# AMHA closing its books in 2013



## Little Hooves (May 9, 2010)

I've seen gorgeous B-sized minis produce A-sized foals, and of course, I've seen A-sized minis produce B-sized foals.

The recent closing of AMHA is frustrating to me. I admit, I didn't go to the meeting to cast my vote so my voice would be heard, but I couldn't justify the cost. And it looks like I wouldn't have swung the vote anyway. Recently, I've been giving this whole change more thought.

I've noticed, that despite having closed its registry, AMHR still allows hardshipping of AMHA horses. AMHR isn't obligated to do this, but they've left an opening for double-registering horses.

Why doesn't AMHA make exception for AMHR minis? Is there a reason behind closing its books to all horses? Is this an attempt to make AMHA horses more valuable?

I'm just concerned about what this will do to the foals that are A-sized, resulting from B-sized parents and only being AMHR registered. AMHR only, it appears, it "worthless" to a lot of people in my area... or maybe I haven't seen the value in those horses. Yet, I've also seen people avoid AMHA-only horses.... they still buy them because they can hardship them into AMHR. I think AMHA should allow the hardshipping of A-sized AMHR horses.

This isn't meant to cause a controversy... I'm just concerned about those AMHR-only horses out there who are just as much miniature as AMHA horses. Would it do the AMHR registry any good if they stopped hardshipping AMHA horses?


----------



## Molly's Run Minis (May 9, 2010)

so, wait. is AMHA shutting down in 2013?


----------



## sfmini (May 9, 2010)

AMHA is closing the studbook in 2013 which will eliminate hardship registration. Only foals from two registered AMHA parents can be registered from that point forward.


----------



## Molly's Run Minis (May 9, 2010)

sfmini said:


> AMHA is closing the studbook in 2013 which will eliminate hardship registration. Only foals from two registered AMHA parents can be registered from that point forward.



oh ok. whew i almost had a heart attack



that doesnt sound fair to AMHR! they allow AMHA horses in for fairly cheap so why can't AMHA do they same?


----------



## Shortpig (May 9, 2010)

Honestly if I were still breeding or just starting out I would do the AMHR only. At least in their registry if you have a foal from two A Size minis go over 34" you still have a registered horse without having to pay extra to hardship it into another registry. If you end up with an A size mini from two B size parents it is still registered automatically. With the opportunity to add the smaller B size ASPC bloodlines into your herd there will always be new bloodlines available to your breeding programs. Where will that leave the AMHA?


----------



## Devon (May 9, 2010)

Shortpig said:


> Honestly if I were still breeding or just starting out I would do the AMHR only. At least in their registry if you have a foal from two A Size minis go over 34" you still have a registered horse without having to pay extra to hardship it into another registry. If you end up with an A size mini from two B size parents it is still registered automatically. With the opportunity to add the smaller B size ASPC bloodlines into your herd there will always be new bloodlines available to your breeding programs. Where will that leave the AMHA?


Amen


----------



## HGFarm (May 9, 2010)

There has been much discussion about this here in the past, and my sentiments EXACTLY... why do they not want to accept any size eligable horses into AMHA? It does NOT make them more valuable by closing the books. I think it is cutting off their nose to spite their face, but hey, I am just a member. I also could not make it to big meetings to vote on things, so it is left to the handful who can attend, not the general registry as a whole.

As many of you know, I had a mare that I hardshipped into A this spring. What an ordeal. Finding a person to inspect, if you live in a state where there are none, is just next to impossible. I lucked out at the LAST MINUTE.

It was very expensive. I have one mare that has gone just over 34". She is from AMHA parentage for generations. Her foal may stay under 34, but will not qualify for AMHA papers now, as I understand the cut off time for foals was 2008 to hardship.

I will be showing this filly next year- she is beautiful. My opinion? It is AMHA's loss, not mine. I like all my horses double registered, however this filly is too nice to let go and though I never desired an R only horse, I dont care now- this one is a keeper.

If I had to choose just one registry, I know which one I would stick with.....


----------



## Becky (May 9, 2010)

This discussion comes up frequently. There are two distinct, recognizable miniature horse registries - AMHA & AMHR.

It always amazes me that there are those that want one to be like the other. Why is that? I, personally, like the difference between the two. One accepts horses that are 34" and under; the other accepts horses up to 38". What is the problem with having two separate registries with two separate sets of rules and regulations? I don't think either one is going away any time soon. And I see no problem with having two distinct registries set up the way they are.

I, for one, choose to breed horses that are 34" and under. When I started with miniature horses in 1989, my interest was in MINIATURE horses. I had full size horses for years. I wanted small and as always, my goal is to 'breed the smallest most perfect horse'. All of my horses are double registered so in the off chance that one goes over 34", it will maintain it's registration papers in AMHR. However, what happens if a horse goes over 38"? Is there going to be a registry to support those or should AMHR open it's books to those size horses too with the parents being 38" or under?

There could be an argument for any size horse to have some kind of papers in some registry. If one wants to breed Shetland ponies, there is a registry for that. They are beautiful and their popularity is on the increase. If one wants to breed miniature horses and don't want to worry about losing papers if a horse goes over 34", then there is AMHR. If one wants to breed miniature horses that are strictly 34" and under, then there is AMHA.

I, personally, don't see a problem with the registries being unique and different and having different rules. Being different can only help in marketing and increasing the value of all.


----------



## valshingle (May 9, 2010)

Amen to Becky!

Also, AMHA Hardshipping is closing in 2013 (the end of 2013, I believe). Currently horses must be three years of age to hardship into AMHA; consequently foals born in 2010 can be hardshipped into AMHA in 2013 when they are 3 yrs old and pass inspection.

If that is not right, I'm sure someone will correct me.


----------



## Little Hooves (May 9, 2010)

HGFarm said:


> I have one mare that has gone just over 34". She is from AMHA parentage for generations. Her foal may stay under 34, but will not qualify for AMHA papers now, as I understand the cut off time for foals was 2008 to hardship.


Now AMHA allows horses to be permanent at 3 years old, so foals from 2010 will be the "last batch" so to speak.

In regards to each registry having its own rules, I agree that's what makes them unique... but then I don't understand why we value horses that are "double" registered to make them more marketable. And with marketing and sales falling off a cliff, I see this last-ditch effort to close the registry as a method to increase demand of existing AMHA horses. It might backfire.

When you have a "height breed," a miniature horse is a miniature regardless of being registered or not. I wish neither closed, but at least AMHR leaves a small opening for more horses to come in. AMHA is shutting off the valve completely (except for foals by registered parents).

Of course, now I'm considering starting my own registry


----------



## maestoso (May 9, 2010)

My problem with closing the registry is that the goal for AMHA should be to produce the most quality horses possible. Often times, there are lines of oustanding horses that stay under 34" generation after generation and then out of no where a tall one pops up. Now this horse loses it's papers, and ability to produce registration eligible babies even though it might produce under 34" time and time again. You have eliminated a potential outstanding contributor to the breed by doing this . . .

Also, there are outstanding R horses and Shetlands, and sometimes you get small ones. Why not add these to the gene pool if they are going to make a positive impact on the quality of horses?

For me I think it's important to separate breeding from showing. I am NOT in support of adding an over showing division into AMHA. But I am very much in support of adding a breeding stock division to registration, so that taller horses have the opportunity to make a positive impact on the A minis, should they produce foals that stay under.

I support inspections in order to be hardshipped, because yes, with an open studbook there will always be someone trying to get a horse in with an offbite, bad legs, etc, and we don't want those, but the idea of eliminating outstanding horses from the gene pool seems absolutely ridiculous to me. The organization is losing money and support because of it.

I think it is important to remember that AMHA and AMHR are HEIGHT registries. We show by height, we classify by height, everything is about height. No matter what is done, minis will never be a breed organization. We can say that it is, but based on our rules, standards, the way we classify, etc, we are height, that's it. Listen to the name . . . MINIATURE horse . . . MINIATURE meaning indicative of size . . . So as long as an individual horse is capable of producing under sized minis, why not let them do it!


----------



## vvf (May 9, 2010)

I don’t have a problem with AMHA closing the registry… I seem to recall that they closed it once before many, many years ago. It didn’t bother me then, as I was raising only under 34” horses.

I respect AMHA’s decision to have the 1 division. But I guess I never understood why there couldn’t be a lesser charge to hardship an AMHR division A horse for a little more reasonable price into AMHA. Does it bother me enough that I am going to lose sleep over it?, well no.

But I still think that once the registry closes, they should keep the option open to hard ship those 34” and under AMHR horses …. Just like AMHR does with the AMHA horses in their closed registry.


----------



## Little Hooves (May 9, 2010)

Becky said:


> All of my horses are double registered so in the off chance that one goes over 34", it will maintain it's registration papers in AMHR. However, what happens if a horse goes over 38"? Is there going to be a registry to support those or should AMHR open it's books to those size horses too with the parents being 38" or under?


There is always this possibility: The newest small equine recognized by the American Shetland Pony Club is the National Show Pony. National Show Ponies are required to have one registered ASPC Shetland parent or one registered AMHR Miniature parent and can measure up to a full 14.2 hands at the wither. National Show Pony division for hunters, western, and driving are currently being integrated into ASPC/AMHR shows.

I'm excited about THIS registry



I might gravitate towards it in the future.


----------



## Minimor (May 9, 2010)

It matters not to me that AMHA won't accept the under 34" AMHR horses into their registry after 2013. I don't bother getting AMHA papers on my 34" & under R horses now and so for sure wouldn't be doing it in the future either.

I actually wish that AMHR had closed its books to AMHA horses as well, and not allowed anything other than ASPC registered ponies to get AMHR papers by "hardshipping". However, I can live with the fact that AMHA horses are allowed to obtain AMHR papers for an extra fee--it is good revenue for our registry!!


----------



## vvf (May 9, 2010)

Minimor

It really doesn’t bother me all that much either that , that AMHA won’t accept AMHR horses…

But just as an example….I bought an AMHA only stallion a couple years ago…. If I had not been able to hardship him into AMHR, I would have passed on him. But on the other hand, if i found the _right_ AMHR only stallion, I would buy him.. (even though I couldn't hardship him into AMHA)

I don’t exactly know what the future holds for me, but I feel that AMHR is going to be my primary registry, as I really like what I am seeing.


----------



## Reble (May 9, 2010)

I am for change, it can be good, let's see what happens, as you say they can always change again.


----------



## horsehug (May 9, 2010)

Yes I personally think it will be interesting to see what will happen as time goes by and lots more unregistered horses are out there, because of the close in 2013....some of them very very nice ones and under 34" but unable to be registered.

You never know......they might open up the hardship again. Stranger things have happened.

I was sure surprised to see them go back to the 3 year age for permanent status from 5 years. I remember back when it was 3 years many years ago and they voted to make it 5.

Nothing is set in stone.

Susan O.


----------



## ruffian (May 9, 2010)

I think closing the AMHA books will strengthen the miniature horse "BREED". It will allow it to become a "Breed" based on bloodlines, while maintaining the height. I was at an AMHA/AMHR show recently, and was shocked by the differences in the horses in the 2 associations. There is a distinct difference, and with AMHR allowing more and more ponies into their registry, the differences will be substantial. I prefer AMHA type horses, but there are no AMHA shows within 200 miles. If there were, I would be strictly AMHA.

The POA has a height restriction also, and nobody calls them a "height" breed. If the POA goes over, it's out of the registry. Period. Not makinga whole new division.


----------



## disneyhorse (May 9, 2010)

Just because they close it, doesn't mean they can't re-open it in the future.

Andrea


----------



## Lewella (May 9, 2010)

ruffian said:


> I think closing the AMHA books will strengthen the miniature horse "BREED". It will allow it to become a "Breed" based on bloodlines, while maintaining the height. I was at an AMHA/AMHR show recently, and was shocked by the differences in the horses in the 2 associations. There is a distinct difference, and with AMHR allowing more and more ponies into their registry, the differences will be substantial. I prefer AMHA type horses, but there are no AMHA shows within 200 miles. If there were, I would be strictly AMHA.
> 
> The POA has a height restriction also, and nobody calls them a "height" breed. If the POA goes over, it's out of the registry. Period. Not makinga whole new division.


POA is a height registry as well as a color registry - it is NOT a breed registry. Until recently AQHA was NOT a breed registry - it was technically a color registry as it discrimited in registration based upon color. It took a major lawsuit for AQHA to become a breed registry (still an open one btw as they accept Thoroughbred in the appendix registry). That lawsuit in Texas ruled that AQHA x AQHA MUST = AQHA (embryo transfer lawsuit) which essentially forced them to open the book to the formerly denied crop outs and double dilutes.

In reality very few registries are truly breed registries. To be truly a breed registry all foals resulting from registered horse x registered horse will themselves be eligible to be registered horses (only exception - heritable genetic defects such as dwarfism, cryptorchidism, parrot mouth, etc.). A registry really cannot be termed a breed registry unless this happens.

Lewella


----------



## [email protected] (May 9, 2010)

Definitely on the fence on this one.

I would love Miniature Horses to be a breed not a catchall height registry. The only way to do this is to have a closed registry not based on "you're small enough you're in criteria"!

I'm not anti-Shetland, in any way, as too many of my breeding herd are within two to four generations of Shetland lines. BUT I don't want to keep infusing that height into the breed for another 3,4..10 generations either. (I'm not anti-Morgan, Arab, Q-horse or any breed BTW, but I don't want them genetically brought into Minis either!)

BUT, I do feel AMHA is neglecting to address what becomes of foals out of two AMHA parents that go over 34"? They just disappear? Are grade? I'd rather know a mare I'm looking to purchase has produced - three foals in the 30-32" range and one that is 36" breed only registered rather than a spotty foaling history or a whole bunch of RV(revoked) on the studbook!

So, if you haven't covered your bases with double registering into AMHR, good luck selling that horse.

That to me is wrong.

Minis are too young of a breed still to do this. There should be a breed registry for the over 34" Minis out of two AMHA parents regardless of how tall (_the same under 34" criteria on conformation, etc_). Should that horse produce/sire under the 34" it should have full rights. The majority of responsible breeders won't breed a 40" mini/grade pony with the expectations of producing 30"-34" minis! What about all the driving minis that are right on the line height-wise now? That tall well moving foal out of two 33.50" minis is 34.25 and now worthless?

Until AMHA is willing to address this and admit the huge number of 'tall minis' into the registry and they are out there no matter how loudly people cry they aren't! Ignoring this is forcing us to have double register to avoid the potential 'grade pony' situation or break the rule on turning in oversized minis paperwork.

I turned in one mare of mines and have regretted it for 8 years as she's had three foals 30", 31" and one that might ding over 34" - all are out of AMHA sires, but she's non-existent with OV on the studbook, so the foals are AMHR only.


----------



## JWC sr. (May 9, 2010)

With a lot of interest I read all the replies to this topic and have several comments on the subject. I was at an AMHA show this weekend and the topic came up so it is still fresh on my feeble mind.

First it does not surprise me that AMHR took the approach they did on this subject as they have prided themselves in recent years in doing things that are inclusive not exclusive. By that I mean encouraging people to participate at every level on the registry. This maximizes incoming cash flow and also the number of people/horses they attract to the fictions IE shows etc they have around the country including the National show in Tulsa.

The move by AMHA to close the registry has little to do with strengthening the breed in any way, but more to do about limiting the number of AMHA horses that are available to the people that want them etc.

There is a problem in the gene pool of the AMHA & AMHR horses with hereditary defects such as dwarfism. Closing of the registry will only intensify that problem and when a test is finally produced to reliably test for that trait a lot of people are going sadly surprised by the bloodlines that it is rampant in. If you don't believe that is a fact take the time to talk to John Eberth about his research and get the information directly from the horses mouth if you will.

In years past the AMHA horse was considered to be of better quality than the AMHR horse. Those days are long gone and it takes a really good horse in either registry to win.

I understand from one of the executive board members of AMHA that there is a movement to close the registry, but allow a reciprocal approach to hard-shipping in AMHR horses that can fulfill all the requirements of AMHA. To me that would make sense and would allow for most of the concerns I have heard from members of both registries to be addressed at the same time.

Bottom line we will continue to double register our horses in order give people options of what to do with our horses which is the ultimate goal. We also will continue to take the best of both registries and enjoy the positive people and experiences we have found in both the AMHA & AMHR show community.


----------



## maryann (May 9, 2010)

We have several double registered horses. We prefer to show AMHR as we usually travel to nationals . Most of the shows we have here on the east Coast are Both AMHR and AMHA. That gives us the option to show in both shows which we often do. If it were an AMHA only show we would not travel just for that.By Exercising this option we are spreading our bucks over both registeries . When AMHA shuts out hardshipping of AMHR horses I will certainly miss this option with future horses. Wonder if they will miss my bucks?


----------



## JMS Miniatures (May 9, 2010)

I really think we are just starting to understand these miniatures, what we are trying to breed for, etc... Heck AMHA just recently created a whole new driving division and they are still going to close the books. I think AMHA just wants to become a breeding registry they aren't seeing the bigger picture.

Also why does AMHA need to do the same that AMHR is doing. I don't see why they should allow it, and I'm sure it won't ever happen. AMHR the reason why I think they do it is it brings in more money for them and also your oversized A horses can go into AMHR in the B division.

Both registeries need to be different some how, otherwise whats the need for 2 registeries.


----------



## Mellis815 (May 9, 2010)

I 100% support closing the A registry. As for the AMHR allowing ponies into their registry, I think there should be a limit. We have the amhr/aspc in our show program, however when a farm is clearly bringing in a full bred ASPC pony into show against me, and they have the tiny little neck and the upright head, they are extremely hard to compete against, and unfortunately a lot (not all) but a lot of judges will place them high.

I am not saying to ban them, but perhaps they can be in a different class? such as maybe the "modern mini?". The stipulation being that if you are bringing an ASPC horse in to a regular mini class, they must have an AMHR registered ancestor in the bloodlines (not just based on height) and for the modern class they don't have to.

Just thoughts


----------



## JMS Miniatures (May 10, 2010)

Mellis815 said:


> I 100% support closing the A registry. As for the AMHR allowing ponies into their registry, I think there should be a limit. We have the amhr/aspc in our show program, however when a farm is clearly bringing in a full bred ASPC pony into show against me, and they have the tiny little neck and the upright head, they are extremely hard to compete against, and unfortunately a lot (not all) but a lot of judges will place them high.
> 
> I am not saying to ban them, but perhaps they can be in a different class? such as maybe the "modern mini?". The stipulation being that if you are bringing an ASPC horse in to a regular mini class, they must have an AMHR registered ancestor in the bloodlines (not just based on height) and for the modern class they don't have to.
> 
> Just thoughts


Thats what make AMHR so compettitive. But until they seek some sort of breed standard, and allow themselves to become a breed, basiclly like AMHA wants to do but can't see it happenining, its a height registry and anything under 38" with A or ASPC papers can be in. Oh and also fabella





I thinking adding the shetlands tho its making people who want to be compettive and show will try and breed for better miniatures. The scary part is people are switching to AMHR/ASPC, and that is not the market I'm selling for. But there will still be some people out there that will want AMHA/AMHR or just AMHR itself. I'm honestly not sure if AMHA will become more popular by closing down the registry tho.


----------



## disneyhorse (May 10, 2010)

AMHA closing the registry will NOT make it a "breed" because they have a height limitation.

With the ASPC Shetlands, which are a "breed"... if they go over the 46" height required to show, they never lose their papers, no matter how many times they are measured or how tall they are. They can continue to breed and contribute to the breed if the owner decides they have enough good qualities to outweigh the height.

And despite this allowance of "oversize" horses to keep their papers, guess what? For over a hundred years there are plenty of Shetlands that are under 46" tall





Andrea


----------



## HGFarm (May 10, 2010)

POA's do NOT reject a horse if it goes oversized. It just cannot be shown, but still maintains it's papers as breeding stock.

As for AMHR allowing 'ponies' in to the registry, this is laughable. Take a hard look at how many major AMHA sires are Shetland, or have a LOT of Shetland blood!!! Many that are so highly spoken of have tons of Shetland background.

The registries are a HEIGHT registry, so I dont know why folks are compaining that horses that qualify are being allowed in! I find it humorous. And if the registry wants to make it a 'breed' they will end up like the QH situation and excessive white not being allowed for years... until a lawsuit came up. How can you say a horse from two registered QH parents is NOT a QH, just because of coloration.... so how will you be able to say it is not a Miniature, when both parents are registered, and it goes a little oversized? Same type of scenario really.

I personally think the more the merrier and gives much more choices in bloodlines.


----------



## Bellissima Farm (May 10, 2010)

Reading all the posts on here is making me just shake my head....I am pretty sure there are only AMHA horses because of people breeding smaller and smaller ponies its not like 34" and under horses showed up out of the middle of no where. I think AMHA should be more worried about people registering minis with dwarf traits and bad conformation. As per who ever said they dont like how aspc horses come in the class and win because they have nice necks and so upright , would you not rather have a horse that is born with that conformation then trying to put neck sweats and lotion on to get your horses neck to look like that.....I feel amha is just closing there options of producing nicer horses. I wish there were stallion testing inspections with minis like they do with the warmbloods. Anything that meets the breed standard and will better the breed why wouldnt you let them be AMHA reg. AMHA is a registration that revolves around height like I just dont get the thinking that went into this than money oriented or worried about being beat by a nicer horse. I fully agree with what JWC sr said.


----------



## Mellis815 (May 10, 2010)

Bellissima Farm said:


> Reading all the posts on here is making me just shake my head....I am pretty sure there are only AMHA horses because of people breeding smaller and smaller ponies its not like 34" and under horses showed up out of the middle of no where. I think AMHA should be more worried about people registering minis with dwarf traits and bad conformation. As per who ever said they dont like how aspc horses come in the class and win because they have nice necks and so upright , would you not rather have a horse that is born with that conformation then trying to put neck sweats and lotion on to get your horses neck to look like that.....I feel amha is just closing there options of producing nicer horses. I wish there were stallion testing inspections with minis like they do with the warmbloods. Anything that meets the breed standard and will better the breed why wouldnt you let them be AMHA reg. AMHA is a registration that revolves around height like I just dont get the thinking that went into this than money oriented or worried about being beat by a nicer horse. I fully agree with what JWC sr said.




I am not saying that we don't have pony bloodlines in our minis, or any other breed for that matter. The breed was started by breeding smaller and smaller horses, but would you want to compete against a morgan, simply becuase he is short enough to be considered a Mini?? NO. Or an arab..what if there was one small enough to compete..would you show against it? The comment made about sweating necks and lotion on it, or would I rather have the confirmation to begin with is funny to me. Isn't that what we are trying to do anyways? Anyone who is breeding should be aiming for this quality (among others), thus not having to use the sweats. Many of the big trainers who DO interbreed the shetlands, still have to sweat necks. I am saying that there should be a limit. The ASPC/AMHR cross should still posses 90% of the traits of a mini, and not come in looking like a Pony straight from the farm. There is NO way, no matter how much you sweat necks that someone with a mini is going to get that thin of a neck, not going to happen, and I am afraid that once the registry is over taken by ponies we are going to lose sight of what the "registry" was originally started for.


----------



## LaVern (May 10, 2010)

I used to go back and forth. thinking that perhaps I should hardship some into AMHA, before it closes, but I have made the decision not to do it. I can't base my future on what a few people may choose to do down the line. If I spend 10-15 thousand dollars on putting a few in, and then they change their minds down the line, it would make me crazy and the horses would be no better. I will spend my money feeding and caring for what I have and not another set of papers that will just cost me more.


----------



## Little Hooves (May 10, 2010)

I'd love to see it if a Morgan or Arab could meet the height requirement  It would be awesome - I think - to have a mini quarter horse breed, a mini morgan breed, a mini arab breed ---with REAL blood from the original breed...not just AMHA look-a-like ponies. That's right, I said ponies. Blasphemy, I know. But technically, minis are ponies. Anything that is 14.2 hands or under is a pony...last I checked.

Still, AMHA minis won't be diluted by this "pony blood" if the registry remained open - even if it did, the shows still determine the style the judges are looking for. And that brings me back full circle to...

Closing the registry --- if AMHA is truly focused on closing the registry because they want to be a breed with bloodlines, that's fine. But I doubt this is the reason. I think they're looking to increase value of AMHA horses (from my marketing mind's perspective).

It's not a "bloodline" based registry if it excludes horses within the bloodline - when a horse matures 33" compared to a full sibling that matures 35" - one stays in, one is kicked out - each have the same bloodline and quality conformation, but only one is eligible for their "breed." So, no - I doubt closing is to be a breed. I only see it as a way to make the registry more exclusive.

I'd like to see a breeding stock portion of the registry develop if it remains closed. A foal of registered parents should have registry rights in my mind! I know - it's a fantasy


----------



## horsehug (May 10, 2010)

Brenda,

I totally agree with you!!

And as to calling them ponies........I for sure agree with you!

Some of mine I know for sure are just bred down (in height) from papered shetlands a few years back and no longer have their shetland papers. Papers do not change their genetics.

Even AMHA used to refer to them as midget ponies before they realized that calling them miniature horses would make them more marketable as rare and exotic little creatures.

I'm glad you started this thread. It is always interesting to hear how people feel on the hardship issue, and to me it is also interesting to see how many do not know that minis are in fact ponies.

People learn from threads like this.

Like I said before, rules can be changed and AMHA might find they need to open back up the hardship registry as time goes by........ or possibly allow registering of AMHR into AMHA like JWC Senior mentioned.

They might also someday realize that two parents usually produce whatever breed THEY are, not some other species or breed!

Susan O.


----------



## krissy3 (May 11, 2010)

Living in Europe we cant hardship anyway...so this does not bother me. However I do see bad breeding in the ultra small mini here, so they will fit into the AMHA height standard. The are not very nice looking . I hope this will not promote bad breeding here in Europe in the attempt to get a very small foal. From what I see already ...anything under 31 inches here looks like a dwarf... There are a few that were imported from the US that look balanced, but those bred here definatly dont look healthy or balanced IMO. The 32 -34 inch horses look a lot better here. I dont know if its because the people here are new to this breed and dont know how to take care of them, or because they are making bad choices in their breeding program. I dont think the closing of hardshipping will effect Europe, but i could be wrong. One thing I do see here ...that I knew would have to happen sometime... is the opening up of AMHR and oversized minis in our AMHA shows. We are seeing more and more 34-35 inch AMHA AMHR horses here produced by AMHA parents... Would this change make AMHR a stronger club?

I also read here that AMHA papers can become permanant at age 3 ..I thought it was 5 , and AMHR was 3 ...am I wrong?

krissy


----------



## Songcatcher (May 11, 2010)

krissy3 said:


> I also read here that AMHA papers can become permanant at age 3 ..I thought it was 5 , and AMHR was 3 ...am I wrong?
> 
> krissy


You were right up until Jan. 1, 2010. AMHA can now go permanent at 3 years.


----------



## Sue_C. (May 11, 2010)

> I'd like to see a breeding stock portion of the registry develop if it remains closed. A foal of registered parents should have registry rights


I agree in part. While ANY foal resulting from registered stock should have registry rights, nothing over the 34" limit should be bred...or, if allowed to breed, it must be bred to animals that are 34" or under.


----------



## sfmini (May 11, 2010)

You are dead wrong about trying to bring in more money, closing the books will, in fact bring in less money.

This was not a last minute decision, this rule change was proposed over 5 years ago and it was decided to set a date far enough into the future to protect those people who had bought young horses with the plan of hardshipping when they were old enough. It's not like this has come out of the blue or is any great surprise, and any one of you could have submitted a rule change proposal to kill it at any time. You don't have to be at a meeting to submit a rule change proposal.

As for coming perm at 3, you do have the option of waiting until the expiration date printed on your papers so this transition wouldn't cause financial hardship.

The comment about the few changing the rules, take a good look at AMHR and tell me how many have a vote. From what I have been told by others the number of voters is the number of board members. Membership attending have no vote, and few of those board members have minis. If that isn't the case, I stand corrected.


----------



## LaVern (May 11, 2010)

I don't think that there is really is much of a problem with AMHA horses going over 34 inches. A few years back I checked with AMHA and they said that there was only a handful that were turned in that year. So it must only be Forum members that get too tall horses. I don't think it ever happens with our elite breeders and the top trainers, because surely they would set an example for us and give those papers up..


----------



## krissy3 (May 11, 2010)

Songcatcher said:


> krissy3 said:
> 
> 
> > I also read here that AMHA papers can become permanant at age 3 ..I thought it was 5 , and AMHR was 3 ...am I wrong?
> ...



OH... then I am in this month... cool !


----------



## krissy3 (May 11, 2010)

LaVern said:


> I don't think that there is really is much of a problem with AMHA horses going over 34 inches. A few years back I checked with AMHA and they said that there was only a handful that were turned in that year. So it must only be Forum members that get too tall horses. I don't think it ever happens with our elite breeders and the top trainers, because surely they would set an example for us and give those papers up..


are you kidding ??? That Id like to see, but then honest people are hard to come by these days. It sure would be nice though , if people followed the rules.


----------



## Aristocratic Minis (May 11, 2010)

John C. had some great points to make in his post.

Down the line, possibly for economic considerations, I believe the AMHA will open again if it does, indeed close.

I really salute the AMHA for many things they are doing such as requiring DNA records.

I do not know if it will become a "breed" club due to the different "types" unless the horses are divided into different groups as they are in ASPC.

In my experience with with animal registries over the years, both in AKC, dog breed clubs and in Quarter Horses, rules and registries are changed according to needs - whether it is economic needs, health needs, and response to breeder needs and exhibitor group influence.

In Quarter Horses, for example, years ago, each horse had to be "approved" by an inspector before they could be registered. An appointment had to be scheduled with an inspector who would give you the good news or bad news. With the growth of the breed into the thousands and thousands, it was economically impossible for each horse to be inspected before registration.

In response to genetic health concerns, AQHA required an HYPP status to appear on registration records.

Partly due to economic consideration and partly due to breeders' input, the AQHA decided to change "the white rule" for horses with excessive white markings to become eligible for registration. Registration rules are not written in stone. To be a viable registry, rules and regulations will change with time for various reasons.

A number of horse breed clubs have open stud books and will allow inclusion of animals who meet conformational or performance standards. This allows a continual influx of gene flow.

As health issues come up, scientific and breeders input becomes important and economic conditions change, I feel certain AMHA will respond

Sorry - too long winded.


----------



## loveminis (May 11, 2010)

I don't breed or show so it doesn't really affect me. I find this topic interesting though.

Even though I am a fan of the smaller minis (30" and under), I cannot understand why AMHA would not hardship an under 34" AMHR registered mini. As long as they are truly UNDER 34". I think it is a mistake that they will regret. The quality of the horses will be compromised. JMO.


----------



## LaVern (May 11, 2010)

Was just going to add that of course it never happens to me either, that is why I have never turned one in. --- Lucky Hart Ranch breeders of Straight B Miniature Horses and some shorter ones.


----------



## Songcatcher (May 11, 2010)

krissy3 said:


> LaVern said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think that there is really is much of a problem with AMHA horses going over 34 inches. A few years back I checked with AMHA and they said that there was only a handful that were turned in that year. So it must only be Forum members that get too tall horses. I don't think it ever happens with our elite breeders and the top trainers, because surely they would set an example for us and give those papers up..
> ...


That sounded to me like a blanket accusation against AMHA breeders by someone who doesn't even breed for AMHA. One look at the number of horses on the AMHA Studbook whose status is Revoked should be enough to dispell this as being the general practice. Does it ever happen? Of course. Do R horses ever go over 38 inches and continue to be bred and registered? I don't pay much attention to that size horses, but I'm sure they do. There are always people in every group that will stretch the limits.


----------



## LaVern (May 11, 2010)

I breed maybe 15-20 honest sized( pushing the limit) AMHA horses a year. I don't like to sell AMHA horses with their papers (they get the AMHR) if they even look like they will go over as babies, because they would want a replacement if it gets too tall. And they pick the tallest ones. But I don't turn them in. Revoked does not mean turned in. It just means sitting in the file for whatever reason, and I have a bunch of them. I will not throw that recorded knowledge and DNAing away.


----------



## HGFarm (May 11, 2010)

Ok, here is an interesting scenario.

I know someone who had a mare that went over 34", and being the honest person that she is, contacted AMHA and told them that the mare was over, and to cancel the papers. They did. The mare was eventually sold and a new owner insisted that they could get her measured in at 34 and wanted her papers. The old owner KNEW that there was no way that this mare would measure under 34", and refused to give them the papers- as they are still in her filing cabinet as well.

She did find out that if the new owner had 'somehow managed' to get this mare measured in at 34", or had brought those papers to perminant at 34", they would have been using this mare as an AMHA mare. She also found that if she had turned the papers in to AMHA, and someone insisted the mare was 34" and had it 'inspected' as such, they could get the A papers back. So, like my friend, I will not send back papers on a horse that I know is over sized- to avoid the dishonest practices that these other folks attempted.

And I agree, looking throught the stud books, there are a LOT of horses with revoked papers from being oversized, so I dont know how there is only a handful!


----------



## LaVern (May 11, 2010)

I must go look. Maybe there are more O's than I thought. I remember lots of Revoked's Maybe I'm the only sorta dishonest one.

I don't know do you guys think it is awful to just sit on them and not send them back Overed'd. See my thinking and hoping and dreaming for years was that eventually AMHA would come around and do the oversized thing. Back in the AMHA hayday it seemed like it would be so cool. I have always felt I had more in common with other miniature breeders than the shetland pony breeders.

So I felt that if I kept the papers in my desk on the too tall horses and pQ'd them, but didn't permanent them, if they ever did open it up I would be set to go. Used the AMHR and registered them B

But, I don't see that happening ever and AMHR has made such tremendous progress and with Kentucky taking the DNA from Davis it probably doesn't matter. And the B horse has become so synonymous with AMHR.


----------



## tagalong (May 11, 2010)

> Of course. Do R horses ever go over 38 inches and continue to be bred and registered? I don't pay much attention to that size horses, but I'm sure they do.


I'm sure they do, too. Oversize horses being registered and bred does not only apply to one registry...


----------



## chandab (May 11, 2010)

LaVern said:


> I don't know do you guys think it is awful to just sit on them and not send them back Overed'd. See my thinking and hoping and dreaming for years was that eventually AMHA would come around and do the oversized thing. Back in the AMHA hayday it seemed like it would be so cool. I have always felt I had more in common with other miniature breeders than the shetland pony breeders.
> 
> So I felt that if I kept the papers in my desk on the too tall horses and pQ'd them, but didn't permanent them, if they ever did open it up I would be set to go. Used the AMHR and registered them B
> 
> But, I don't see that happening ever and AMHR has made such tremendous progress and with Kentucky taking the DNA from Davis it probably doesn't matter. And the B horse has become so synonymous with AMHR.


You are not the only one. My stallion went over, I have his AMHA papers sitting in my file, hoping one day they might have an over division (even if only for breeding stock). I also have an application for a mare that went over sitting in my file waiting (both her parents are DNAd, so I can late register her if the opportunity ever arises). And, I have a 3 year old double registered filly, that is already over her A papers, and they will stay in the file waiting. If not, then I have 3 lovely R registered horses.


----------



## LaVern (May 11, 2010)

Hey, this is interesting. Back in the beginning I sold a lot of B bred miniatures that I knew were going to or had gone over 38" as just ponies-- no papers. I still do once in awhile as even after all these years it still happens. But, there again I have never sent the papers into the office as oversized. There they are in my desk. I wonder if anyone has ever turned in the papers on a B miniature. I have to go look at stud AMHR stud book, can't remember does it say anything on there?


----------



## Riverdance (May 11, 2010)

ruffian said:


> I think closing the AMHA books will strengthen the miniature horse "BREED". It will allow it to become a "Breed" based on bloodlines, while maintaining the height. I was at an AMHA/AMHR show recently, and was shocked by the differences in the horses in the 2 associations. There is a distinct difference, and with AMHR allowing more and more ponies into their registry, the differences will be substantial. I prefer AMHA type horses, but there are no AMHA shows within 200 miles. If there were, I would be strictly AMHA.
> 
> The POA has a height restriction also, and nobody calls them a "height" breed. If the POA goes over, it's out of the registry. Period. Not makinga whole new division.



I totally agree with you. I too have noticed a big difference with what AMHR likes verses what AMHA likes. We too do not any just AMHA shows (except for the State Fair show). The shows that we do have around here have AMHR one day and AMHA the next. Unfortunately, we still have the same judges, who just spent a whole day the day before, looking at AMHR horses. These judges are typically AMHR judges first, but have their AMHA license. Sometimes we will have just one AMHA judge. I always do very well under the AMHA judge, but not as well under the AMHR judges on the AMHA show day.

It gets really frustrating for sure. When I would travel to a 2 day AMHA only show, my horses always did quite well.

I also find that many of the AMHR judges are paint and quarter horse judges too. They, of course, like a paint or a Mini that looks like a quarter Horse. All of which I do not have.

I have nothing against AMHR, as it is as good a club as any horse club, but people will chose to breed a Morgan, Arabian, Paint, Quarter Horse or what ever, and join that club. I prefer the look of the horses in AMHA than AMHR (Before you flame me, yes, all of my horses are double registered and many of my horses have done well in AMHR, but I do believe we all have out own tastes and join the club that fits our taste the best).

Hopefully, AMHA will be able to finally make the Miniature Horse a horse breed now, rather than just a height breed. One can not get a certain type and look when a registry is open to so many bloodlines. AMHR tends to go more towards the pony look, regardless of the height. (Again, nothing against ponies. They are beautiful, but I prefer having a horse that looks just like a Miniature Horse, not a Miniature Pony) Many breeds of horses, do not look like ponies. If we want to make the Miniature Horse a breed, we have to start with closing the books.


----------



## Riverdance (May 11, 2010)

Bellissima Farm said:


> Reading all the posts on here is making me just shake my head....I am pretty sure there are only AMHA horses because of people breeding smaller and smaller ponies its not like 34" and under horses showed up out of the middle of no where. I think AMHA should be more worried about people registering minis with dwarf traits and bad conformation. As per who ever said they dont like how aspc horses come in the class and win because they have nice necks and so upright , would you not rather have a horse that is born with that conformation then trying to put neck sweats and lotion on to get your horses neck to look like that.....I feel amha is just closing there options of producing nicer horses. I wish there were stallion testing inspections with minis like they do with the warmbloods. Anything that meets the breed standard and will better the breed why wouldnt you let them be AMHA reg. AMHA is a registration that revolves around height like I just dont get the thinking that went into this than money oriented or worried about being beat by a nicer horse. I fully agree with what JWC sr said.



Do you honestly believe that trainers, regardless of the breed of horse, do not use neck sweats, lotions, neoprene sweats, what ever, to get their horses necks and throat latches as thin as possible? These items are made for full size horses as well as, ponies and Miniatures. I would be willing to bet you that not one horse or pony entering the show ring with a trainer has not had its neck sweated.


----------



## Mellis815 (May 11, 2010)

Riverdance said:


> Bellissima Farm said:
> 
> 
> > Reading all the posts on here is making me just shake my head....I am pretty sure there are only AMHA horses because of people breeding smaller and smaller ponies its not like 34" and under horses showed up out of the middle of no where. I think AMHA should be more worried about people registering minis with dwarf traits and bad conformation. As per who ever said they dont like how aspc horses come in the class and win because they have nice necks and so upright , would you not rather have a horse that is born with that conformation then trying to put neck sweats and lotion on to get your horses neck to look like that.....I feel amha is just closing there options of producing nicer horses. I wish there were stallion testing inspections with minis like they do with the warmbloods. Anything that meets the breed standard and will better the breed why wouldnt you let them be AMHA reg. AMHA is a registration that revolves around height like I just dont get the thinking that went into this than money oriented or worried about being beat by a nicer horse. I fully agree with what JWC sr said.
> ...


I agree 100% with both of your posts!


----------



## [email protected] (May 12, 2010)

Laughing at how many of us have the RV horses paperwork in files! I did send in a few early on so they have OV on the studbook, but now I let them go RV, hoping AMHA will wake up! It's frustrating as all get out, especially when that RV/OV mare produces foals under 34" but I'm so out of luck now!

I'd love to only support one registry in all honesty, but AMHA makes that impossible with the blind eye to anything over 34" being grade.

As was pointed out as far as voting goes - AMHA may only allow voting at the Convention, but AMHR it's the board populated by Shetland owners that do the voting, so don't think otherwise! In all honesty, I do have a real hard time with a horse being a Shetland today and a Mini tomorrow. But then again a "breed" vs a "height registry". Not denying Shetland's contribution to forming Minis. Great breed, but I want Minis!

If AMHA can make minis into Minis the breed - yeah! Just hope they'll eventually address the oversize breeding stock registry they all know is needed.


----------



## krissy3 (May 12, 2010)

HGFarm said:


> Ok, here is an interesting scenario.
> 
> I know someone who had a mare that went over 34", and being the honest person that she is, contacted AMHA and told them that the mare was over, and to cancel the papers. They did. The mare was eventually sold and a new owner insisted that they could get her measured in at 34 and wanted her papers. The old owner KNEW that there was no way that this mare would measure under 34", and refused to give them the papers- as they are still in her filing cabinet as well.
> 
> ...



I got to tell you that I have a mare that is pushing 34.5 and I was very concerned about this. I cant tell you how many people responded to my post in a private message telling me to go ahead and measure her under and get the papers to permanant. I will have her measured at the next show , by a professional, and if she is 34 ..great...if not then I have a very nice refined AMHR horse. There are a lot of people keeping the 35 inch brood mares in the back pasture ... you bet there are , not a handful.


----------



## Becky (May 12, 2010)

> And I agree, looking throught the stud books, there are a LOT of horses with revoked papers from being oversized, so I dont know how there is only a handful!


I can tell you that there are equally as many or more horses with the revoked (RV) status in the studbooks that are not oversize. They simply have never been taken permanent by their current owners. When I see 'RV' in the studbooks, I don't automatically think oversize.


----------



## loveminis (May 12, 2010)

I agree with Becky. When I look up horses I know, the RV is always because they were not transferred or renewed.


----------



## Charlotte (May 12, 2010)

Well this is really interesting. It got me thinking so I went to the stud books and checked the foals we have bred. Here are the stats:

66 total foals registered

13 marked as RV (revoked)

One of those I am sure went oversize. One 'might' have gone over. The rest were never taken permanent and for sure didn't go over.....may not have gone over 30"! (oh, one of the RV and one that will soon be RV are deceased)

6 are due to go perm this year or next and have never been transfered out of our name so I'd say those will end up RV too. (I didn't record how many under 4 years of age are still in our name)

If our farm is an example of how the stats run I guess something like 98% of RV horses just never got taken perm? That's what it sounds like to me.

I think when people aren't showing horses or aren't breeding they see no reason to have any interest in paperwork. And those that are exported are often registered with a foreign organization so never get taken perm or even transferred. I don't see any way to change this.

(I sure am glad I'm not having to FEED all of those horses I own!)

*So I'd say the bottom line is REVOKED papers is most likely a case of paperwork not done rather than lots and lots of oversize horses out there.*

Charlotte


----------



## Reble (May 12, 2010)

I have said Revoked is not the proper word for years.

Have mentioned this to the registry.

You are correct, people buy but do not take the time to transfer or do the paper work for permanent.


----------



## Songcatcher (May 12, 2010)

Charlotte said:


> Well this is really interesting. It got me thinking so I went to the stud books and checked the foals we have bred. Here are the stats:
> 
> 66 total foals registered
> 
> ...


I can see how my earlier post may have given a different impression from what I intended. I did NOT mean that all or even most of the Revoked horses have gone oversize. My intent was that there are some oversize which owners simply do not go to the effort to turn in papers, for what ever reason.

There was an insinuation earlier that a large portion of horses that go oversize are dishonestly taken permanent and continue to be be bred and foals registered from. While I'm sure there are some, I don't think the majority are. I think many owners of a horse that goes oversize simply do not go to the effort to turn in papers and they wind up revoked.

Charlotte, I think your stats are interesting, but not necessarily representative of the overall picture as you specifically breed for the smaller horses and therefore would have a smaller number that go oversize than would a breeder who breeds for a 33.5 inch horse.


----------



## HGFarm (May 12, 2010)

I think there are a lot more oversized horses out there registered as A that people are willing to admit. You have never been to a big breeding farm and the 'tour' just skipped some of those 'back pastures' where they are housed? I have seen MANY, on big and small farms, that have what I have heard refered to as a "Texas 34", so let's not fool ourselves. I am sure that to many, it is tough to think about losing a valuable, well bred animal with top bloodlines and conformation, because it is a fraction of an inch oversized- that could be bred back with a smaller mate to produce more top quality offspring that are under 34". (Just playing devil's advocate here on why it is probably done- not saying it is right)

I myself have a mare that is slightly over and her A papers will be canceled... a shame as I am sure, being bred back to a small stallion, that her offspring would more than likely qualify as under 34".

Since there is never a guarantee on size- I have seen 30" horses produce some that matured WELL over 34"- how is this benefiting the breed to close the books? It is not going to guarantee anyone's foals to mature under 34" any more than they do now.


----------



## krissy3 (May 12, 2010)

Charlotte said:


> Well this is really interesting. It got me thinking so I went to the stud books and checked the foals we have bred. Here are the stats:
> 
> 66 total foals registered
> 
> ...



I have to say that some people here in switzerland wont do the paperwork because they are not showing , and cant read English. I have done the paperwork for people , because its a bit overwhelming for them. It would be great if the AMHA could get their rule book and form translated into German.


----------



## Sue_C. (May 12, 2010)

I wonder if it could be translated individually on-line? I know there are programs that will translate, and the rule book _is_ available on-line, isn't it?


----------



## JWC sr. (May 12, 2010)

In trying to promote the AMHA miniature as a breed, one of the things that will have to be addressed is horses from AMHA registered horses that go over sized. If they are not allowed to keep the papers they are born with, but not allowed to show due to the show rules we will end up in a law suit much the same as AQHA did over the white issue.





And with that decision as a legal precedent it would be a small matter for courts to find in the favor of a plaintiff that had filed a lawsuit over that issue.





We can't have it both ways legally, either we are a height registry and can exclude horses over a certain height or we are a breed where horses born of registered parents have a right to those papers legally.





Something to think about, at least the above is the opinion of a good friend that is a very good lawyer with a ton of equine experience first hand here in Texas.


----------



## Minimor (May 12, 2010)

> They are beautiful, but I prefer having a horse that looks just like a Miniature Horse, not a Miniature Pony) Many breeds of horses, do not look like ponies.


Quite honestly, these days the American Shetland doesn’t look much like a “pony” either—not a good many of them anyway. There are many ponies out there who look very horse-like. In fact, in photos that have nothing to give a comparison for size, in many cases the ponies can easily be mistaken for full size horses—truly much more often than Miniatures can be. From what I’ve seen the small ponies that are in AMHR look as much (often more) like a miniature horse than many Miniature Horses do!


----------



## Joanne (May 13, 2010)

O.K. History pros.

AMHA at one time did allow oversize breeding stock.

Were any of you around at that time that could clue us into why that was stopped?


----------



## disneyhorse (May 13, 2010)

JWC sr. said:


> In trying to promote the AMHA miniature as a breed, one of the things that will have to be addressed is horses from AMHA registered horses that go over sized. If they are not allowed to keep the papers they are born with, but not allowed to show due to the show rules we will end up in a law suit much the same as AQHA did over the white issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The ASPC Shetland ponies have a height limit to show, however they never get their papers pulled for height and are allowed full breeding rights. I could see the AMHA setting rules to limit show heights.

As a side note, my friend breeds Friesians and she said that in order to be approved for breeding, a Friesian stallion cannot measure more than 17 hands. This helps monitor size a little bit in the Friesians, but they have a lot of things they are approved on also.

Andrea


----------



## loveminis (May 13, 2010)

Now are we talking about AMHA closing the books to AMHR Hardship or registering over sized minis ?


----------



## sfmini (May 13, 2010)

AMHA is closing the books to ALL hardshipping.


----------



## Mona (May 13, 2010)

Joanne said:


> O.K. History pros.
> 
> AMHA at one time did allow oversize breeding stock.
> 
> Were any of you around at that time that could clue us into why that was stopped?


Joanne, it is my understanding that what you are referring to happened because there were MANY, MANY horses registered in AMHA where their registration papers stated they were 34" or less, but were indeed taller, so this was to allow the owners of these horses to "come clean", and provide the actual correct height of these horses, without loss of registration or any other disciplinary measures, thus providing more honest history/background on these horses. It was a set time limit, that horses born before a certain year (I think maybe '89??) would be eligible for this "foundation oversize" acceptance/approval.

If this is not correct, I am sure someone will correct me, but this is how I understood it to be back (how it was explained to me) when I got into the minis in the early 90's.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (May 13, 2010)

I had a couple of those oversize AMHA registered horses years ago when I first started I can not remember for the life of me what it said on the papers it was a red stamp and I am pretty sure it said Oversize Stock or Foundation Oversize maybe


----------



## HGFarm (May 13, 2010)

They were considered Foundation Oversize- some friends had a couple, and they produced small, but they certainly didnt breed them to other huge Minis.

POA's dont revoke papers on oversized ones, but they are not allowed to compete in POA sanctioned shows, etc.... however, they are used as breeding stock. I believe they have to be bred back to 'regular sized' POA's- would have to check my rule book. Appaloosas used to allow the non colored horses as breeding stock only too and they were not eligable to show either at one time. No lawsuits over those. Those were the rules, as they wanted to promote what they SHOULD look like and what was desirable for the breed, which every one still worked for.

I dont think any purposely breeds for an oversized A, especially when you want it to be able to show, but it happens. However, AMHA seems to want to just throw those horses away. It is never going to stop oversized foals from happening..... it's just part of their DNA and the luck of the draw. It's a shame that they dont make some provision for these horses, rather than the one they have now, which is 'out the door'.

If I had an oversized mare, I would be careful to breed her to a small stallion, in hopes of getting a nice sized under 34" to be able to compete. I dont think anyone in their right mind would breed it to another large Mini, expecting the foal to stay under. Allowing oversized breeding stock, which happens in my opinion anyhow- nobody wants to admit it- is not going to make the breed end up huge- folks are still going to STRIVE for something showable.


----------



## Karin - NaKar Miniatures (May 13, 2010)

First of all, I wasn't for closing the registry. But since they did, AMHA should make a provision of some sort for the ones that go over. I have to pretty much agree with what John Cherry said. I believe there could be legal issues ahead for AMHA. They can't just "throw" these horses away.

I just don't feel that they can be a "BREED" and a "HEIGHT" registry at the same time. You can't have it both ways.

An AMHA horse bred to and AMHA horse = an AMHA horse!!!

I do agree that they should have an oversized breeding stock division for those horses that go over 34'. They could just not allow the over horses to be shown.


----------

