe that if I was spending a lot of money to compete, entry fees along with all the other costs, I would certainly spend the additional money required to contest the measurement of an obvous offender.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 23, 2008)

Minimor said:


> > If that Hackney looking mini was better proportioned (highly likely) and had less conformation fault than another "mini looking mini" then they deserved to win the class. Period.
> 
> 
> That statement should be qualified. If the Hackney looking mini is an honest under 38" then yes, I will agree with you. But, if we are talking about a Hackney looking mini (or anything-looking mini--whether it looks like a QH, an Arab, a Morgan or whatever) that is 2 or 3 or 5 or 6 inches over the 38" height then no, it should not win over anything. Any horse that is over 38" should be turfed out of the class (out of the entire show actually) no matter how nice it is.
> ...


That is exactly where I am going with this. It does not a world of good to be one person protesting one horse. Sure it gets that horse placed where he should be but unless there is some change made to the actual rules, whether it is in the breed standard or in the penalties assessed for the ones responsible for the horse being in the ring in the first place, or both, to prevent this from happening as easily then height just plain doesn't matter and we don't have anything. I am told that this has all been discussed and considered by the board before but perhaps with our collective minds we can come up with a rule change that will, at the very least, give the judges something to work with when judging an obviously oversize pony that doesn't resemble a horse at all, some back up for the stewards that do try to do an honest job, and prevent the dishonest persons from easily getting them in. I think our breed is worth the effort to keep.


----------



## bingo (Jul 23, 2008)

I show all over the country and have for years and can honestly say I have not ever been in the ring either locally or Nationally with a horse that was 4-6 inches over or even anything close to that.


----------



## Jill (Jul 23, 2008)

Since this is apparently just another thread about measuring, I hope we are getting it out of the way NOW so we won't need the annual measuring thread that seems to always follow either the World or National shows. It has often felt like an attempt to detract from the pride some rightfully should feel at their accomplishments.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 23, 2008)

Jill said:


> Since this is apparently just another thread about measuring, I hope we are getting it out of the way NOW so we won't need the annual measuring thread that seems to always follow either the World or National shows. It has often felt like an attempt to detract from the pride some rightfully should feel at their accomplishments.


*IF* they are showing a horse that is truly 38" and under and they win a National title then they are rightfully proud and I applaud them heartily. IF they are showing a horse that is not even eligible to show at Nationals and they win I question how they can be proud of themselves?

When you shrug it off as "just another thread about measuring" it is that attitude that makes it difficult to change things. Obviously you feel we should just do away with the height limit as it is nothing really to waste your time on. In that case Jill, could you please define to me what a Miniature Horse is? I asked for a definition of your breed standard - does that mean your breed standard is over 38"? I have to say that I expected at least one person to suggest raising the height limit so they could legitimately get their oversize horse in. As it stands, from what I can see, that is the only definite standard we have to go by and we don't really even have that! Anything can step into our show ring.

I can tell you that I personally have shown against horses that were considerably over the height limit. When the horse is trained NOT to stand square how do you get an accurate measurement for showing in an AMHR show where the horses are supposed to be measured and shown stood square. One individual protesting does nothing. And don't forget that when you protest and win and the horses below move up there are some horses that don't get in their Championship class because the class has already been run and so they miss out on their rightful Championship that they could be rightfully proud of.

I am in no way trying to take away anything from someone who legitimately goes Champion. In fact I feel that the cheaters who bring in those horses that are oversize are the ones who are taking something away from our entire registry by putting doubt in people's minds about the true eligibility of the ones who do win legitimately.


----------



## bingo (Jul 23, 2008)

The issue will not be fixed unless people step up and protest. If you truly feel you are showing against a horse that is so much bigger then allowed then protest the class. If said horse is truly oversize then the issue with that horse is solved.

If you are showing against that many grossly oversize horses in your area start protesting and when papers start being lost people will think twice about showing them.


----------



## Jill (Jul 23, 2008)

Lori, I'm not going to get into an argument with you. Something must have rattled you personally -- no idea what -- but I've not seen a thing on this thread that I haven't read before, year after year. I've done a bit of showing and I've not had a problem with what you are so upset over.

But, I will say that one thing that makes me kind of laugh, year after year, is that this gets hashed out (same perspectives presented) online. If you want to change something, I think you can start by making some calls or some letters to the Registry. Start a petition... DO something, vs. an online "debate". Much as I love LB, I don't think a message board discussion, a bunch of back and forth online, will change a thing.


----------



## stormy (Jul 23, 2008)

Just a reminder, we all now have a chance to vote on issues in AMHR but YOU MUST REQUEST A BALLOT! We can all submit rule changes as well. Be heard!


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 23, 2008)

Jill said:


> Lori, I'm not going to get into an argument with you. Something must have rattled you personally -- no idea what -- but I've not seen a thing on this thread that I haven't read before, year after year. I've done a bit of showing and I've not had a problem with what you are so upset over.
> 
> But, I will say that one thing that makes me kind of laugh, year after year, is that this gets hashed out (same perspectives presented) online. If you want to change something, I think you can start by making some calls or some letters to the Registry. Start a petition... DO something, vs. an online "debate". Much as I love LB, I don't think a message board discussion, a bunch of back and forth online, will change a thing.


You must have missed where I said that a rule change proposal to the registry is where I am heading with this. I brought it here to the largest gathering of Miniature Horse people that I know of to get the opinions of as many people in our breed as possible. I too have done a 'bit' of showing and in quite a few places and this is not just happening in my area - it happens at our National Area shows and at our National show. It is becoming a trend in our industry and has been gradually progressing over the past several years. What has me, and obviously a few others, "rattled" more recently is that not only is it threatening to change our horses in height but also in looks, temperament and perception. A tiny Hackney Pony is certainly not what I have in mind when I think of a Miniature Horse and judging from the look of the vast majority of Miniature Horses, including yours Jill, it is apparently not what comes to most people's minds although it does appeal to some. Because of that we cannot rewrite our breed standard to eliminate these animals but we can ask that they adhere to our height limit and think of ways to enforce that otherwise as I have already said repeatedly - we have nothing.


----------



## Jill (Jul 23, 2008)

As long as this thread is, you can be sure I've missed some posts. You know, the eyes can kind of glaze over... Aren't there steps in place to protest when horses appear way too tall? Is it a matter of needing new rules, or a matter of people needing to put them to use?

Again, showing against 40" horses is just not something that has happened me or my horses. I'm happy with what I have, have done well, and I look to add some AMHR/ASPC blood at some point because I DO like the look I see in many of these animals.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 23, 2008)

Jill said:


> As long as this thread is, you can be sure I've missed some posts. You know, the eyes can kind of glaze over... Aren't there steps in place to protest when horses appear way too tall? Is it a matter of needing new rules, or a matter of people needing to put them to use?
> 
> Again, showing against 40" horses is just not something that has happened me or my horses. I'm happy with what I have, have done well, and I look to add some AMHR/ASPC blood at some point because I DO like the look I see in many of these animals.


You are forgiven for not having read the entire thread Jill




, it has gotten rather long.



But the fact that it has tells me that many people do care, one way or the other, about this very subject.

It would be great if everyone did take a stand, use their right to protest and then we wouldn't be having this discussion BUT a lot of people are afraid to do so because they have heard of the threats issued by persons that have had their horses protested or they don't want to be thought of as trouble makers or of having a case of "sour grapes"



I personally don't feel that way and am not afraid to stand up for my convictions and I can tell you for a fact that there are 40" and bigger horses being shown in our show rings.

I too like the look of many of the ASPC/AMHR double registered horses, preferably the Classics, there are also some I don't like the look of at all. The big thing you have to remember though is that when you bring in the "look" you also bring in the temperament.


----------



## crponies (Jul 23, 2008)

I am a little confused at how any new Hackneys could possibly be added to the registry and therefore show to start with. AMHR is closed except to AMHA (which would mean a Hackney 34" or under), ASPC (which could have some Hackney but would not be a Hackney), or Falabella (definitely not Hackney). How are these "Hackneys" getting into the registry?

Also, speaking of temperaments, I watched some of the World show online last year and saw some very hot miniatures. I don't see why you are so concerned with introducing hot temperaments when they are already there!

I do think that if the registries are going to have height limits, they need to strictly enforce this in the show ring.

Edited to add: I didn't realize that ASPR are actually able to be hardshipped into AMHR as well so that opens the door to a little more Hackney blood.


----------



## The Simple Life Farm (Jul 23, 2008)

OK>>>>>

I have a question that is concerning me.

I have read all of this thread. From what I gather, the taller horses are being placed over the smaller?

That said... I have a 29" mare that I am taking to Nationals. I was wanting to show her only in the Ammy Jr Mare class , not the open class (thinking I would not even have a chance against a trainer). In the Ammy class, it is only a 34" and under class, so I am starting to think my very correct 29" mini would not even have a chance. So does that mean I should show her in the Open 30" and under? At least she would be showing against horses more her size, even though most exhibitors may be trainers. This is a very serious concern of mine. After reading all this, I was starting to think that maybe I shouldn't ever show her again. What are your thoughts?


----------



## mininik (Jul 23, 2008)

Don't forget there are "professional Amateurs," too, who are just as awesome as the trainers.



I would show the mare in both classes if I was going to bother taking her all the way to Nationals/Worlds. You never know what the judges will see on a given day. Just because your mare is very correct, doesn't mean there won't be another mare (taller or shorter) who the judges see as more correct somehow, or as relatively equal, but your mare has a bad showing.


----------



## Erica (Jul 23, 2008)

I would show the mare in both classes as well

#1 as they are TWO different sets of judges, who may or may not have different opinions

#2 it's two different days, horses are just like people they have their bad days along with the good, since you are there show her in both, one day she may be having an "off" day as far as showing and another she may be completely "on"

#3 while the trainers will be showing in the open classes, I would venture to guess the number of horses in that class will be a lower amount than the amount in the ammy jr mares under class (last year if I remember correctly that class had 67 horses in it)

.........and that ammy jr mares class will be for horses 33" under (for the "unders" anyway) as it's for weanlings - two year old, cut off for two year olds to be "unders" is 33"


----------



## strass (Jul 23, 2008)

mininik said:


> Don't forget there are "professional Amateurs," too





Erica said:


> I would show the mare in both classes as well


???Coincidence???



Love 'ya Kiddo.



> A tiny Hackney Pony is certainly not what I have in mind when I think of a Miniature Horse


See…and it keeps coming back to this. I don't like Hackneys either (for my own personal tastes alone). However, they have every right to be here because we can’t agree to close our registry. While this is, as Jill correctly identified it "another thread about measuring" it seems obvious that there is more than measuring under the surface.

Nobody is going to argue that we should break our own height limit rule. That's a rule that we as a membership agreed on. There's not much to discuss here. It only takes one person to propose a rule change to geld any steward who blatantly breaks the rules. It’s NOT rocket science. Nevertheless, every few posts you keep mentioning Hacks and how much you dislike them.



MiLo Minis said:


> I am not on an anti Hackney crusade and I did try to make that clear in my thread


Perhaps you should try again. I agree with Jill that it seems you have some personal vendetta involved here.

HOWEVER, giving you the benefit of the doubt: Here’s an idea…Change the protesting to $50 instead of $100. (A hundred is a steep price to pay for trying to uphold the rules.) Then, allow ANY horse signed up to show in ANY division or class at ANY sanctioned show to be protested by ANYbody else who is a card carrying member of AMHR/ASPC/ASPR, while said animal in question and protesting member are still on the show grounds. (Limiting those who can protest to only those who have shown against the animal in question stops people from protesting because they don’t want to be seen as sore losers.) (That also means that you could even protest the Mini papers on a Shetland that was showing in ASPC classes.)

After thoughts:

How about if you have 3 horses that you show or own that are protested on height successfully, you lose your membership for one year.

Just to keep things fair and from getting out of hand, how about if you protest 3 in a row that you lose the protest on: You lose your membership for a year.


----------



## mininik (Jul 23, 2008)

I hope you don't think I meant any disrespect with my professional Amateur comment, strass, because I honestly didn't. In fact, not only do I wish I could still show as an Amateur, I also wish I was good enough to be considered "professional" at it.





Psst... and I really like your protest idea.


----------



## bingo (Jul 23, 2008)

strass said:


> . While this is, as Jill correctly identified it "another thread about measuring" it seems obvious that there is more than measuring under the surface.
> 
> Nobody is going to argue that we should break our own height limit rule. That's a rule that we as a membership agreed on. There's not much to discuss here. It only takes one person to propose a rule change to geld any steward who blatantly breaks the rules. It’s NOT rocket science. Nevertheless, every few posts you keep mentioning Hacks and how much you dislike them.
> 
> ...


Well there ya go you solved the whole issue in one well thought out post.


----------



## strass (Jul 23, 2008)

mininik said:


> I hope you don't think I meant any disrespect with my professional Amateur comment, strass, because I honestly didn't. In fact, not only do I wish I could still show as an Amateur, I also wish I was good enough to be considered "professional" at it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks, but I can’t claim that it’s entirely original.

No disrespect found at all. When my trainer is looking for an extra person to show a horse, she will reach across me (in full show attire with my hands open) in order to hand the lead to “random bum off the street” (in tank top and flip flops holding a bottle of booze). I’ve never been accused of being a Pro-Am. That’s a whole other issue that needs to be addressed. And the word in the rulebook “remuneration” needs to be clearly defined so that people understand that it does NOT just refer to money. This is for another discussion at another time. I’m not getting into it just yet.



bingo said:


> Well there ya go you solved the whole issue in one well thought out post.


I can’t tell if you’re making fun of me or not. Don’t make me cry in public.


----------



## Belinda (Jul 23, 2008)

> When my trainer is looking for an extra person to show a horse, she will reach across me (in full show attire with my hands open) in order to hand the lead to “random bum off the street” (in tank top and flip flops holding a bottle of booze).









Now Now,,, I could have sworn that Lisa was in full show dress, and had gotten rid of that bottle she was holding for you..








I promise next time I will grab you and let Lisa Rest...


----------



## Cedar Ridge Farm (Jul 23, 2008)

[email protected] The Simple Life Farm

I agree with Erica on this. Angelina Bobofina is a nice little mare. I would show her in both classes. You never know what the day is going to be like for you, Angie or the judge.


----------



## bingo (Jul 23, 2008)

strass said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No not making fun of you at all! You pretty much said it all and left very little to be said afterwards



I do agree with the protest changes you suggested and will be sure to vote for it if I hear the rule change at this years convention heck next years convention!


----------



## The Simple Life Farm (Jul 23, 2008)

Cedar Ridge Farm said:


> [email protected] The Simple Life Farm
> 
> I agree with Erica on this. Angelina Bobofina is a nice little mare. I would show her in both classes. You never know what the day is going to be like for you, Angie or the judge.




Awwww



Thanks Pegga Sue. That means alot to me since you know the horse.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 23, 2008)

> A tiny Hackney Pony is certainly not what I have in mind when I think of a Miniature Horse


See…and it keeps coming back to this. I don't like Hackneys either (for my own personal tastes alone). However, they have every right to be here because we can’t agree to close our registry. While this is, as Jill correctly identified it "another thread about measuring" it seems obvious that there is more than measuring under the surface.

Nobody is going to argue that we should break our own height limit rule. That's a rule that we as a membership agreed on. There's not much to discuss here. It only takes one person to propose a rule change to geld any steward who blatantly breaks the rules. It’s NOT rocket science. Nevertheless, every few posts you keep mentioning Hacks and how much you dislike them.



MiLo Minis said:


> I am not on an anti Hackney crusade and I did try to make that clear in my thread


Perhaps you should try again. I agree with Jill that it seems you have some personal vendetta involved here.

HOWEVER, giving you the benefit of the doubt: Here’s an idea…Change the protesting to $50 instead of $100. (A hundred is a steep price to pay for trying to uphold the rules.) Then, allow ANY horse signed up to show in ANY division or class at ANY sanctioned show to be protested by ANYbody else who is a card carrying member of AMHR/ASPC/ASPR, while said animal in question and protesting member are still on the show grounds. (Limiting those who can protest to only those who have shown against the animal in question stops people from protesting because they don’t want to be seen as sore losers.) (That also means that you could even protest the Mini papers on a Shetland that was showing in ASPC classes.)

After thoughts:

How about if you have 3 horses that you show or own that are protested on height successfully, you lose your membership for one year.

Just to keep things fair and from getting out of hand, how about if you protest 3 in a row that you lose the protest on: You lose your membership for a year.

Okay now hold on just a minute here, I can quote you several times in this thread saying you don't like 'em either. Am I not entitled to have my own opinion as well as you?



Why does this have to be a personal vendetta?

This is not about Hackney Ponies at all. It is just that they happen to be the type that I personally have seen being shown that are well over the height limit. I don't think you will find too many horse breeds that are anywhere close to the height limit that they could even think to get them measured in. I don't care if they are Welsh (which I adore), POA, Dartmoor or whatever breed of pony, if they are well over the height limit they should not be in our show rings. It just so happens that the only pony breed that is able to be hardshipped into our registry is the Shetland. The Classics more often come closer to or actually into our height limit and the Moderns with their Hackney blood may well do so some day too but as it stands right now there are people that are rushing things a bit and rather than breeding them down are cheating and getting them measured in illegally. That is why I suggested perhaps a rewrite of our breed standard to eliminate the ponies but after the posts here I realize there are enough in our registry that want the Hackney Pony type and so we have to look at other ways to legitimize things.

There are horrendous things being done to these ponies in order to get them measured in. IF they can't find a steward and judge that need glasses to hardship them, they chop their feet off and fill 'em full of painkillers to get them close enough. They stick needles in their backs to make them shrink! Anyone who condones these practices, by turning a blind eye to the fact that it is indeed happening, needs to wake up. Is this personal to me? YES! For the love of the horses we need to do something to prevent this from happening as much as possible. I am not so naive that I expect to be able to eliminate cheaters - I know the 'human' race too well for that



- but I do feel it is worthwhile trying if it saves at least a few.

Hey now! When you look at it that way you have to think even if I don't like the look of them I do at least care for them





I do like your suggestions but I would draw the line at punishing someone for protesting. I think the loss of their hundred bucks (and yes I think we should leave it at that much to prevent wanton protests - you do get it back when you win) is enough punishment to deter most people. When you consider how many well over the limit horses are getting in now you have to know that there will always be some stewards that would still allow for quite a bit of leeway and that would not be fair to the protester now would it?

Your constructive post is most appreciated!


----------



## gvpalominominis (Jul 24, 2008)

Good thread with a lot of issues. All I gotta say is if anyone has one of those little Hackneys that trots like a windstorm... I'll write the check today. I'd love to add that action to my breeding program! Of course, I'd breed it to one of those nice little araby heads with the long archy necks.

Its been discussed before, there probably is a need for type divisions for minis... I could have sworn someone said that one of the registries used to have that before? Heck, I'd just be happy for now if both registries would make the measuring point a "STRUCTURE OF THE HORSE" instead of a strand of hair that can fall out or be rubbed off.... but that's a whole 'nother issue that I'm not trying to bring up.

I look at all the different types of horses out there as a candy bowl. You pick out what flavor you personally like and add it to your breeding program to produce what YOU want. If we all liked the same thing... it would be a pretty boring show ring. What in the world would we have to talk about in the stands?!



I'm glad we have a choice to choose from. I've learned in the relatively short time that I've been breeding minis that sometimes you have to sacrafice certain things to gain ground in your end goal. It can set you back a bit, but I believe its worth it. I also know that sometimes your goals change. Soon we will have a closed registry and what is there is all we'll have to choose from that point on. Do what you want... but I'm going to try and take advantage while I can..... just wish I had more $$ to work with.... and more stalls.... and land... and that hay and grain wasn't so expensive........and that my barn help didn't need a day off.

There are different types out there because the miniature horse is evolving, but I'll bet you there is one thing that we can all agree on... if the horse is a beautiful horse... mini, pony or otherwise... its a beautiful horse.


----------



## Jill (Jul 24, 2008)

MiLo Minis said:


> There are horrendous things being done to these ponies in order to get them measured in. IF they can't find a steward and judge that need glasses to hardship them, they chop their feet off and fill 'em full of painkillers to get them close enough. They stick needles in their backs to make them shrink! Anyone who condones these practices, by turning a blind eye to the fact that it is indeed happening, needs to wake up. Is this personal to me? YES! For the love of the horses we need to do something to prevent this from happening as much as possible. I am not so naive that I expect to be able to eliminate cheaters - I know the 'human' race too well for that
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sure there are MANY people who have hardshipped ponies, honestly and humanely, who would take issue with what you're saying.


----------



## Leeana (Jul 24, 2008)

I believe this thread itself is starting to get silly, i agree this all has something to do with what a happening this past weekend



. We have discussed and duscussed and i have read and read the same thing over and over x10 on this thread and if the point is still not gotting threw


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 24, 2008)

Leeana said:


> I believe this thread itself is starting to get silly, i agree this all has something to do with what a happening this past weekend
> 
> 
> 
> . We have discussed and duscussed and i have read and read the same thing over and over x10 on this thread and if the point is still not gotting threw


It has more to do with what has been happening for quite some time Leeana. This isn't a new thing - people have been cheating to get oversize horses in for a long time and as nothing has really been done about it they are getting more and more blatant. I was trying to keep this as impersonal as I could, and save the girl further embarrassment, by NOT going on about last weekend but if you think you can take away from the issue by saying it is a personal thing, has to do with last weekend, etc etc. I will explain to everyone what you are talking about and perhaps it will clarify things.

I protested a huge, supposedly Foundation Shetland last weekend that was being shown stretched like a Hackney. There was absolutely nothing MINI about it. Only one of the 3 judges requested her to square her horse up, which she couldn't. This isn't the first show I have seen a Shetland of that size showing and, from the sound of things here on the forum, won't be the last. I got my money back - the horse measured well over the limit. A large number of people congratulated me and suggested I use my money to protest her other horses as well. Now if this number of people KNEW her horses were oversize why was no one else protesting them? I was told that her under colt was over and they knew that personally because he/she had measured him themself and yet, there he was out in the show ring as an A on that very day. I was told that she was so worried I would protest her mare that she was going to trim her tight before she went in the ring. As both a farrier and a horse lover this upsets me - why should the horse suffer for a piece of satin? I was also threatened and cursed at for my efforts. I have read time and time again on the forum about measuring problems and I have experienced my fair share of stewards that are somewhat lackadaisical about their duties. If my horse is measured and I am told they are too big then they are too big and they don't show. I have since last weekend been flooded with emails telling me of all kinds of wicked things done to horses to get them in. Is this a personal vendetta? Certainly not against any one person but yes I suppose it could be considered a vendetta against all cheaters that torture their horses to win a piece of satin.

You all should also know that I have shown against hundreds of Shetlands that DIDN'T measure over or not by too far at least



and have never protested any of them before but there are lines that just shouldn't be crossed.

I would like to make a change in our rules that will help and wanted to hear opinions from others as to what might work. Making it "just another measuring thread" would have gotten the reaction it has here anyway, tackling it from another angle seemed the thing to do. I have gotten some very constructive suggestions from several of the people that have replied so it was worth it to me.



Thank you!!!


----------



## bingo (Jul 24, 2008)

well I would like to know how you are so sure you have shown under hundreds of shetlands that were only a little bit over as you claim? Have you measured them all? Some of them may have actual withers allowing a taller horse to honestly compete?

Are you saying the horse this weekend was over 6 inches out of class as implied in a earlier thread by you?

There is no rule that says horses can not stand stretched only that a judge *may* ask you to square. You can show your horse to your best advantage and Hackneys surely are not the only horses that show stretched.

Either way the bottom line is there is rules in place for this type of thing. If people choose to not feel passionate enough about it to actually use the rules in place that is not the registries responsibility. How would making new or more rules help if people don't use the ones we currently have?


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 24, 2008)

bingo said:


> well I would like to know how you are so sure you have shown under hundreds of shetlands that were only a little bit over as you claim? Have you measured them all? Some of them may have actual withers allowing a taller horse to honestly compete?
> 
> Are you saying the horse this weekend was over 6 inches out of class as implied in a earlier thread by you?
> 
> ...


See now I have another idea for how to attack this thing - perhaps it should be worded that "Miniatures should be shown stood square. The judge at his or her discretion may ask to have the horse stand square, which means that all 4 feet are flat on the ground and at least one front and one rear cannon bone perpendicular to the ground." That last bit would be for the people that just don't get that we are not showing Shetlands or Hackneys. As it is now written it is only PREFERRED that the horse be stood square.

Obviously the rules as they are now written allow for people to use these kind of cruelties to cheat. I do feel that it is the registries responsibility to do as much as possible to prevent cheating as I am sure they do too otherwise why do we bother to have stewards at our shows as DEMANDED by the registry? Think of the money shows could save by not bothering with a steward to uphold the rules.


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 24, 2008)

Wow! Clearly what I have seen is that everyone has their 'favorite' type of miniature. I have 3 left and they are the old standard that were winning 10-11 years ago. They are B sized.

I do ponies now for show. So I show Classic, Modern Pleasure and ASPR.

What I will say is I have a pony, yes she is a pony, that will size around 35" and she is a high neck, nice Modern Pleasure type head, and high stepped little girl. She is 18 months old. I doubt I see 38" on her.

Will I double register her? If she stays 38" and under, why not?

I do want to address the 42" got measured in as 38". At most - a shetland can measure about 1-1/2" shorter by the AMHR measuring standards, but 42-38 is 4 inches. That would be hard to measure in. A 42" pony now becomes a 38" AMHR? I don't think so.

So yes I agree with the comments, if a steward measured in a 42" to 38" to get AMHR papers- I would have their vision checked first. Second, I would question it. Third I would think about pulling the stewards card. I would do the same for a judge.

With that said - I do not see any issue with an ASPC pony that correctly measures in getting their AMHR papers, nor do I see any issues in a 38" miniature getting their ASPC papers, or ASPR papers. (Yes you can register if under 46").

And by the way - I love my big quarter horse butted miniature, she isn't refined, she is an older type miniature, but I still love her and she drives just fine.

Form to Function is the name of the game.

What will the miniature world do??? I have wondered myself - split into the different types as the ASPC has done? For the survival of the AMHR registry - I am thinking we will see it evolving that way. And I am not opposed to that, maybe my nice little QH looking miniature would have a shot again in the show ring????


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 24, 2008)

It all comes down to our stewards measuring in our horses and following the rules. Not saying all stewards don't there are some terrific stewards out there.

Lets review what the rulebook says when it comes to measuring a miniature horse. The animal must be standing squarely on all four feet and should not be permitted to stretch. The front legs should be on a vertical line directly under the shoulder. The back of the hocks should be in a vertical line with the animal's buttocks. The head is to be in a normal position. Stewards measure the vertical distance from the base of the last hair on the mane to the measuring surface. The crosspice, arm or bar must have firm contact with the animal but no additional pressure may be applied. Measurments are to be recorded to the nearest 1/4" unless over the required measurement for that division.

If you do not like the measurment of your horse you have 2 other tries. You can even get your horses feet trimmed but you cannot make it lame.

I don't see why we can get so many bad measurments if the rules are followed exactly what it says in the rulebook?

Also for these shetlands to be eligible for AMHR hardship registration they must go thru an ASPC/AMHR Steward and Judge, same goes with FMHA.


----------



## bingo (Jul 24, 2008)

Why on earth should we have to show our horses the way you see fit Milo Minis?

Not every horse looks at it's best square.

Bottom line is simple if you feel you are showing and losing to a horse due to it being oversize protest. If hundreds of horses are being shown oversize then simply follow the procedures available to you and protest it.

I can say that you can not always tell just by looking at a horse.

I have 2 minis that are large one is a bit more hefty build with a head many call a modern pleasure head I simply call it a horsey head. That horse is is a true 38.00 I have another horse who is more refined and leggy as well as more upheaded with a longer length of neck. He also has a visable wither and for the record is not close up Shetland bred. Everyone is sure he is bigger then the first horse. In fact they are sure he is the one who for sure is over 38.00. The fact is he has been measured by several stewards, trainers and breeders and he is 37.00 inches.

His look and body type give him the appearance of being taller even standing next to a horse who is truly taller then he is. I am sure there are people out there who will tell you they lost to a oversize horse if they showed in his class with him and I can tell you I am equally sure they are incorrect.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 24, 2008)

JMS Miniatures said:


> It all comes down to our stewards measuring in our horses and following the rules. Not saying all stewards don't there are some terrific stewards out there.
> 
> Lets review what the rulebook says when it comes to measuring a miniature horse. The animal must be standing squarely on all four feet and should not be permitted to stretch. The front legs should be on a vertical line directly under the shoulder. The back of the hocks should be in a vertical line with the animal's buttocks. The head is to be in a normal position. Stewards measure the vertical distance from the base of the last hair on the mane to the measuring surface. The crosspice, arm or bar must have firm contact with the animal but no additional pressure may be applied. Measurments are to be recorded to the nearest 1/4" unless over the required measurement for that division.
> 
> ...


Apparently some perpendiculars are straighter up and down then others JMS!




Actually it doesn't say you can't make the horse lame - what it says is that "the horse must not be lame when brought back for re-measurement". Any horse with enough drugs in it won't show lameness will it?! Sometimes it is with the help of a steward and sometimes the steward is not to blame.


----------



## RockRiverTiff (Jul 24, 2008)

Well, in MiLo Minis' defense, this is from Part 11 of the Miniature section of the AMHR Rulebook:



> B. The Miniature Horse is to be shown to its bestadvantage. It is preferred that the horse stand square.
> 
> The Judge at his or her discretion may ask to have the
> 
> ...


So while you can park your horse out in a mini class if you want, the rulebook does give clear preference to a horse that meets the standard of perfection when squared.

I've been following this thread for a while and don't have much to add that hasn't already been said, but I have to say I am glad "this weekend's" events were finally posted as it gives me a much clearer understanding of MiLo Minis' zealous sense of conviction on the subject. Good for you for putting your money where your mouth is. I'm sure you'll experience backlash, but at least we know the protest system works. I'd like to see something like Strass mentioned put into action, but I DO think protesters that are _repeatedly_ wrong should also face punishment--otherwise you'll have people protesting every horse they consider competition hoping to eke them out by a 1/2". To me, that would be just as much an abuse of the rules (and staff) as the people with oversize horses.

On the original topic, I think minis as a whole in AMHR specifically are changing too quickly right now to set a standard. First, it presumes that we know where the breed is headed enough to limit it, and second it disregards the many breeders that are not taking their programs in that direction but that ARE breeding for quality. I say if you have a mini that's awesome but not what's "en vogue" show it anyway--that's how you start a trend.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 24, 2008)

bingo said:


> Why on earth should we have to show our horses the way you see fit Milo Minis?
> 
> Not every horse looks at it's best square.
> 
> ...


If you reread what I wrote you will see that it says "should" be shown square not MUST. This leaves the door open to stretching your horse enough to make him look good but makes it a little more clear, than saying "is preferred", possibly? Still when you consider that he is absolutely required to stand square for measuring we shouldn't have to go that route should we?

I am in the same boat. I have a 35 1/4" stallion that is always being remeasured because they can't believe he isn't bigger than he actually is



I have had quite a few Miniatures as well as other horses large and small and I know where their back comes to on me and how tall they are. I also know the heights of a lot of the other horses in the show rings where we show. It isn't that difficult to guesstimate the height of a horse and I am relatively accurate. As I said I have never protested until the horse in the ring with me was grossly oversized.

I am not sure what your point is. I did what you said and protested as was my right and, basically, duty. I am asking how we can prevent these oversized ponies from being in the ring in the first place. If they win illegally and are protested there are horses that placed under them that have missed out on their Champion class because of it. Wouldn't it be better for all of us if they were never there?

Thanks RockRiverTiff!


----------



## shelia (Jul 24, 2008)

I say good for you Lori!



You have taken the first step to stop this sort of thing! Hopefully this will be an inspiration for other people to do the same and stand up for there rights! It sounds like this was getting way out of hand and nobody was doing anything about it. It was probably someone who had been showing a long time and felt confidant that no one would dare question them. It will be truly sad if you suffer any backlash from this. There are many people who feel the same way you do and I hope this will give them the courage to make a stand also. It has to start somewhere, somebody had to take the first step. It sounds like even the stewards were intimidated by these people. You are right. It would have only gotten worse. If I had been there I would have stood proudly by you and would not care who saw me there.

Protesting will not get out of hand! Who wants to waste $100.00! Who wants to be wrong! This is the best way to attack this problem. We all have the power to turn this around. We just have to have the courage to do it. Everybody wants someone else to do it for them. We see that is not happening. I am sure the Stewards will start getting the message too and realize they had better not let them through. It is an embarrassment to them too. It is a disruption for the whole show and it will soon come to an end.

As for the different types of miniature; I think we have now evolved to the point where we can start have different breed types and categories in the shows for them. When these registries first started they most likely set the standard to weed out dwarves. We are so far beyond that now that we are now arguing on which style is the best! I think we all should have a right to preserve and breed our favorite style.


----------



## crponies (Jul 24, 2008)

It is said that all of the stewards cannot be trusted to measure properly. I agree that they should face some kind of penalty for repeatedly measuring horses wrong. The judges and exhibitors alike should know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can trust them to measure accurately.


----------



## The Simple Life Farm (Jul 24, 2008)

Thought..... What if there were 2 seperate people available to measure horses at a show? So every horse gets measured by each steward, and measurements are valid for 30 days. If a horse is protested, then a different 3rd person would measure it. I know this would cause a back log for measurements, but it might work with some tweaking. Just trying to think outside the box.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 25, 2008)

crponies said:


> It is said that all of the stewards cannot be trusted to measure properly. I agree that they should face some kind of penalty for repeatedly measuring horses wrong. The judges and exhibitors alike should know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can trust them to measure accurately.


I don't believe that ALL stewards cannot be trusted, I have met several that have done their best to get an accurate measurement. There are so many things that can throw a measurement off even if just a little bit. I think if you had 10 different people measure the horse separately you would get several different measurements but if they were done correctly they would all be reasonably close which is the reason I don't think we should be pulling papers on horses that ARE reasonably close to 38" - another person could measure that horse and come up with a smaller horse. As long as they are being stood square and not stretched out for the measurement.

I really don't think we want to entertain anything that would prolong the measuring at the shows as it takes long enough as it is to get them all measured. It is required now that the show management provides a witness to the measuring and that should be good enough if it is done in a legal manner. One thing I did think of was requiring a witness to read and sign a sheet certifying that the measuring has taken place properly and accurately. It could list the rules of measuring and be sent out in the show package - this might help ensure that the 'witness' actually knows what is required.


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 25, 2008)

The Simple Life Farm said:


> Thought..... What if there were 2 seperate people available to measure horses at a show? So every horse gets measured by each steward, and measurements are valid for 30 days. If a horse is protested, then a different 3rd person would measure it. I know this would cause a back log for measurements, but it might work with some tweaking. Just trying to think outside the box.


Unfortunately - it is cost prohibitive to have 2 different stewards at a local show. They almost charge as much as the judges do to be there. They put in a bit longer hours though. They have to be there before the show and sometimes after the close of classes for the day for late comers to measure in.

So unless the budget for the show designates the extra cost - you won't see this happen.

But "THinking outside the box" is a good idea. What else can we do?


----------



## crponies (Jul 25, 2008)

I guess I wasn't quite clear there, Lori. I actually meant to say it is sad that not all of the judges can be trusted as in some of them can be but not all. Does that make sense now? I think people should be able to trust every steward out there to be doing the job correctly.


----------

