# Shetland Influence



## LaVern (Jul 23, 2009)

This is my thinking.

Whether we like it or not, todays Shetland Ponies will have a huge influence on tomorrows AMHR miniatures. And if correctly measured in they have every right.

Our horses of the future can not help but be influenced by them, as the Shetland blood is the ONLY outside blood we can bring in.

Also the training of new miniature judges is designed to train new judges to be Pony Judges. Most new judges will want to get their license to judge- Miniature- Shetland- Modern as long as they are doing it. Now those perspective judges are going to become familiar with all these types. Familiarity breeds acceptance and acceptance leads to appreciation.

Once you see enough roman noses you get to thinking they are not so bad. I know- I have been there. Offta. LaVern


----------



## disneyhorse (Jul 23, 2009)

Well, I have only been in miniatures for just over ten years... and exclusively tried to buy AMHR-only horses because much prefer driving the B's... and I have been to the National show many times in that period.

There has been a significant increase in the number of ASPC/AMHR registered animals... and this is because they are WINNING. And why are they winning? Because they bring valuable qualities that breeders and exhibitors want.

I do believe that those who cling to the "old style" minis simply do not want to go through the effort to change their breeding program... sure they slowly try to bring in more refinement... but the ASPC animals bring a BIG dose of quality more quickly, so that is why a lot of breeders and exhibitors have jumped on the bandwagon. The ASPC horses have what mini people want... long thin necks, good bodies, long legs, and movement. Movement is one of the biggest contributions I have seen from the ASPC animal in just over a decade at the National level.

Now, it's not like the ASPC animal came from nowhere... I checked out much older Journals and they have always been there with their fans. However, Nationals gets bigger and bigger. There is more and more competition. Your halter geldings are no longer the "not-stallion-quality" minis, they are stallion-quality horses that exhibitors have willingly gelded to be more competitive in the classes.

I have seen the ASPC animal excel in the halter classes... obviously the success of Sundance LB and Establo horses is not unnoticed by the majority.

Now, they are taking the driving ring by storm.

People are breeding MANY MORE ASPC/AMHR registered animals, so it's easier for people to find them. When I first started looking five years ago, there were WAY less to be found. Now you see them everywhere as their popularity grows.

I am seeing more AMHA/AMHR/ASPC registered stallions out there. I think a movement to find more that are 34" and under is huge.

I also feel that there will be an increasing number of people looking for ASPC "Modern, not Classic, with Hackney background" that will measure under 38" tall. I think people DO want those Park and Roadster horses that are more like the APSC ones. Ten years ago, the Park Harness classes at Nationals were a JOKE. Lately though, some of those little Modern ASPC ponies will really show people how its done.

There is nothing wrong with the ASPC registered horse, even if its small enough to register AMHR, as long as it's bringing quality. Honestly, I made a switch to ASPC ponies, the big ones... and went to check out Congress. I was FLOORED by the quality there. Unlike Nationals, where there may be a class of eighty horses, only fifteen of which are really "quality contenders"... Congress really raised the bar and there were NICE horses. The quality of the ASPC animals really impressed me (and I am generally very hard to impress).

Soooo.....

I don't think the majority of National level breeders and exhibitors are going to be deterred by the ASPC animals, because I've seen a lot of them just shrug and welcome them into their program. I think it's around to stay.

Andrea


----------



## Boinky (Jul 23, 2009)

where would the mini industry be without influences such as "Rowdy" or "Buckeroo"? Rowdy was shetland and Buckeroo, lets face it, if truth be told is probably 100% shetland or pretty darned close. people seem to forget that. why should any horse that fits the description of AMHR's rules be told it's not worthy? it may just be that horses influence down the road that you (i mean that at everyone) will base your very sucessful breeding program on!


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 23, 2009)

Well I for one won't be jumping on the bandwagon to join the AMHR/ASPC group (tried, totally backfired), but I will admit that I like the look and like disneyhorse has said they bring on some beautiful movement. Also like you said the newer judges that are coming in are also going for more the shetland look, sorry but thats just the way its going to be if your showing in AMHR. Do I like it no, I have brought up in the past where I wish they would have foundation classes for the minis, they have them for the shetlands why not the minis.

Of course we try to breed for better and better and going against these shetlands I think sure has helped the miniature horse "breed". We watched a tape from a AMHR show way back in 2003, thats just 6 years ago and we weren't showing the horses like we are showing today. Back then it was alot more stockier built, the movement wasn't there, and its funny now we are showing them with bridlepaths clear down in the middle of there necks if not lower, back then it was to the ear like in QHs if not a lil longer. Thats how much it has changed in 6 years, I think then or atleast a year later we were starting to see a change.

I will continue to show and support AMHR, I will just have to work harder when it comes to my breeding program.


----------



## LaVern (Jul 23, 2009)

Ah, I don't believe it. The Shetland people just want to cash in. Lets go dig him up? I know where he is buried.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 23, 2009)

disneyhorse said:


> There is nothing wrong with the ASPC registered horse, even if its small enough to register AMHR, as long as it's bringing quality. Honestly, I made a switch to ASPC ponies, the big ones... and went to check out Congress. I was FLOORED by the quality there. Unlike Nationals, where there may be a class of eighty horses, only fifteen of which are really "quality contenders"... Congress really raised the bar and there were NICE horses. The quality of the ASPC animals really impressed me (and I am generally very hard to impress).
> 
> Andrea


Well I know it has been a few years since you have been to Nationals but I have to respectfully disagree that in a class of 80 driving horses only 15 can be competitive contenders that is simply not the case as far as I am concerned. I have seen horses that can easily place from champion to 10th in each and every split of the driving classes -The quality is there and the class fillers are there just like at Congress- every show has their class fillers no matter what the breed and those people usually end up upgrading as time goes on

I can only speak for myself I have been a class filler and have placed and have had fun and learned no matter what the case


----------



## disneyhorse (Jul 23, 2009)

JMS Miniatures said:


> I have brought up in the past where I wish they would have foundation classes for the minis, they have them for the shetlands why not the minis.


Unfortunately, it's hard to say what a "foundation" mini is, exactly. I think in the past TWENTY years the miniature horse has improved SO dramatically. Breeders all across the board really have worked HARD to get the mini to where it is. It's no longer all about "size" it's also about quality of conformation and movement. Sure, the ASPC horse has been a stepping stone in the past decade. BUT.... what is the "foundation" mini exactly? Is it the type of 20 years ago, that some call "draft type" minis? It is the coarser-than-the-current-trend mini?

Even in the ASPC, the "foundation" winning pony has evolved. Today's ASPC ponies showing in the foundation classes look more extreme than what they used to be.

Breeds change and evolve. Hopefully for the better! But as they evolve, people will always have sour grapes if they prefer what has been passed, and refuse to be adaptable.

That's why it's so important to stick with what you like. One of the GREATEST things I have found about the miniature horse is how VERSATILE the breed is. Sure, you can't show your draft-type mini in halter at Nationals and place, but it can be a wonderful companion animal, therapy horse, or obstacle-driving horse at the National level. Your Roadster type mini probably won't excel in the obstacle-driving at Nationals, they are just two totally different horses.

I think the variance in type is part a curse for the breed (as people here are fighting over what's better or how it should be) but I find it a blessing in that someone can find a mini for any purpose.

Andrea


----------



## LaVern (Jul 23, 2009)

I should not get on this topic because I get so blooming crazy. Although I tried to make a joke you are so right Boinky. I bet that a lot of us AMHR miniature breeders have more honest Shetland breeding in our horses than a lot of the reg. Shetlands out there.

It used to be find a pretty pony - *go looking for some paper to match. *

"*Anything for the improvement of the breed*", was what the old boys used to say. It didn't matter if it was a reg. stallion they used. or even the right one on the papers or even the right breed.

So that is what gets me the most, is that our honest straight old AMHR horses have created an arena for them to show us how much better they are.

Enough Already, LaVern


----------



## disneyhorse (Jul 23, 2009)

Sorry, LaVern... but I don't believe it's only the ASPC horses that have falsified papers. I think there are plenty of AMHR animals out there where you can "put any stallion you like on that foal's papers..."

I have heard that a lot of the ASPC problems were reduced when they finally ALLOWED breeding to the hackneys and welsh ponies on the papers... I have some Moderns that have Hackney registered horses listed. That way, it was legit for you to breed your Shetland to a Hackney and let the Registry know, you didn't have to do the breeding "out behind the barn."

Hopefully the pictures will help reduce that... but without DNA required in AMHR or ASPC... a black horse with no markings is a black horse with no markings.

Andrea


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 23, 2009)

I'm not looking to take a step backwards, but make it to where more people may possibly enjoy showing more and not say oh i got beat by a shetland. Maybe have your mini not have any shetland breeding couple generations back. That way they aren't showing against the AMHR/ASPC horses. I know difficult but thats the way I feel about it. Yeah I know they came from shetland background, but yes they have envolved since then. My minis aren't draft looking minis, they simply have more the QH built and not so much the arabian look.

Yes you are right these minis are versatile, and thats what I like about them. I have a QH built gelding that was a Reserve Champion in Roman Chariot and Top 5 in Obstacle driving and can also do a million other things. So yes if you have a good minded horse that wants to work then you can have that top roadster horse and obstacle horse.


----------



## LaVern (Jul 23, 2009)

GOTTA GO ONE MORE TIME Gotta disagree Disneyhorse. Not with the B's. You see 20 years ago there were just a few of us that loved them. There was no reason to lie. They weren't worth anything. Lot of cheating and lying with the A' AMHR and AMHA, but not our dear B's until the Shetland people figured out they could profit off them.


----------



## kaykay (Jul 23, 2009)

Lavern

I just dont get why you always post so negatively about Shetlands and "Shetland" people? If you dont want to buy or breed ASPC/AMHR then dont. No one is forcing you! Just keep doing what you love.



> I bet that a lot of us AMHR miniature breeders have more honest Shetland breeding in our horses than a lot of the reg. Shetlands out there.


Where does that come from?? First you want to call yours "full blooded miniatures" and deny or put down their Shetland breeding but then on the other hand you say yours "shetland breeding" is more honest then others?? I just dont get it. You cant have it both ways.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Shetlands were NEVER supposed to have to hardship into the very registry they created (AMHR) Somehow it got slipped though at a meeting and the membership let it go.

I really am just trying to understand what it is you dislike so much but I just cant understand your posts

Kay


----------



## Laura Leopard (Jul 23, 2009)

I think the Shetlands are beautiful horses, and I've only been around a select few at shows. My only concern with breeding them back with the traditional mini is temperment. Like I said, I've only seen a few and the few I've seen have been "hot", you know, harder to handle. Now, that energy and "showy" attitude is wonderful in the show ring, but it would not make for a family pet. My minis are shown, but they are pets first. I know many people have them as only pets. The sweet mini personality is what drew me to them in the first place. I felt comfortable with them and I enjoy handling, and driving my boys without worry. I do love the look of the Shetland, especially when they are driving, but I just don't want to loose the sweet personality of the mini by the increased cross breeding.

* I know there are probably sweet, loving, Shetlands out there, just like there are hard to handle minis, so please nobody take offense to anything I said. It is just a personal preference/opinion.


----------



## LaVern (Jul 23, 2009)

Well, I guess the only way I can explain my hang up is to give you an example. First a little background. I've been around along time. And AMHR is a big part of my life. I have supported and lived it for so many years and am very proud of how far we have come.

I don't get off the farm to often, but once in awhile I try to take in a few thing to keep up.

Last fall my good buddy Dot and I decided we would go to the Convention. Now Dot has been with AMHR as long as I have and she has also been a very good girl.

Okay, so us two good old girls are having a nice time and off we went to the big planned supper at Dollyville. Well we are sitting their eating our chicken or maybe it was a duck, anyway it was a bird of some kind. And the announcer comes over the loud speaker. "We would like to welcome the "AMERICAN SHETLAND PEOPLE." Dot looked at me and I looked at her and , my heart went to my stomach, along with that bird.

I know it is silly, but after so many years. Someone had to tell that guy what to say and they did not think enough of the AMHR miniature breeders to even mention us. I just felt so sad. This is just one example it has gone on for years.

Sometimes I think, *oh get over i*t, but then something like this happens and I just feel used. Give me your money and keep your mouth shut.

So it is not the Shetland Pony that I have a problem with.


----------



## icspots (Jul 23, 2009)

I'm not sure we need a new class JMS, what we need at the national level is HONEST MEASURING. So the horses that have been showing all year long in one height division aren't suddenly showing in a smaller division at the nationals!


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 23, 2009)

Honestly I think the whole height problems will always stick around. Its just the miniatures have a whole different variety of types but still have the good conformation to go with it.


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 23, 2009)

I'm just going to remind everyone that the ASPC was here first and then developed the AMHR. Regardless, shetlands, big and small, have always been here (even under 38"). And I find it hilarious that ANYONE would think that SHETLANDS have higher billing than the miniatures. PLEASE! Us "shetland people" are DESPERATE for more public exposure and frills when it comes to the Congress. EVERYONE knows what a mini is, but very few appreciate the beauty, family friendly, and versatility of the American shetland. Frankly, I'm offended by this topic yet again. No one wants to give credit where credit is due, honor the history, or even understand the breed itself! I can't tell you how many non mini people have thought my 46" stallion was a mini....hardly, and you should see their disbelief as I proudly boast he is American shetland. And you know the response I get? "Na, shetlands are those dumpy short necked dwarfs".

Shetlands have always been here and they aren't going any where. Its funny how you hear of people and farms going shetland but you never hear of a shetland farm or person going mini....wonder why?


----------



## StarRidgeAcres (Jul 23, 2009)

This is entertaining!


----------



## TomEHawk (Jul 23, 2009)

Hi All,

I normally don't reply to much. I just read, make my own opinions, keep quite and continue on. But I feel as a "shetland person", it might not hurt. I do like the influence that the shetlands have had on the miniature horse registries. I like the longer necks, the better movement. But as someone had stated earlier, you do lose some of the nicer heads that have been bred to obtain for so long. But that is one thing I don't mind trading off for all that I can get from breeding to the shetlands. Now, again someone earlier stated that they don't like the "hotness" that comes from the shetlands and that all of their minis are pets first and show horses second. I do agree with you, many shetland lines are known for being a bit hot, but there are quite a few known for their willingness to learn, be shown and still be a "kids horse/pet pony". You just have to look for them.

Next I'll discuss the pony papers being falsified in the past and some going on now. Well, for those who have been around and for those that are just learning, YES there are papers that are wrong. But some "mini people" feel that all mini papers are exactly what they say they are, past or present. I can tell you from speaking to many long time breeders from the AMHR and AMHA, many miniature papers are nowhere near as correct as some think. I know some of the minis and ponies I've bought are wrong somewhere in their papers, but from my breeding on, they are correct.

I don't like labeling "shetland people" or "mini people", I'd just like to call all of us "small equine enthusiasts". All the "crap" with all fighting among us really has to stop. We're all going to shows with each other, conventions with each other and some other functions, we all have to learn to get along. It's obvious we're all not going to agree all the time, (maybe not even some of the time), but we all should at least try to compromise with each other. If not for anymore reason than just to make life a little easier. I'm always open for conversation at shows, online or call me at home, (I'm listed in the AMHR Journal as an Area 4 judge & steward), to anybody from any background. I really do love to talk, just don't get to mad when I ramble off.


----------



## LaVern (Jul 23, 2009)

I don't think this is fighting. I think it is great when people just say what they feel. Just let it out and say what you believe. My mind has been changed many times, by what someone has said on this Forum.


----------



## Russ (Jul 23, 2009)

Sorry to switch gears here.....






If you (talking general "you" terms here as anyone can answer this) were the judge at a show and a distinct hackney type looking mini was showing in halter against a bunch of others in a over div. class. How do you judge that against the other types out there? That has got to be extremely hard to judge in a halter class.

I'd really like to learn.


----------



## susanne (Jul 23, 2009)

Russ, I'd judge them as to who was the best representative of their particular "type." As dogs are judged in the Best of Show class.

From what I've seen, even without the ASPC-registered horses, there is no one distinct miniature horse "type." I won't name names (partly because my memory for names really sucks), but a quick review of minis I admire brings to mind delicate, refined sort and the more "baroque"-style, yet equally beautiful examples.


----------



## Marty (Jul 23, 2009)

I am following a lot of what JMS is saying and she is bringing up many points I agree with.





I have nothing against Shetlands, I just don't want one and prefer to stay with A size horses.

I do appreciate the minis who have longer legs and a sleeker body type with pretty movement VS the older style counterparts--- the short legged fat squatty types for better lack of description. If anyone wants to look at it from a heath standpoint, moving away from that old type of conformation where you can't get the weight off of them and they are a founder looking for a place to happen, is reason alone to modernize for the sake of their own health and well being.

It is possible to be able to move forward and to modernize the A size mini without having to jump on the shetland bandwagon for those that care to stay A size. So many have done that successfully with on going tweaking their breeding program with the absence of out crossing to a shetland.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 23, 2009)

disneyhorse said:


> Sorry, LaVern... but I don't believe it's only the ASPC horses that have falsified papers. I think there are plenty of AMHR animals out there where you can "put any stallion you like on that foal's papers..."Andrea



Happens in ASPC, AMHR and AMHA dishonesty doesnt just reside within any one registry. And I have a mini here AMHR registered not ASPC registered whose grandam is a Hackney according to her R papers

I do love the ponies and I do love the minis which is why I have both



I just wish each would be recognized for the wonderful horses they are either registered together or standing on single papers alone but then again I wish we lived in a color blind world where everyone could get along and things like sexual orintation didnt matter one bit..


----------



## kaykay (Jul 24, 2009)

A few months ago I did a blog post here on LB about the "mini people vs shetland people" Its so sad. I dont know what I am as I have had shetlands and minis equally as long. So what does that make me? Like Jason said we all love small equine, we are all members of the same registry. We really need to stop dividing ourselves and work together to get changes made.

Measuring is a problem no matter what size or division you are showing in. Amha has measuring problems as does Amhr, Aspc Until the membership bands together and makes it change nothing will be done.

I do feel open discussion is a great thing

As for temperments I have seen plenty of miniatures I would not let a child handle and plenty of Shetlands. People who come to my farm or see my Shetlands at shows are amazed at how friendly they are. And I lend out Shetlands to kids to show who dont have their own. How they are handled also has a lot to do with it

As for stories I remember a few years back being at Congress and watching the local news come in to do a story. A person from the office mistakenly told the camera crew it was AMHR Miniature Nationals instead of ASPC Shetland pony Congress. So you see mistakes like that just get made because everyone is human and make mistakes

Russ---Part of the problem is there is not a "set type" for a miniature horse. So it wouldnt matter if a hackney looking horse competed in the B division. If you read the miniature standard it is very vague. So all the judge can do is judge conformation and judge according to the standard in the rule book.

But back to the original question about the Shetland influence. Again if its not something you like dont add it to your herd. Keep doing what you are doing. Again that is why small equine are so fun as there is a type/horse for everyone


----------



## stormy (Jul 24, 2009)

My perpetual question, which I have asked many times and no one has answered yet, is why? Why turn the miniature horse into a miniature shetland pony? Why not add a height division to the Shetland registry as miniature shetland?

The registries were going different paths, were developing different types and were distinct and separate in their goals. Why put all the small shetland ponies in and why, if you are going to let the shetland ponies cross register, shut out all other pony breeds?

Why the continuing argument that miniature horses did not have a type so making them pony types is the best way to go. Shetland ponies do not have a type either, they have many types and show by type yet all types of miniature horses/miniature ponies are forced to show together.

Why not offer the horse market both options, increase our market share by keeping the registries unique and different instead of narrowing it by essentially making two registries identical except for the height limit? Atracting more people to the fun and pleasure of owning small equines, not turning those away that do not care for the hotter style of showing and moving ponies bring?

And yes I owned shetlands and minis for many years, I like and admire shetland ponies but my choice was to raise miniature horses. It's not about liking one breed over another it's about keeping both breeds distinct.

ps. and no nonsense about being only a height registry, if AMHR was only a height registry than ANY horse under 38" could be registered.


----------



## kaykay (Jul 24, 2009)

Stormy it was only a few years ago that AMHR closed the books to hardshipping. Until then if it measured 38 or under you could register it weather it was a welsh, quarter etc.

To answer your question of why----I feel that by putting the Shetland blood back into the miniatures we get a miniature with better hips, necks and movement. But again keep in mind that many older Shetland families ALWAYS bred small ponies that were miniature height. So many think its new but its not. Its just that more are out showing and winning so people notice more.

My question is if you dont like the ASPC/AMHR then dont buy them----but why does anyone care that I do??

One thing I know for sure is if they were not winning no one would care and there would not be nearly as many posts about them. (no a horse doesnt win just because its aspc/amhr)



> Shetland ponies do not have a type either, they have many types and show by type yet all types of miniature horses/miniature ponies are forced to show together.


Shetlands have divisions and are shown by type -- so many times you can see a foundation horse but it will be shown classic because that is the "type" it fits into

If you all feel that strongly that miniatures should be shown by division/type then get together, write it up and present it at Convention!


----------



## LaVern (Jul 24, 2009)

Lisa, usually I agree with you, but not this time. I don't want to live in a color blind world. I love color and differences. It is what makes our country so great. I love living in a place were we can all come to the dinner table with our differences. As long as we all get a chance to say what is on our mind. It is only when we are stifled and not given the opportunity to state our opinions that I get worried.

My family is very close but very divided politically and man is it fun at the Holidays.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 24, 2009)

Honestly it seems like judging in AMHR anymore for halter it seems like a color class, judges are always going to pick a certain type that they like, you can't tell me that isn't true.

As far as shetlands not getting the attention they deserve why are they having such a hard time then? I would think the shetlands would be very popular for the children for they also have the riding classes, and the driving classes. I would think the shetlands would be very kid friendly and family oriented. I know the minis can be too but I think the ponies would be more popular, honestly. I had always wondered that. I had been to one Congress back when it was in St. Louis and I thought they were just awesome, especially the riding classes. So am I totally against shetlands no.


----------



## stormy (Jul 24, 2009)

Kay I am very much in disagreement with you on the Shetland influence improving necks, hips and movement. Adding shetland blood, esp modern, has changed the type of neck, hip and movement, to me and my personel preferance to the negative making the neck very narrow often with a dip in front of the withers, some call it swan neck...others call it camel neck.

As for the hip I prefer a hip long and fairly flat WITHOUT stretching. To me the shetlands are fairly goose rumped when set square, good length but not level.

As for the movement, coming from a dressage background the excessive action, elbow knocking gait of the modern is not something I would consider an improvement. I much prefer a long ground covering stride with the knee not going above level. My biggest fear is the type will go to shoes, weights and tailsets in AMHR as it does in ASPC..

The Miniature horse had been improving by selective breeding without the influx of shetland blood, all breeds strive to continue to improve.

I do not make these comments to slam the shetland, they are built to move in that high and hot style. I just want to point out there are many opinions about what is better for the breed. Some like it hot, some do not.

This is not about winning either, my horses bring home the ribbons just fine, it is about losing the Miniature Horse. There is a Shetland Registry, the Shetland is not in danger and can develop along its path within its registry. I would like to see the Miniature Horse have the same opportunity offering more options to those who would like to become a part of the small equine world.


----------



## kaykay (Jul 24, 2009)

Stormy I think the problem is you are so focused on one division - Modern! Yes there are moderns getting small enough to be B divsion, but the majority are foundation/classic. I dont understand why the first thing that comes to peoples minds is Modern Shetlands??? Maybe because they are so flashy and stick in peoples minds?? Remember for classic and foundation the type of movement is in their standard and anything extreme is to be penalized.

The classic and/or foundation shetlands are the ones that produced the first miniatures

IMO the biggest problem facing miniatures right now is upward fixation of the patella. This is a conformation problem that keeps getting bred back in because a lot either dont see it or ignore it and breed the horse anyway. All you have to do is a search here on LB to see what a huge problem it is. While there can be Shetlands with this it is not nearly as prevelant as it is in miniatures. So many minis have very small hips and the back leg is too straight causing upward fixation of the patella


----------



## Sue_C. (Jul 24, 2009)

> but you never hear of a shetland farm or person going mini....wonder why?


There have very likely been many...that is why the AMHR was first developed wasn't it...from what I have always read...a place to market the smaller shetlands and market them as something new and more valuable??

As for a shetland farm or person going from shetlands to miniatures...Tony Greaves and his family is the first that comes to mind.

I love the look of most of the shetlands, (except for those with long plain convex heads) but not too crazy about the extreme action of the moderns. I figure if I wanted a hackney pony...I can very well buy one...so why do the sheltands have to pretend they are hackneys? THAT is what I fear will become of the miniatures...unless we _right at the start_...set them as types, just as the shetland registry has done, before they are _all _mini-shackneys.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 24, 2009)

kaykay said:


> IMO the biggest problem facing miniatures right now is upward fixation of the patella. This is a conformation problem that keeps getting bred back in because a lot either dont see it or ignore it and breed the horse anyway. All you have to do is a search here on LB to see what a huge problem it is. While there can be Shetlands with this it is not nearly as prevelant as it is in miniatures. So many minis have very small hips and the back leg is too straight causing upward fixation of the patella



I have to slightly disagree here I have seen many many many poorly conformed shetlands with horrible hind ends and stifles that are so straight you know they lock. I know in fact off the top of my head 3 people who had shetlands with stifle surgery in the past year.

I think in small equine it is more common then in large and I think or I should say my guess is it is more common in the classic and foundation then the moderns my guess again is due to the hackney influence and bringing other breeds in.

I think that is one thing that upsets others although I am talking for them and guessing is that it seems to be both ways.

Minis are Shetlands and came from Shetlands however somehow Shetlands have none of the issues that minis do and are all together better conformation and better quality.

There is good and bad conformation and quality in both. All it takes is searching some sites to find very poor quality ponies out there as well as minis and sadly both are in abundence.


----------



## LaVern (Jul 24, 2009)

Kay Kay. Those are the ones that scare me. And those are the ones that a few of the top trainers will gravitate to. Some judges will go with them at Nationals and there we go. What wins at Nationals helps determine which direction our Miniatures go. But if they are within the height limits they have just as much right to be there as anyone else.


----------



## kaykay (Jul 24, 2009)

Lisa I agree it can be a problem in ponies too (as I said above) but imo is it not nearly as huge as it is in miniatures. There will always be poor quality horses in any breed. I am just answering her question about why I breed them so that is just for me. Other breeders can chime in on why they do





Lavern I guess I have not seen all these Moderns showing B division that people talk about. Living and showing in Ohio I am in pretty big pony country and just dont see them. Every once in a while but cant think of even one I have seen this year??

Anyway this has been a great conversation if nothing else



> so why do the sheltands have to pretend they are hackneys?


Again you are referring to Modern division.

Here is one of our ASPC/AMHR mares HP Jerichos Peaceable Star. This farm has always been known for breeding mini size shetlands. I dont think there is anything hackney about her.











Here is her filly from this year pictured at 10 hours old and not all the way unfolded. I think you would be hard pressed to know that she is ASPC/AMHR if you came here and didnt know. She was approx 21" at birth. Ten L's Tigers Back In Black is the sire


----------



## Sandee (Jul 24, 2009)

Selective breeding and conformation. That's what it's all about! To get the most/almost "perfect" horse (and everyone has a different idea of perfect).

My stallion is only 32" and throws very straight legs and downsizes from most mares. He has, so far, thrown Appy into his get just to make the color pick exciting. But he has so little action that he has to go in the Western driving class. Yes, he got a championship in it for his size but he's no FUN to drive.

My husband is "into" geneology so we looked up Awesome's family tree. If we go back enough generations we find really nasty looking miniatures (they resemble tiny wooly mamoths) but we also find shetlands and hackneys (yes, hackneys).

So if they can "breed down" my thoughts would be to "breed up" to not only the size we desire but the look (conformation) and action we want!

Like I said before, if the ASPC/AMHR is what's winning in the "B" division then that's what I'd want to show (if I showed in B).


----------



## Riverdance (Jul 24, 2009)

> My biggest fear is the type will go to shoes, weights and tailsets in AMHR as it does in AMHA.


Stormy,

I was not going to post on this thread, but seeing this made me have to say something.

Where did you get the idea that AMHA driving horses wore shoes and had their tails set? A horse with a tailset or shoes would be kicked out of the show ring. Although I have seen tailsets at some AMHR shows. As for using weights and other means for training a driving horse. Both AMHA and AMHR trainers for the most part, put atificial motion on their horses.


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 24, 2009)

AMHR does have a Park class, which according to the rules you can add a tail set. No Shoes allowed.


----------



## stormy (Jul 24, 2009)

My mistake in typing, I fear the AMHR miniature if it continues with the Shetland influence will be forced to wear shoes, weights, tailsets, etc as the shetlands (ASPC) do.

And as for focusing on one division remember I owned Shetlands for many years, classics...the classics have gone to the more extreme movement and type as well following the moderns, but at least in the Shetland registry you have another option as to division. All of my Shetlands could have been registered foundation.


----------



## minih (Jul 24, 2009)

> My mistake in typing, I fear the AMHR miniature if it continues with the Shetland influence will be forced to wear shoes, weights, tailsets, etc as the shetlands (ASPC) do.


Not even in the ASPC do all horses have the above mentioned. I am taking 4 horses to Congress this next week and none have shoes, weights or tailsets. And they have been showing very well this year in their classes.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 24, 2009)

If everyone or anyone has an issue with what is out there winning in the ring- study learn and become a judge - if enough people feel the way you do you will be working a lot


----------



## Russ (Jul 24, 2009)

Thanks Susanne and Kay for responding. I appreciate it alot.

Kay, your right...there is no set type.....and that in itself can be a challenge and a blessing in a class.





But it does clearify what a judge has to consider in the ring when judging a halter class. And if I were a judge and came from a hackney background or a welsh or mini or a shetland....I probably would be partial to the look that I liked. It's just human nature, we all like what our beliefs were founded upon.

As a competitor, I have to remember that all and make educated decisions in showing...who, what and where....and then ask myself....why did I do that?



It's just smart to do your homework. See, I'm learning already





I have nothing against mini's, shetlands or hackneys at all and certaily love to compete against them. My intention is to learn and be more succesful in the ring and breeding herd. But to be clear, when I refer to a hackney type look competing....I'm not referring to the moderns small enough to compete in with the B's. I'm actually talking about the breedings that used a small hackney stud somewhere in the lineage to cross in with the mini mares.

I learned alot from this thread and the other one. I thank you all


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 24, 2009)

I agree with Stormy I think people that breed for miniature horses (not miniature shetlands), just don't want to see the "breed" go. Thats why I think people really express their opinions on this.

As far as the legs are concerned, I do see quite a bit of problems with stifles when it comes to these minis, heck I had a GMB grandson that had stifle issues. But I also see some of these mini shetlands that have bad camped out back legs that aren't good either. I mean these shetlands are suppose to be stretched out as it is so its easy to hide it, and plus have a better topline. Not saying all these shetlands are like this and not saying all minis don't have this but just giving an example of a negative thing I see when it comes to the miniature shetlands. I think each and everyone of us should pay real close attention to the legs of these horses, I see this as more of a bigger problem that these horses have, doesn't matter how good of a head or neck your horse has if it doesn't have the legs.

I believe the only shoes you are allowed to have in AMHR is the chariot and the draft classes, the only time you should have a fake tail if needed is in park. I don't know about AMHA.


----------



## Little Indian Acres (Jul 24, 2009)

JMS Miniatures said:


> I'm not looking to take a step backwards, but make it to where more people may possibly enjoy showing more and not say oh i got beat by a shetland. Maybe have your mini not have any shetland breeding couple generations back. That way they aren't showing against the AMHR/ASPC horses. I know difficult but thats the way I feel about it. Yeah I know they came from shetland background, but yes they have envolved since then. My minis aren't draft looking minis, they simply have more the QH built and not so much the arabian look.
> Yes you are right these minis are versatile, and thats what I like about them. I have a QH built gelding that was a Reserve Champion in Roman Chariot and Top 5 in Obstacle driving and can also do a million other things. So yes if you have a good minded horse that wants to work then you can have that top roadster horse and obstacle horse.



You sound like you prefer my kind of horse.



I like essentially a sport horse in miniature.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 24, 2009)

Russ said:


> But it does clearify what a judge has to consider in the ring when judging a halter class. And if I were a judge and came from a hackney background or a welsh or mini or a shetland....I probably would be partial to the look that I liked. It's just human nature, we all like what our beliefs were founded upon. As a competitor, I have to remember that all and make educated decisions in showing...who, what and where....and then ask myself....why did I do that?
> 
> 
> 
> It's just smart to do your homework. See, I'm learning already


Yep Russ that is exactly it!


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 24, 2009)

Little Indian Acres said:


> JMS Miniatures said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not looking to take a step backwards, but make it to where more people may possibly enjoy showing more and not say oh i got beat by a shetland. Maybe have your mini not have any shetland breeding couple generations back. That way they aren't showing against the AMHR/ASPC horses. I know difficult but thats the way I feel about it. Yeah I know they came from shetland background, but yes they have envolved since then. My minis aren't draft looking minis, they simply have more the QH built and not so much the arabian look.
> ...








I prefer a horse that can actually do something. I tell people I want to breed miniature performance horses lol. My goal is to produce winning versatility horses which of course includes halter.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 24, 2009)

kaykay said:


> One thing I know for sure is if they were not winning no one would care and there would not be nearly as many posts about them. (no a horse doesnt win just because its aspc/amhr)


I am not sure if the above statement is true or not. Here is a quote made by an AMHR/ASPC sanctioned judge recently:

"What I saw this week was horses that were thin not necessarily refined but bone thin with pencil thin upright necks winning in the ring. Unfortunately sometimes good comformation (sp) is just not enough in todays world. I have seen a lot of lessor (sp) quality horses winning classes this year because of long necks and tiny heads/ears."

That sounds to me like a pony type is being described, not a good quality pony type but pony none the less. If it is going to be a case of 'if it's pony it must be better' no matter what it is put together like then I take exception to that. Sounds to me like good quality doesn't seem to matter as much as having pony traits does. Maybe fewer of them should be winning.....


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 24, 2009)

Judges are taught to judge on form to function. But we all know that bias does play a part. If you want a better breed specification to typify the miniature horse, people are going to have to get together and write a proposal and submit it to Convention. If you want to close the books completely to outside influences (which has been mentioned here that shetlands are the origination) then that is a proposal too.

To each his own here IMHO. Breeding for good quality, confirmation, soundness, character and temperment - isn't that the goal here, either reg?


----------



## Becky (Jul 24, 2009)

When I bought my first miniature horse in 1989, I purchased that horse because I wanted something really _miniature_. Something that looked way smaller than the Arabian horses that I had.

Having gone through 20 years now of miniature horse ownership, I've come to see the 'breed' develop and come a long ways from where it started. As someone who breeds for horses that are 34" and under, I've seen refinement, balance and quality grow by leaps and bounds. While I readily admit and am proud of the fact that these horses have Shetland pony in their backgrounds, where I'm going with my breeding program does not include adding current Shetland blood.

The reason for me to not add Shetlands to my miniature breeding program is just that. I want to keep it miniature . By adding Shetland to my herd, it only increases the liklihood of having foals that mature taller than 34". There are certainly registered Shetlands under 34" in height, however, their close up background is likely over 34". Over 34" horses in the first few generations of a pedigree greatly increase the chances of having foals maturing over 34"even if sire and dam are under 34".

So for me, my goal is to continue to breed the finest under 34" horses that I can, utilizing pedigrees of as many under 34" horses that I can.


----------



## Allure Ranch (Jul 24, 2009)

StarRidgeAcres said:


> This is entertaining!



_[SIZE=12pt]To say the least.... Ha![/SIZE]_


----------



## LaVern (Jul 24, 2009)

I feel like this a lot more than entertaining. It is informative and makes me stop about things. What happens in the AMHA affects the AMHR and visa versa. Although some AMHA people might not think so.

I think that we are at a cross roads and some of us are going to have to make some decisions and because of the economy they are going to be some tough ones.

We have so many IF's

First AMHA is going to be closing-We think- Do we hardship in before it does? Or just figure that they will change their minds in a few years when they need more money.

I think that AMHR will follow suit shortly if they do. Making single AMHA's worthless if they go over and pretty worthless even if they don't. And I think that there are still a lot of them not doubled. Unless that would force them to create an over division.. And then I would really be mad if I didn't hardship them AMHA.

Shoot I put this on the wrong thread. Oh well.


----------



## Robin (Jul 24, 2009)

stormy said:


> "The Miniature horse had been improving by selective breeding without the influx of shetland blood, all breeds strive to continue to improve."
> 
> Hi All- I haven't been able to read all the posts yet- but this is where I am and the above comment made me want to reply.....
> 
> ...


----------



## Robin (Jul 24, 2009)

Okay- on emore thing since I have read all the posts now

Judging the minaiture horse- since i am an AMHR/ASPC- Modern and Classic and Show Pony carded judge- this is how I do it....

AMHR- under and over division- there is no set type for these divisions. Correct conformaiton, proporiton and balance and movement are taken into consideration. However- there is no scale to weigh these characterisitcs and judge by type or ability. So -yes- it is up to what the judge wants to pick. It still should be sound and correct.

ASPC-there is a very distinct type (bone structure, physical balance) tempermant, and movment explained in the rule book for each division of the shetland. This I follow very closely whenjudging- however soundness is one of my biggest concerns. If I have a horse that borders on type but the horse that truly fits type is not sound or conformed correctly- I will go with the one that borders on type- only if it is more correct and meets the other criteria. Many of the classes have a percentage weight for each charcterisitcs- this should make it much more difficult for judges to play politics or personal preference when judging.

I think the AMHR B division is coming to a big cross roads and I have had this discussion with many directors in AMHR/ASPC. In My opinion- there needs to either be a set type put on the division or they need to create an ASPC miniature division at Congress. It is very difficult for the over 34" miniature to compete with the under 38" shetland. I see it mostly in respects to head proportion to body, neck set and shoulder angles and leg length to body proportion along with movement in the bigger divisions. In these classes I am looking for the most correct conformed and sound horse with the best balance and proportion - I try to leave type or breed out of it. It really isn't too difficult to do at the local shows, but at the National Show I see it being a much bigger dilema for judges to decide. I know if I had that job title it would make things a whole lot easier on the me to pick out of 80 yearling fillies which ones fits type best.

Just my opinions here. I am glad to see the topic come up on here as I think it is something to discuss more.

Robin-LKF


----------



## Robin (Jul 24, 2009)

Sorry for all the typos



Robin


----------



## LaVern (Jul 24, 2009)

Oh no Robin, They found a very very old miniature skeleton out west in the Bad Lands of North Dakota that will prove once and for all that is where miniatures descended from. He seems to have had a good bite, although perhaps a little heavy boned. National Geographic is doing a series on it.

The little guy, and we think he was a stallion was probably 33 inches tall and 11 or 12 years old when he came to his death. The are always digging for dinosaurs so perhaps they will find more of them. We have named him Shorty.

Don't you think that beats the Royalty story? But really I think that all horses came from something that somewhat resembled my first miniatures. Yikes.

Seriously, it is wonderful to hear from a new young judge that has more time and experience in this industry than a lot of us old timers. I am thinking about your ideas for the over division and I think I like what I hear. Ms LaVern


----------



## ckmini (Jul 24, 2009)

Robin said:


> I strive to produce the 34" horse that can move like a Hackney, have the proportion of leg to barrel of a Modern, have the hip and balance of a Classic and the face of Buckeroo! We all have something to strive for- that's mine at least. I think the influence is a good one- not just for movement and proportion which I feel the miniature horse could stand to improve, but for the genetic pool. If the miniature breed isn't careful they may just breed themselves into dwarfdom.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 24, 2009)

> ......or they need to create an ASPC miniature division at Congress.
> 
> 
> > Where and how would they draw the line? What would prevent a Shetland that is double registered and meets the height requirements to show Mini from showing as a Mini?
> ...


----------



## Boinky (Jul 24, 2009)

> Now THIS I agree with completely! We need a breed description that will give us a set type to breed to. Preferably a description that makes the Miniature Horse a HORSE which I have been lead to believe was the intended direction way back in the beginning when they called them Miniature HORSES.


ok so what if your idea (saying this to the general audience) of 'type' is not what ASPC/AMHR were to decidesthe type should be.. which i would guess about 90% of mini's will not fit one specific type.. I think your going to see a real problem with our industry. people either will change to that specific type (which may not be at all what everyone saying they want "real" mini's to be) or they will fold financially (or mentally lol) and get out of the industry completely. i don't know about you but i'd probably be very upset if someone came along and all of a sudden after years of setting my program to what i liked with our already vague standards and said "hey your horses don't fit the type and never will by our new standards..too bad so sad". I could be wrong but i think it could do a lot of damage to set a specific type.. perhaps setting several different types would work though. This is something people should NOT be too hasty in deciding on and give MUCH fore thought to. just because "YOU" want it one way does not mean that is how the AMHR staff or membership will decide to make it and considering the very large membership not everyone is bound to agree either.....

just some things to think on....


----------



## TomEHawk (Jul 24, 2009)

Robin is dead on in everything she has stated. As an ASPC/ASPR/AMHR judge I do prefer the modern looking miniatures, but a good horse is a good horse. I will not place a high trotting miniature that has a bad head, bad neck, bad top &/or bottom line and a bad hind over a quarter horse type mini that has a nice top line &/or bottom line, nice neck, nice head, straight legs, and a nice head just because he/she can't trot as high as the other modern type mini. And the same goes the other way around. We, as judges, can't get hung up on one thing on a horse. We have to look at the overall picture, no matter what type. At least, this is the way I feel.


----------



## Keri (Jul 25, 2009)

I've only been into showing for 4 years. Did a bit of research here and there. As far as shetland influence, miniatures were created from shetlands bred down. So where does the shetland influence end?



The shetland has evolved to become very family friendly, refined horses. I know I rode a potty, onery shetland mare when I was a kid and hated her! But my shetlands now are nothing compared to what she was (and shetlands got a bad rap for being pigheaded). I just started showing shetlands last year. I show the big boys (43" on up). Loved the show ring environment with them. I think working the rail and the entire way they are shown showcases a horse a lot better than a mini. I definately got bored in the mini halter ring. But that's just me. I still have an A mini I show. But he's not as fun to me as showing the ponies. And in training, I found my shetlands more willing to learn and please. Most of my minis have always had the attitude of leave me alone and we'll be good.



My moderns are definately more hotter, but very controllable. I wouldn't hand them over to my 2 year old (nor would I hand over most of the minis I've owned) only due to height differences. But he'll start leadline on my classic next year and will start to show them later on when he gets a bit taller. But overall, I love my ponies.

But like most said, its a preference. The mini I show is an appy. Comformationally correct, but due to spots on his butt, some judges will overlook him. Same with showing the AMHR/ASPC minis with different influences. The judge has an idea of what they like and either your horse has it or not. You pay for their opinion, but you don't always have to like it.



Those are just my two cents.


----------



## Minimor (Jul 25, 2009)

> Loved the show ring environment with them. I think working the rail and the entire way they are shown showcases a horse a lot better than a mini. I definately got bored in the mini halter ring. But that's just me.


Me too. Me too! I got my first Shetland last year, then acquired 3 more this spring, and have one more coming this fall. I showed them for the first time last month and loved it--the rail work is a blast. I like being able to show off those big trots.
I actually wish that Minis did rail work the same way the Classics do. I've got some big moving Minis and I think that style of showing would show them (and their movement!) off much better than the current way of showing Minis.


----------



## JWC sr. (Jul 25, 2009)

Thanks Robin,

You and your family (yes even John Boy) are good for this industry. Your experience and success in this industry is above question and I personally admire all of you for your successes and efforts.






As you know many times we may be on different sides of any particular question, But I always respect where you are coming from. Heck even Cindy and I disagree about where we should be going, how we are going to get there and in general what is really important. LOL





Thanks for chiming in I hope yours posts give all of us a number of things to think about.





By the way, I think it is the worst thing AMHA can do if they continue down the path of closing the registry. As your brother and I have talked about there are way to many things that need to be corrected in the miniature horse to close the gene pool at this time in my humble opinion. Plus there is the money issue which in todays day and age any revenue source is a welcome addition.


----------



## Genie (Jul 25, 2009)

I grew up with ponies and shetlands and they were a "dime a dozen" ....hot and nasty, and all the other things we have all known about the shetland, if you remember those days.

I do know that people are going to listen to the "hype" on whatever is out there and "go for it". Like the stock market, for instance...if you make your decisions based on hearing about a good stock, then you are too late to get in on it, and do well, usually.

The breeders promoting shetlands and the judges decisions will steer people to the shetland and the market will saturate, and they will be back to the "dime a dozen" days.

Is "the miniature horse is the best example of the full sized horse in miniature" as I have seen written?

In a show, is the statement "all things being equal the judge will place the smaller horse over the taller" a correct statement?

In my opinion, it is not the way it is, and the answer given to me from judges and competitors is, "the smaller horse can not be equal to the taller horse due to many factors, leg action" 'neck" , and on and on.

Maybe I am a little off topic in answering the thread, but rather "venting again" about what I am seeing in the few shows that I can attend or compete in.

I am obviously a lover of the smallest miniature horses, conformationally correct and possessing a good nature.


----------



## Minimor (Jul 25, 2009)

> In a show, is the statement "all things being equal the judge will place the smaller horse over the taller" a correct statement?
> In my opinion, it is not the way it is, and the answer given to me from judges and competitors is, "the smaller horse can not be equal to the taller horse due to many factors, leg action" 'neck" , and on and on.


If the smaller horse doesn't have the leg action, the "neck" and/or whatever else that the taller horse has, then all things are not equal.



> I grew up with ponies and shetlands and they were a "dime a dozen" ....hot and nasty, and all the other things we have all known about the shetland, if you remember those days.


The ponies I grew up with were none of those things. I did know a few that were smarter than their owners, and those owners would complain about how ornery the pony was--they never recognized that the only real problem they had was their ponies were smarter than they were!


----------



## LaVern (Jul 25, 2009)

It is the Modern Shetland influence that scares me. And it will come. The reason it scares me is that I am afraid that some will try to compete, with horses that can't do it. You can already see, what looks like to me, miniature horses that have had something funny done to them to make them lift there legs goofy.

So if we get on it and create a spot for them before it goes to far, I think we can eliminate problems down the line.

Last year Larry put in a new fun class on the rail. I don't know how I feel about it, but it was fun.

So I think Robin is right, we have to think ahead.

I know probably should not say this, but my Dad and my Uncles are gone now, so they don't care if you flame them. But this is what they used to say," A bunch of Old Fuds hanging on the rail, looking for some action, wrecked a whole breed".

I don't believe that, as I feel there is a place for them, but it is not competing against our more classic style minis, any more than they do in the Shetland Arena.


----------



## Reble (Jul 25, 2009)

So many different opinions, which is good to read and learn from.

I believe the best thing for the miniature horse is to have a program & try to better the breed.

So many of us do not.


----------



## kaykay (Jul 25, 2009)

I know back in my day they called any small pony a shetland weather it actually was or not (still happens today) And I also know that the children that rode those ponies were not accomplished riders in any way and saw plenty of ponies terrorized by small children. IMO this is where they got that "nasty" reputation. I worked at a riding rental stable and when I think back now of how bad those ponies were treated its just horrible. I also remember myself going out into a field of ponies and jumping on them and riding them. Am I proud of that now?? No!!! But I feel sure it did nothing to help the temperments of those ponies.

When people come here they are just shocked at how sweet and loving our shetlands are. I have lent Jet out to a couple different kids that had no experience with ponies and they did wonderfully with Jet.

Modern Shetlands arent the people eating horses people think they are either. We have a modern pleasure and shes so smart we just have to always stay a step aheadof her. Kyle started showing her when he was just 9. She is always the pony people gravitate to when they come here.


----------



## Genie (Jul 25, 2009)

Minimor said:


> > In a show, is the statement "all things being equal the judge will place the smaller horse over the taller" a correct statement?
> > In my opinion, it is not the way it is, and the answer given to me from judges and competitors is, "the smaller horse can not be equal to the taller horse due to many factors, leg action" 'neck" , and on and on.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LaVern (Jul 25, 2009)

It is not their temperament that I worry about. I own 29 inch miniatures that are terrible. It is the Modern Shetlands abilities and is it fair to put them up against our more classic miniatures? They don't do it in the Shetland Arena.

I am not really up on a lot of the Shetland history, but I think it caused so much trouble and so many hard feelings for the Pony Club, there was A's and B's and something about percentages. I think they ended up just going with the look. I am not sure. So I think we should get on it and do something ahead of time for a change, to avoid trouble down the line.


----------



## kaykay (Jul 25, 2009)

I for sure was against the dropping of the A's and B's on the papers but no one consulted me LOL. Because of this you do see Modern/ Pleasure types showing in Classic division. So--- nothing is perfect in any registry for sure. But again this goes back to judges. If a modern or modern pleasure shows in classic the horse is to be penalized but some judges dont and will actually place them.


----------



## Amy (Jul 25, 2009)

My answer in this topic is for Genie -- she & I have had many discussions on this , and I don't think i get my point made correctly, or at least as plainly as I would like to..

As I see it the main problem here at the fair shows in "The not being equal" is that fairs don't have a large budget so they show ALL heights together and so nothing is really equal, especialy in driving.(unless the show is sanctioned )

To do justice to both the small and the taller horses the height divisions should not be in the same class together.

ALso, at the show I know Genie is referring to -- it is classed as an "A" only show -- but it does not use the "A" requirements for each age class

weanlings up to 30"

Yearlings - up to 32"

3 year olds - 33"

mature - 34"

However, in any class as long as the horse is "Under 34" it is allowed.

BUT --, the people in charge do have the ability to change this to a proper A only show by using the rulebook definition for each age heights. You cannot expect the judge to make the changes for you in the ring, as the judge has to judge each animal presented to them in the ring with no bias -- so if a "taller " horse has more action -- then all things are not equal & that horse deserves the placing.

The show managers are in control of what is allowed to enter the class by how they have set up the rules for the show. THe judge does not know or see the measurments of any horse & have to assume that if you have allowed it to be entered into that class it is under the height you have set for that class -- at this show the only criteria being "under 34 inches."

Well a weanling that is 33 " does not compare to a 30" and so on down the line.

IF you want to have an "A" only show then the heights for each age must be followed or you do not have anything close to a true A show or anything being equal except that ALL the horses at the show are under 34" regardless of their age.

This only compounds the differences and does nothing to make things equal.

Hopefully I have explained this clearly as I know Genie is very frustrated with the judging at these "A" shows -- but the judge canly judge what is presented to them. It really & truly is not an A show -- and only by changing the rules for next year can we hope to make it equal in the way that Genie would like to see it judged.

Glad to see you venting Genie -- maybe someone else can help you see what I am trying to show you.

Also by the way -- you do have a wonderful show -- it is one of our very favorites, & with over a 100 horses this year you can be very proud.

But, you will have to change the rules to accomplish what you so dearly love & want to see & protect.

Hope this helps explain things.


----------



## kaykay (Jul 25, 2009)

HI Amy!

I get what you are saying but that really has nothing to do with the Shetland influence. Many AMHA breeders breed for the top of that 34" so they will have tall yearlings and weanlings even without having reintroduced Shetland back in.

Hope that makes sense!


----------



## Songcatcher (Jul 25, 2009)

Robin said:


> All miniatures- A and B sized are nothing more than small Shetlands. Robin-LKF


Robin, there is no doubt in my mind that you are infinately more knowledgeable about the breeding and showing of Miniatures than I am (and I say that with sincerity, not sarcasm), but, this statement is somewhat misleading. I have no doubt that Shetland is by far the major influence in Miniature, but other breeds have had some influence as well. Proof of this is as simple as colors and patterns in Miniatures that do not exist in the original Shetlands. But, for that matter, today's Shetlands are not simply Shetlands either, and that is one of the main things I have against them personally. Today's Shetlands are nothing like the Shetlands I remember as a kid nearly 50 years ago, and it is not just from selective breeding within the breed. It is from outcrossing to other breeds.

I think everyone needs to keep in mind that everyone has their preference, and breed for what they like. Lest anyone think I am trying to put down Shetlands, my current main herdsire is the 29 inch grandson of a Shetland named Rowdy.


----------



## LaVern (Jul 25, 2009)

Just about everything I have ever done well with goes back to a little Welsh mare.


----------



## Robin (Jul 25, 2009)

okay- I'm back!

I agree with the person who was questioning what "type" the decison makers might put on the B division. I would be concerned as well. My thinking and suggestion would be very similar to what the divisions are in the ASPC classes. A "Classic Miniature" and a "Modern Miniature" - with very similar requirements- basically size would be the difference. I think and have always thought that the best thing about the miniature horse is that they are so versatile and attract horse people from all different backgrounds- QH, Arab, Morgan, Hackney, Welsh, App, Paint etc. We are blessed to have a product that has such a large demographic audience. I think the above type breakdown is the only way that a true "type" could be set and include all the horses that are already showing in the B division - and I am not so certain the same breakdown shouldn't be made in the A division. Now the show managers are going to have a fit with this sort of schedule! Don't ask me how to get it that all figured out





I do agree- there are Welsh, Hackney, Appy, different Pinto lines etc all somewhere in these minis- obviously- but to my knowledge- most of these original crosses first came thru the shetland line and then the mini (dwarfs) were bred to them and have evolved from there. Now I could be wrong and I haven't read all the old Journals, but that has been my understanding from the "ole fellers".

My Mom grew up with the "old shetlands" that were called the four letter word! Just like any breed of dog, horse etc, there are some lines that have different personalities than others. There are some that are more workable and friendly than others and some that blow fire out their nostrils and have their tails up over their backs (now those are my type



) I love the poof and blow horses. However- I did have a Shetland stud that once he knew I was scared of him- he took it out on me everytime. Needless to say he is gone - but I have a daughter of his and she is sweet and gentle. I never label an entire line of horses just from one bad one.

I do know what LaVern is saying in regards to making a horse something it isn't by breeding a certain type! I see miniatures in cart that should never be in cart- physcially they can't do it- there is no form to function. That is an entire different subject and something that I feel is a huge problem in the associations and shows. But like I said- that is another subject.

Just my input- thank you so much for the compliments. I told my Mom she needed to read this post- apparently several people feel she has taught me well!

Robin-LKF


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 25, 2009)

Robin said:


> okay- I'm back!
> I
> 
> I do agree- there are Welsh, Hackney, Appy, different Pinto lines etc all somewhere in these minis- obviously- but to my knowledge- most of these original crosses first came thru the shetland line and then the mini (dwarfs) were bred to them and have evolved from there. Now I could be wrong and I haven't read all the old Journals, but that has been my understanding from the "ole fellers".
> ...


Ok so here is my question or well thoughts I guess.... and you know Robin I mean this respectfully





I hear often it is the minis that were/are dwarves yet we also hear sometimes in the same sentence all minis came from Shetlands which ok we know it was a great marketing tool at the time.. so then that means the original dwarves were shetlands then right? Granted the mini breeders (who were at the time Shetland breeders marketing the midget ponies) used those dwarves in breeding for the what would be soon called the Miniature horse.. and not for their "Shetland" programs so yes I am agreeing that those Shetland breeders going to market their smaller ponies as midget ponies which then became Miniature horses (thank goodness much better name) really made that dwarf gene prominant in our breed and culled it so to speak out of the Shetlands but if they are one and the same thing.. then the Shetlands were the dwarves used to downsize correct?

Not that it matters what is done is done there is no going back only learning and fixing but I just am wanting to be clear that is all minis came from Shetlands with of course obviously some POA and other breeds thrown in there the dwarf "mini "did not just appear the breeders were all the shetland breeders trying to quickly make a new breed?


----------



## Robin (Jul 25, 2009)

John could answer this questions better than I can- as he is the only expert I know of that has studied the genetics of the miniature horse to this degree. And anyon ewho knows John, knows his reply would be a book!

If you look back in the miniature pedigrees- which very few exist past 1960, but the few that do- you will see tremendous size decrease within a one generation cross. Now I am not certain that the breeders then realized they were doubling up on a small gene (the recessive dwarf gene), but out comes a much smaller foal. It was the breeders who seeked these small- "exotic circus midget ponies" out and continued to cross them and create even smaller ones. It was an evolution. But what the mini breeders found in the 70s was that if you took a dwarf stallion and bred it to the shetland mares- the resulting foal crop were primarily all smaller than the mares. Making the decrease in size much faster and more predominant. So- yes I would say that minis are shetlands and my guess would be 50% of the minis today go back to a dwarf stallion. Some of the minis are truly bred down Shetlands without the dwarf gene (according to John- it is not always connected to size). However many minis today are bred up from the dwarf mini/shetland crosses.

I am trying to make this simple and easy to understand- so sorry for being so fague and unclear. Like I said my brother would write a book in wonderful detail that would probably lose most of us in the first paragraph! My parents college money went to good use - trust me! Anyway- My Mom remembers when her grandparents came home from an auction with some new mares and a tiny stud. My great grandpa had no idea what his wife wanted with that little stud. But Mom remembers as a little girl she could sit on his back and her feet touched the ground. So- I like to think my great grandparents had a role in the miniature horse today- and they did - a big one- they were the ones who got my mother hooked and so became Little King Farm.

Robin


----------



## Robin (Jul 25, 2009)

I was re-reading a post- "all things equal". I have to say- equal???? I have never found 2 horses equal. Every horse has attributes and faults- at different degrees of greatness. Yes it is a wonderful site to see the most correct, sound and proportionate horse in a Grand class come from the smaller classes- and it has been done. It is just rare. As we talked today at the youth and amateur seminars we had here at the farm..... It is rare that all things are equal in a class and size is the final would be the deciding point. 9 out of 10 times the faults (and presentation- poor) decide where the horses should be placed and size is never even considered (at least in my experience). Like I said earlier- I choose my placings on correctness, soundness, proportion etc first - all over type or size.

I believe the original statement ..all things equal.... was written in order to give the judges the perception that the intention of the breed (association) was to make the miniature horse smaller because smaller was better and more valuable or exotic. If you recall- small size was all that mattered when breeding the first miniature horses- not quality or type- it was a money making exotic animal- not a show animal bred for form to function or for a purpose.

There are some things that I feel should be "reworded' now that the breed has evolved to where people are driving, jumping, etc making them actually work and perform.

Robin


----------



## PrestigeMiniHorses (Jul 26, 2009)

Robin, you are such a great big influence on the breed and I remember many moons ago as a child that I always dreamed of meeting you and seeing your farm. There's many people I have felt like that about. I feel that the things you have said couldn't be said better.

I must say that I have showed both Minis, Shetlands and Hackneys. I love the fire breathing hackneys but they nothing like the Shetlands. Funny how I wish I could figure out and remember the name of the old lady who rescued by pony and several others including the sire. Interesting enough all of these ponies were ponies coming from the Dun-Haven Farm. I do remember the sire of my I believe his name was something like Lornador's Inquisitive. I did get the oppurtunity to meet him though and he was actually registered as a Hackney and Shetland. He was tiny thats for sure and at the time really old.... I want to say easily in his 30s. Anyhow though I do remember this horse was small enough I am sure to be registered as a mini as well but at that time people weren't doing it. I havent been to a breed show in a quite awhile due to life changing circumstances....Sorry for straying I was just remembering the good old days.

Anyways, no one wants health problems through their herd. And as breeders (which I am not) I think you all strive for the best. I think new blood is good but to each their own. If you don't want to cross-breed or out-cross then its simply don't do it. I love Classic and Foundation Shetlands...And in some way or another I think it would be nice to see some sort class division for the old type minis. My mare that I used to own was nothing like the ones that are being shown nowadays. I think they would have sort of a chance competing in halter when going against their type. Heck in performance classes to each their own. I have seen MANY versatile horses in the ring and wouldn't like to see it divided. My mare was such a go-getter she always did her best. She loved to drive and was awesome at jumping and obstacle both at halter and in the cart. God I miss that horse....





OK I think I need to stop... LOL. I think I have lost my train of thought since I have been having to get up and come back to this.. Taking care of Aaron lately has been hard work. He had surgery recently.... Ugghhh I am tired. Once I get my thoughts together I will right again


----------



## willowoodstables (Jul 27, 2009)

PrestigeMiniHorses said:


> I do remember the sire of my I believe his name was something like Lornador's Inquisitive. I did get the oppurtunity to meet him though and he was actually registered as a Hackney and Shetland. He was tiny thats for sure and at the time really old.... I want to say easily in his 30s. Anyhow though I do remember this horse was small enough I am sure to be registered as a mini as well but at that time people weren't doing it. I havent been to a breed show in a quite awhile due to life changing circumstances....Sorry for straying I was just remembering the good old days.



Hence the need for DNA, there were many many instances of hackneys that had one so called bloodline but in acutal fact were not or where used as shetland outcrosses. Once DNA was introduced it to our breed it made a huge impact on the breeding to a standard with traceable bloodlines and parentage, no question about it. The frauds were weeded out or their offspring had to be re-registered. Mind you we may have a smaller but strong gene pool to trace via DNA.

Breed for the breed, styles have come and gone in my breed, and today the winners are not a style, but an animal of style, substance, quality and a traceable parentage that as a breeder, breeding for MY type, can pick and choose based on past progeny of a certain stallion or farm (ie Cassillis, Dunhaven, Heartland etc).Due to strict studbook restrictions from eons ago, I do not hesitate to have some one dig up Cassillis Masterpiece and get a sample of his DNA and then not have my 2 yr old stallion not trace to him as noted on his papers Masterpiece is a great great grandsire.

Minis are not a breed as of yet but they can get there but still they are a height bred with as many varying colors, styles, etc whereas breeds with true studbooks, years of selective recommondation allowances into the studbook etc can trace foundations. Breeds have certain distinctive looks (ie hackneys, arabs, asbs, thoroughbreds) that are bred for based on the standard. 200 or plus years of selective breeding for a set standard is hard to match, but the miniature horse can do the same, with a selective stud book (published no less), DNA parentage etc etc. It can be done, but with a mixed bag of tricks, and the shetland being picked on, well, it is hard to follow the logic.

Outcrossing was done 200 years ago to get the distinct breed that a group was breeding for. If outcrossing to a shetland of outstanding quality, conformation, temperment etc will get me the standard of a miniature horse, do it, but then make sure on the papers it is not "unknown" but noted as such. I can trace my ponies back to where it has "thoro" beside a name, as in thoroughbred. Don't deny or disallow or pooh pooh the influence some of the greats have had on the miniature horse, unknown at 37" does nothing, but So and So Wonderpony at 37" registered in the studbook was the grandsire etc. Unless the breeders try to be honest and proud of their successful outcrosses, then there will always be a question of what really is the parentage of my mini. Be proud you are at the beginning (60 years is a beginning in the long range forecast) and be true to your breed. Just meet the standard set by your breed, within the allowances (proven by DNA if a must) of your registry but do not ever discount the past outcrosses for giving you your modern version of a mini. I am proud to say the Naragasett (sp) pacer and the thproughbred had a huge influence on the hackney breed.

Kim


----------



## Robin (Jul 27, 2009)

Kim- your post is very accurate and if only the forefathers of the minis thought like you. 60 years of breeding is extremely young- my thoughts exactly - that is why I feel the gene pool should be widened not closed. The minis are far from a breed. John and I both tried to get the AMHA to understand the definition of breed verses height registry one year at the National meeting. A "breed registry" like dogs and many other animals, do not discard animals born from 2 registered animals to then have no value or no need within the gene pool. That is why we felt if it was a true height registry then they shouldn't close the books. If it is a breed registry then fine- but all foals produced should keep their papers regardless of height- they are a product of the breed.

Anyway- back to the topic- DNA and true honest in breeding horses is the only way to know really what you are crossing and what the possible outcomes could/may be. It keeps a breed honest- however- as you said the minis are not a breed or breed registry. Unfortunately the miniature horse assoc and registries didn't start out with the facts straight. Anything could be registered as unknown x unknown as long as it was under 34". And although we have DNA now- we still have mares and stallions breeding with unknown parents- so genetically we can only go forward from this point on. Also- like you said- by the association not recognizing the sires and dams on hardshipped horses - as in your example of "Thoro" next to the name- the educated breeder down the road is still guessing.

Just my input- Robin


----------



## LaVern (Jul 27, 2009)

I know this is a little off topic, but Robin has got me thinking again. I seem to contradict my self so much, and it is because of people like John and Robin that make me think.

I have been a strong believer of closing things up and keeping papers no matter what the outcome. But I don't know, now. I think that I just saw it as lending more credibility to our AMHR horses.

Now I see AMHA becoming kind of stuck with nowhere to go, if it closes.

I already know of top breeders that are using B's size Shetland Stallions on their taller AMHA mares. All they are going to have is AMHR horses when they get done. They don't care. They want that top B show horse.

I have been using old Express on my AMHA mares and I don't give a hoot about the double papers. All I want is that top B show horse.

And then you take old Express. In AMHA's eyes he still belongs to his breeder Stacy Score,of Mountain Meadow Miniatures For 25 bucks he could come back in.

Stacy has sent me the hair from Cleo and Debonaire and Express is already DNA'd so Express will be Parent Qualified, with Kentucky.

Now, I would never think that the old boy's offspring could influence AMHA horses like Buckeroo, or Rowdy have, but there are areas where he could a little bit. . And what a shame for AMHA to have lost that.

People email me all the time wanting to know if I have any of Express's babies that are going to stay under, so they can hardship them back in. It is crazy, I think. It hurts my head.

I am editing to say- that I don't think it is crazy to hardship them in, Just that it seems crazy to take them in as unknown(which is a lie) but not with the DNA'd correct parents and their correct size on the papers if it is proven.


----------



## MindyLee (Jul 27, 2009)

Now that I finally made it through 9 pages of reading.

My fear is with these beautiful shelands starting to become bigger... I just got into miniatures in 2005, and strive to learn about them and breed them as well. Im just afraid that now that I just got my herd built, no one will be interested in what I produce since they are minis and not mini/shelands and that Im behind times and not goin with the flow. It sucks for me as a "newbie" as I just foaled out my first foal that I feel is competitive for the showring and because its not whats in style its just going to be put on the back burner. Im not going to stop but it makes me think that it might be a waste of time also as her style is now drifting away to a mini/shetland instead of refined small minis that I thought/researched minis are suppossed to be. I guess in my "new" eyes is that its not bettering the breed but changing it. I thought it was to breed for smaller and bettering that than the past shetlands and to better the smallest eqine to be miniature, not to breedback to large and still call it miniature if its going to be sheland size again even though its confirmation is way better. But dont it defite the purposs of breeding down to smaller quality horses to just make them big again?




Im starting to get confussed! #1 quality of course... but is it big or small?

I hope you guys get what I am trying to say?


----------



## Boinky (Jul 27, 2009)

> Im not going to stop but it makes me think that it might be a waste of time also as her style is now drifting away to a mini/shetland instead of refined small minis that I thought/researched minis are suppossed to be. I guess in my "new" eyes is that its not bettering the breed but changing it. I thought it was to breed for smaller and bettering that than the past shetlands and to better the smallest equine to be miniature, not to breed back to large and still call it miniature if its going to be shetland size again even though its confirmation is way better. But dont it defite the purposs of breeding down to smaller quality horses to just make them big again? wacko.gif Im starting to get confused! #1 quality of course... but is it big or small?


first off i'd like to say i do NOT think AMHR horses are out the door because of ASPC/AMHR horses. I think it's probably very much a fad and the end results will eventually be many AMHR only NICE horses that were produced by crossing mares or stallions of R on ASPC/AMHR horses. The market just sucks right now which is part of the selling problem which people seem to be blaming primarily on AMHR/ASPC horses..which i don'++t believe is truthfully accutrate.

Ok touching on the rest.... this is purely_* MY OPINION*_... but it's not about making mini's BIG... anything under 38" is a mini... it may be as 'big' mini but it's still a mini. I do not agree with the crappy measuring they do in the political aspects of the show world and letting horses over 38" show but that's neither here nor there for this topic. The "larger" B division still gives many people many options to what they want as far as size, type, and what they use their mini for (ie. often times, not always, a larger "B" size mini is more suitable for pulling especially heavier people). The reason we are breeding them "bigger" is to try to get the movement and build that the larger mini's tend to be able to have as well as keep our gene pool large and fresh and not allow it to be come stagnant and full of diseases that will plague our "breed" in the present or future. it's not nessarily because we think every mini should be larger. the larger mini's and ponies right now are our foundation for breeding down these charachteristics that were "forgotten" over the last 40 years in the quest to breed for teeny tiny horses and darn the consequences of losing conformation, movement, and health.

as for "bettering from past shetlands" in my opinion that was not the reason for mini's... mini's were a exotic thing they were trying to capitolize on and boost their sales by making them a valuable comodity (yep smart "ole geezers). Even 40 years ago looking at photo's of past nice shetlands they were quite refined, beautiful and quite horse like. People can say what they want but our current ASPC shetlands look NOTHING like the island shetlands and do indeed look very much like little horses. it's all semantics in peoples perspectives.. we call shetlands ponies..so people now assume we are trying to make our mini's look like "ponies"..... well in truth i guess we are but we also breed our shetlands to look like little horses..so if the shetlands look like little horses..and the mini's look like little shetlands.... HUMMMM?? Not everyone will like that 'type' and i would say it will be a trendy fad which will pass at some point but hopefully will have helped improve certain (hopefully many) aspects of what the current "mini" is lacking.

If people do not like or do not agree with the current 'fad' then they need to stick to their guns and breed what they want. who knows..in a few years what you have will be what everyone wants. that unfortunately is the name of the game when doing business or trying to be competitive. you have to have a valuable commodity and keep ahead of the current marketing trends and have what people want. may not be cheap or easy but unfortuntly that is life!


----------



## racingfan72104 (Jul 27, 2009)

Ok so here's one for all of you. I bought a Mini/Shetland cross. She is very nice and correct. Her sire is a 34' mini (Never brought permanant) dam is a 39" shetland (too tall to bring in AMHR) No hardshipping in so I am Basically sitting on a filly not worth anything. Or I can take her into the National Show Pony Registry. But no Shows around or in my area. Since the shet;and started the minis why close out the studbooks and not allow hardshipping in.


----------



## iowa (Jul 27, 2009)

Take a look at an AMHA registration certificate and at the Miniature Horse printed on there. If it is the "standard" for a miniature then the horses winning today in both AMHA and AMHR are way off the mark. Just an observation I thought was amusing.


----------



## crponies (Jul 27, 2009)

Boinky said:


> as for "bettering from past shetlands" in my opinion that was not the reason for mini's... mini's were a exotic thing they were trying to capitolize on and boost their sales by making them a valuable comodity (yep smart "ole geezers). Even 40 years ago looking at photo's of past nice shetlands they were quite refined, beautiful and quite horse like. People can say what they want but our current ASPC shetlands look NOTHING like the island shetlands and do indeed look very much like little horses. it's all semantics in peoples perspectives.. we call shetlands ponies..so people now assume we are trying to make our mini's look like "ponies"..... well in truth i guess we are but we also breed our shetlands to look like little horses..so if the shetlands look like little horses..and the mini's look like little shetlands.... HUMMMM?? Not everyone will like that 'type' and i would say it will be a trendy fad which will pass at some point but hopefully will have helped improve certain (hopefully many) aspects of what the current "mini" is lacking.


Actually, I saw a picture once (I think posted by Lewella) that was of one of the shetlands imported from the UK. It looked almost exactly like today's shetlands. The poster said that the refined type of shetland was not popular over there so many of them were exported to the USA. I thought that was very interesting.


----------



## iowa (Jul 27, 2009)

Just another thought about a "breed". As Robin and others have said, the Miniature horse is in its early stages of establishing a breed. In dogs and cats, a new line or breed is not really considered a breed until it can breed true to an established standard. The AKC won't even recognize it as a breed until it can reproduce true. In establishing the breed, many animals are discarded that don't fit the standard. They are not allowed to breed as you would only get more that don't fit the standard. Once a standard has been established, miniature horse breeders (and I myself am one) should be much more selective about what they breed or you are going to get many animals that don't fit the standard. So the key is establishing a standard and sticking to it whether on the farm or in the show ring.


----------



## Karen S (Jul 27, 2009)

Hi Racinfan,

Yes your filly CAN be registered in the NSPR, but she will have to be DNA'd. That division IS NOT for breeding purposes but for performance only animals. The original intent was for those Shetlands that WERE crossed with a larger pony up to 14.2 that would allow a child to grow from a smaller Shetland into a larger pony before they moved on up to a full size horse.

Go to the rulebook on line and the forms to get all of the documents that you will need for registering her.

Karen


----------



## Karen S (Jul 27, 2009)

Here is my post from July 9, 2008 about the NSPR:

The NSPR (National Show Pony Registry) is a new division of the ASPC/AMHR/ASPR. It was created three years ago for those folks who were breeding their Shetlands to larger ponies to create a pony that a child could step up to before they moved onto a "big" horse.

When the BOD decided that there was a need then they set the parameters for this program....You can have one parent registered AMHR, ASPC, or ASPR. The other parent could be one of the following:

AMHR x ASPC, AMHR x ASPR, ASPC x ASPR, AMHR x ?, ASPC x ?, ASPR x ?. The question could be a registered horse, POA, Welsh, Hackney, etc. I was working with a registered Paint mare who was 14.2 and was breeding her to my Shetland stallion. The requirement of this program was that no NSPR could go over 14.2 in height. This IS NOT a breeding registry but a registry for performance only ponies.

Since some folks were breeding AMHR to Shetlands this gave them an avenue to put those off type (papered ponies) in a sister registry and not loose their idenity. It never was intended for the smaller horses but will have some anyway. If my registered Paint had her foal my foals registration would show her sire registration and her dam's registration. If only one parent registered and the other a grade pony, then you would have seen one side registered other listed as grade.

The ASPC Congress is where these ponies are to be shown, and any club that wanted to put NSPR classes into their show premiums they can. Most of these classes are Pony Hunter Hack, Pony Western Pleasure and Pony Pleasure Driving.

Hope this helps.

Karen


----------



## Boinky (Jul 27, 2009)

> Actually, I saw a picture once (I think posted by Lewella) that was of one of the shetlands imported from the UK. It looked almost exactly like today's shetlands. The poster said that the refined type of shetland was not popular over there so many of them were exported to the USA. I thought that was very interesting.


i agree.. not sure i made that clear.. even the older island shetlands brought over were quite nice..but i meant they look nothing like the fat short stout ones that many people seem to think is the trademark of a shetland. When i meant "island" shetland i meant the type that the isle's liked.

Racinfan,

Unfortunately it sounds like your cross was done with little to no planning/forethought by the breeder. First off if the stallion was never brought permanent even if both parents were correctly registered foal wouldn't be eligible. Secondly someone bred this foal with two unsuitable registry matches. this really has nothing to do with one parent being shetland other than that one parent is shetland with no mini papers and the other has messed up papers. There are MANY shetlands out there that are infact registered as both and therefore the offspring are registerable. this is not the fault of the breed itself but of the BREEDER who would carelessly breed two animals with out the same paperwork making this offspring ineligible (can happen with ANY breed or animal..happens all the time even between AMHA and AMHR only registered animals. See people asking on here all the time why they can't be registered).


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 28, 2009)

iowa said:


> Just another thought about a "breed". As Robin and others have said, the Miniature horse is in its early stages of establishing a breed. In dogs and cats, a new line or breed is not really considered a breed until it can breed true to an established standard. The AKC won't even recognize it as a breed until it can reproduce true. In establishing the breed, many animals are discarded that don't fit the standard. They are not allowed to breed as you would only get more that don't fit the standard. Once a standard has been established, miniature horse breeders (and I myself am one) should be much more selective about what they breed or you are going to get many animals that don't fit the standard. So the key is establishing a standard and sticking to it whether on the farm or in the show ring.


Thats why if we keep going the way we are doing the miniature horses will never become a breed. We need to set a type, what to breed for, etc... Thats why any 38" and under horse can go into AMHR as long as it has AMHA, ASPC and Fabella papers. AMHA as long as its 34" and under it can be hardshipped in. So we are just a height registry nothing more, just like a color registry alto color registeries do have standards



I think what Robin said eariler about height vs. breed registeries is right on.

Also breed what you want, if you want to follow a "trend" go for it, if thats what you like, just don't go after what everyone else thinks they like. Cause I guarantee you the miniature shetlands isn't selling any faster then your miniature horses.


----------



## JWC sr. (Aug 2, 2009)

Well while I was gone to the Congress show I did not get time to look at this thread. I find it really interesting all of the comments that were made. The different points of view were I am sure heart felt by everyone. I came back and looked at it again. I also got the chance to discuss the thread and the issues at hand with Robin and John Eberth at the show.





The things I gleaned personally from reading all of it and from the discussions were:

1. I hope AMHA reconsiders the closing of the registry in order to allow new blood into it, so as not to have a gene pool that has a lot of genetic problems such as dwarfism.





2. I wish AMHA would allow for any horse that is hardshiped in to it, to do DNA testing and then put the lineage on the resulting papers.





3. I think the miniature/Shetland is here to stay and AMHR/AMHA will be better because of it.





4. I think there will always be enthusiast of both the Shetland and the miniature types as we know them today.





5. Marketing is the key to successfully sell your horses no matter what they are. Every herd and/or foal has strong and weak points.





6. The betterment of the miniature industry should be included in our personal goals. A well thought out and visually represented breed standard and adherence to it would go a long way in trying to move in that direction.





7. Trying to think outside the current box we are all a part of, is something that is paramount to trying to attract and retain new people in this industry. Just because something has always been done a certain way does not make it the best way to do whatever it is. :arg!

8. I wish we could have a "not for breeding" box on our papers in order for breeders to selectively use. So that horses that may have minor defects could retain their papers and be used to do jobs they are capable of doing. an example of this would be a horse with a slightly defective off bite that will never make it in the halter ring, may be great for jumping etc.





9. We as a miniature industry need to capitalize on the positives of our miniatures as they are a commodity that is a pretty awesome package no matter how tall they are.

10. I wish the powers that be would figure out a way to allow any horse produced from two registered parents to keep their papers. Maybe a breeding only set of papers. But allow them to keep the papers and register the offspring form them. As versus stripping them of the papers and thereby diminishing the ability of that horse to find a job from a loving owner.





Now with all of that and 1.00 you can get a cup of coffee. LOL I really want to thank everyone for taking the time to voice their opinions a it has given me a lot to think about. I also appreciate John & Robin E. for taking the time to talk at length to me about these issues,. it was educational and fun to hear their points of view.


----------



## Arion Mgmt (Aug 3, 2009)

Well, Well

John Cherry told me about my name getting thrown around in this thread, not in a bad way, but I thought I would peruse the thread because of the interesting topic.

First let me say I am not going to write a book, and I usually dont. Unfortunately I am usually asked loaded questions that have numerous details and explanations needed - (especially by my mother and sister.)

It is interesting to read all of the opinions on our breed history and where we came from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shetland_pony --- believe it or not the website is usually pretty accurate.

It gives a good general info history of the originating Shetland pony from Europe and how it got to the US. Notice the Originating Shetlands in Europe DID NOT have Appaloosa or Champagne BUT it already had pinto, overo etc.. Also the POA was started by an accidental crossing of a Shetland Pony stud to an Arabian/App mare. Resulting colt named Black Hand founded the POA breed. Now the colt obviously needed to be bred to other horses to make the POA breed, which were Shetland mares of no App color and other big horse App mares.

So Why did I write all of that. Apply that to our breed. We have EVERY color under the rainbow and then some. So how did it get in there? THe Miniatures did NOT have separate mutations for the colors we see that have just appeared in the last sixty yrs. That is such a minute possibility it would be almost impossible to calculate (google to 1!!! and yes google is a number, the largest). Therefore the colors have come in from outcrosses to other (LARGER) horse/pony breeds.

LAVern --- Badlands and a Miniature horse skeleton?? You do know that the ancestors of our large horses of today started as small 4 and 3 toed equids dont you? And that they were the size of dogs and smaller than our Minis now.

Quote below--

"Horses and other equids are odd-toed ungulates of the order Perissodactyla, a relatively ancient group of browsing and grazing animals that first arose less than 10 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. In the past, this order contained twelve families, but only three families— Equidae (the horse and related species), the tapir and the rhinoceros—have survived to the present day. The earliest equids known as Hyracotherium developed approximately 54 million years ago, during the Eocene period. One of the first true horse species, it had 4 toes on each front foot, and 3 toes on each back foot. the extra toe on the front feet soon disappeared, and by the Pleistocene era, as the horse adapted to a drier, prairie environment, the 2nd and 4th toes disappeared on all feet, and horses became bigger. These side toes first shrunk in size until they have vanished in modern horses." Source:en.wikipedia.org

As for the minis not needing the ponies (or any other breed) or that we have enough good genetics to make a true breed, well no we dont, period. We have bred out most of true horse form to function conformation and ability to perform as a horse. We have basically made mini horse statues, they look good but most (not all) cant do anything expected of a horse very well.

Midget ponies back in the day were NOT the dwarfs that we have as a genetic problem, they were called dwarfs or midgets because they were just little, some had a problem I am sure, whether they carried a mutated gene or not. We will never know, soo many pedigrees were faked and "lost" that we could be still breeding brother to sister and not know it (because we still put unknown on pedigrees that are hardshipped).

I will stop there.

John


----------



## miniwhinny (Aug 3, 2009)

Thanks John,

I always enjoy reading what you have to say. Thanks for the little evolution snippit.





Just to add - any outside influence is small...the odd breeding because it doesn't change the genetics enough. I have Dr. Gus Cothrans dendorgam of horse breeds and their genetic relationship to each other right here in front of me.

The miniature clusters genetically right next to and in the same bracket as the Shetland pony. So close that they are virtually one and the same. Interestingly enough breeds coming in close genetically are the Icelandic then Hackney pony, Norwegian Fjord and then Welsh pony. These all genetically cluster within the same bracket. With the Miniature Horse and Shetland pony being in the same group.


----------



## Arion Mgmt (Aug 3, 2009)

miniwhinny,

yes Dr. Cothrans info is quite useful to know how close these pony breeds are related (ie minis and shetlands). If you read about the Shetland background they come from those pony breeds you listed. That is why we ARE just SMALL PONIES, oh no I said it!!! I just cant see how people cant put 2 and 2 together. We just need to bring back more correct conformation and ability to perform.

As for a single cross not having much influence in a breed well I think the POA and Morgan are prime examples of how a single horse CAN change, make or influence a breed, and how it changes or makes its standard. That shows the power of genetics.

Even if it is just color, the color would come from the original genetic outcross, and if it was popular it would infiltrate tremendously. That is not to say the other characteristics would, it would depend on what is desired, as when a cross is chosen for movement or type.

I am working with Cornell right now on the height genetics in horses because I have the sampling size needed for Miniatures. (believe it or not it might just be one gene with different polymorphisms for the different height breeds like in dogs.) This will be similar to the diagram Gus has only it will just be about height polymorphisms with all breeds.


----------



## JWC sr. (Aug 3, 2009)

John,

it is interesting that you mention the Cornell study. When I got home from Congress, I had a package of kits from them to supply hair samples and measurements for the study. It will be interesting to see the results of the study.





I appreciate the time you took the other night to explain the anomalies of the dwarfism testing. I have a much better understanding of the subject directly as a result of our conversation.


----------



## kaykay (Aug 3, 2009)

> That is why we ARE just SMALL PONIES, oh no I said it!!! I just cant see how people cant put 2 and 2 together.


Many many of us have said this on here for years but it always falls on deaf ears. I have to say our mini forefathers did a heck of a marketing job getting people to think they truly were "miniature horses" not "miniature ponies"

Dont know why pony seems to be such an offensive word to so many. Im dang proud of my whole herd of ponies from 30" to 46"

Just one more thing. It drives me nuts when people say the ASPC/AMHR horses are a fad. Well if its a fad it sure is a long one since some farms have been breeding them long before a lot of us even came a long. I just dont think a lot noticed them until the last 3 years when actually they have been around a very long time


----------



## LaVern (Aug 3, 2009)

That was my whole point John.   

      You must have missed my post, picturing Lucky Harts Lil Eohippus. I was just trying to make a joke by saying that little horses were around a long time before any breed or club or association. 

       Because of their height, they were the original miniature horses.  Well, actually they were the original horse.   So, all horses have descended from the miniature horse including the Shetland Pony, not the other way around.


----------



## miniwhinny (Aug 3, 2009)

Arion Mgmt said:


> That is why we ARE just SMALL PONIES, oh no I said it!!! I just cant see how people cant put 2 and 2 together.


John, I HONESTLY can't imagine there being one single person out there who seriously thinks otherwise. Granted marketing them as "miniature horses" is a lot "cooler" than calling them "rather small ponies" to those interested in making money hahahahah but I truely can't believe anyone knowing anything about what makes a horse vs. a pony fooling themselves into thinking these are horses. Everything about them from their ear shape to their winter woolies screams PONIES ponies ponies ponies...very small ponies hehehehehhehe


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Aug 3, 2009)

Someone new to the breed called me for some info the other day she told me the bred down by royalty from arabians thing- she was glad that was true cause she sure didnt want any shetland ponies that was not what she was looking for they are evil. I did have to explain to her the marketing ploys.. she was shocked that anything related to a pony could be so good natured so yes it is a great marketing tool one I think even those who came up with it would know would work so very well


----------



## crponies (Aug 3, 2009)

Some further reading on the origin of the horse in case you are interested:

What's happened to the horse?

"Horse Fossils and the Nature of Science" (This one I found particularly interesting.)

Horses are a fascinating and beautiful part of God's creation.


----------



## miniwhinny (Aug 3, 2009)

I try not to get into discussions when people bring religion into it but in this case of the evolution of the horse...I'm so very sorry but I read that and ...well I just can't have an intelligent conversation with a view that the world is 8000 years old and horses evolved from a small toed creature to what it is today in just a few of those. Because it's NOT...it just is not true. The scientific evidence that the world is 8000 years old is zero..Evidence of a great flood...none. Evidence of no flood...overwhelming. The proof of evolution is overwhelming.

There is no, no, no way the horse could have evolved from a tiny toed creature to the modern horse in less than 8000 years. Gosh there are Egyptian and other cultures art work older than that showing the horse as it is today. There aren't any pictures/cave drawings/anything that shows the horse as anything but what it is today.

I'm glad that creationists are finally realizing the evidence is out there and they are starting to change their minds. Small steps are pretty cool. You just cant argue with all of the evidence that's out there forever so the fact that they are starting to realize that is a small step.


----------



## crponies (Aug 3, 2009)

Wow, once again anyone who does not agree with you is labeled an unintelligent and uneducated. That is really offensive. I never called you that because you believe in evolution. As far as evidence for a young earth and a worldwide flood, there is tons of it. I was not trying to start an argument though because I don't think either one of us is going to be convinced by the other. I was merely providing further reading for those who are interested and for those who would like some validation for their beliefs in creationism. The way a person perceives the evidence that is out there is going to be colored by their presuppositions, whether those are that God created the world or that the world is a product of random events that happened over millions of years. By the way, I think that evolution is a religion too as it also must be accepted by faith. You cannot scientifically prove it.


----------



## miniwhinny (Aug 3, 2009)

Wow, you just completely read something into my post that just wasn't there




.

You certainly can prove evolution it's been done over and over in thousands of different scientific fields. You can also choose not to believe it for whatever reason and that's your right, you have the right to believe absolutely anything you want to believe. The same way you express your opinions and others express theirs...I expressed mine. I never ever called you unintelligent or uneducated. I said that I can't have an "intelligent conversation" when the conversation revolves the world being 8000 years old. That's very different and it wasn't you I was refering to it was that article and thats what I believe.

But that's off the subject of minis being ponies and closely related to shetlands hahaha wayyyyyyyy off the subject.


----------

