# Are Miniature Horse loosing their size?



## Reble (Nov 15, 2006)

I sure do not want to start an arguement but just our opinons.

I and my husband finally got our Journal today, and his remark was boy are the minis getting big? I told him this is a registry of Miniature Horses and American Shetland Pony Club.

He made mention minis are becoming pony size not minis.

Example in other breeds of animals like dogs are Toy, Miniature and Standard.

Maybe Miniatures are loosing their size position.

Just with us, we got out of Ponies, Registered Paso Finos and they where under 14.2 hands mostly, which is Pony, because we found them harder too handle and higher energy.

His remark was he can see a problem in the future with higher heights sneaking into the miniature shows that are AMHR/ASPC Registry. Just his opinon.............. :new_shocked:


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Nov 15, 2006)

AMHR/ASPC registered horses, or should I say ponies, are getting very popular now. Judges like them in halter and they like their movement in driving. I think there will always be lots of breeders out there breeding for the 34" & under horse, but there are just more people getting involved into the AMHR/ASPC breeding. I don't see it hurting in the mini breed, I just hope nothing happens with the breeding of the shetlands, trying to get them smaller to get under that 38" mark.


----------



## kaykay (Nov 15, 2006)

I think what a lot dont realize is the small shetland has been around forever. They were just called miniature horses and the shetland papers thrown away. So now its come full circle. Now its okay to have the aspc papers or even preferred.

jms there are many many older generation pony breeders that have always bred for small shetlands.

I guess what Im trying to say is they arent new at all.


----------



## Lauralee (Nov 15, 2006)

What is wrong with having taller minis??? I like them pretty darn well.....so I don't really see it a problem to have horses with longer legs and more athletic ability....how is that a detriment?


----------



## disneyhorse (Nov 15, 2006)

There will ALWAYS be breeders/enthusiasts/lovers of both the TINY miniature horse and the B size miniature horse.

The B size miniature horse has seen rapid growth in the show ring and the breeding shed lately due to the sudden popularity of the ASPC/AMHR horse (as has already been said, this double registered animal has ALWAYS been around, but is a current growing favorite).

Remember, there are rules in place to keep the miniature horse from going OVER 38 inches tall. There isn't any talk of them going any taller than that!

Breeders are proud of their B horses and are lately just advertising them more due to their extreme popularity. That's all.

Andrea


----------



## Cathy_H (Nov 15, 2006)

> Are Miniature Horse loosing their size?,


Nope - Some people have changed their preferences in what they prefer to own, breed & show.


----------



## Leeana (Nov 15, 2006)

Deleted this myself as I wrote this almost 6 years ago and my point of view has changed much since then...lol...


----------



## susanne (Nov 15, 2006)

Speaking strictly as a non-breeder, I do not see a move away from the tiny minis so much as a grwing appreciation for the best small horse possible, whether A or B.

Small at all costs may be a thing of the past, but along with the popularity of leggy B sized horses, I see more and more beautifully proportional A minis who look deceptively taller in photos.


----------



## ruffian (Nov 15, 2006)

> They will only better the breed and add to the tiny A minis when the B minis are bred down.


Sorry - I don't see anything wrong with my miniature horses that a pony would improve.

I like my "mini" conformation, and heads, and definitely temperment!!! Yep, I've seen some really nice ponies, and some that I wouldn't have in my barn no matter how pretty they move.

But I still prefer my minis.

And before it gets said, yep there's Shetland back in my mini's pedgiree if I go back far enough. But to say that mini's are shetlands who had their papers tossed I don't agree with. How many appaloosa Shetlands are there??


----------



## Shari (Nov 15, 2006)

I know my two mini's lines are from very well known, old breeders....they are small Shetlands pure and simple.

Did some research on my two.

Most mini's are. I do not find it a problem at all.

Calling them "miniature" horses was just a very good marketing ploy. And yes, many of those old breeders way back when, threw out the their shetland papers to replace them with "miniature" horse registry papers.

People have been refining "Shetlands" for a long time. Breed the most refine to refine and you get the modern miniature horse. Nothing wrong with that.

I showed this picture to someone I know in the Shetland Islands...did not tell her who it was.

She said it was a native Shetland. I considered it a complement.







Everyone here knows who she is. Granted she looks more refine in the summer once the yak fur is off.

But no matter how one slices it...she is still a Shetland pony marketed as a miniature horse. She is still cute, either way.



:


----------



## Minimor (Nov 15, 2006)

I do agree with those that say Minis aren't getting bigger; the smaller ones are still around, it's just that the taller ones are gaining in popularity, so we're seeing more of them.


----------



## Loess Hills (Nov 15, 2006)

I don't agree.  

We're members of both registries, but for the life of me, I just don't care for the "over" minis.

I think there is an over emphasis on the ASPC/AMHR horses right now.

The Journal issue is devoted to them.

We've been to many AMHR shows in the Midwest with both shetlands and unders.

The classes for shetlands only have 1 or two horses at most, while the classes for 34"

and under have 20-30 horses.

Maybe I'm a heretic, but I'd like to see the "miniature" part of AMHR split away from the 38" and over.

Concentrate on the true *Miniature* horse.


----------



## kaykay (Nov 15, 2006)

for the record i like both. I always say i have the best of both worlds as i have an A size herd and a B sized herd. Heck our latest foal cody will probably never see 30"

As for the appy gene alot of that came from the Falabella influence. Now they insist they are a "pure" breed of miniature horse that just appeared



I myself believe they were also bred down from ponies as I just cant buy the small horse appeared story.

You have to also remember when amha first started a lot of grade ponies were put in. They were all registered as 34" on the nose. The story i was told by breeders around back then was most of these were clearly over 34". They just registered them with pedigree unknown. I have been told this is where a ton of the overo and appy came in.

If you get a chance to talk to some of the older generation breeders the stories are really fascinating.


----------



## Minimor (Nov 15, 2006)

Loess Hills said:


> I don't agree.
> 
> We're members of both registries, but for the life of me, I just don't care for the "over" minis.
> 
> ...


I'm puzzled--what are you meaning when you refer to the "over" minis? Are you meaning the over 34" to 38" division, or are you meaning those horses which have mini papers but are actually over 38"? I'm just puzzled, because then you go on to say the Miniature part of AMHR should be split away from the 38" & over. And you make it sound like there are shetlands and there are unders? There are many 34-38" minis which do not count as "shetlands" because they have no reg'd shetlands anywhere on their pedigree--and likewise there are reg'd shetlands in both the under and over divisions. Just puzzled by your post!


----------



## HGFarm2 (Nov 15, 2006)

ruffian said:


> > They will only better the breed and add to the tiny A minis when the B minis are bred down.
> 
> 
> Sorry - I don't see anything wrong with my miniature horses that a pony would improve.
> ...


Would you be referring to Appaloosa colored Shetland?! They don't allow that. :nono:

I have an A horse and a B horse and I love them both!! There are beautiful ones in the under and in the over.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Nov 15, 2006)

What I would like to see is the continuation of breeding for a HORSE look in Miniature rather than a very small pony which is where we are going right at the moment.


----------



## Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis (Nov 15, 2006)

this always puzzles me what is a TRUE miniature horse? heck I could take a GRADE pony that is small enough and hardship it into AMHA so how does that make it more of a TRUE miniature horse then any pony.

Reality here folks is that ponies/minis.. really all one and the same.. midget ponies was the original term which then changed to Miniature horses purely for a marketing ploy and a great one.

Obviously there are still many that think somehow they have a TRUE miniature horse compared to hmm a fake one?? is a "true" mini that went to 34.50 now a fake one ? is its pedigree (assuming you believe pedigree is what makes your horse true as opposed to fake) now gone and fake since it has gone over 34 in?

Just a topic that always confuses me..



:


----------



## Reble (Nov 15, 2006)

Found this info interesting

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/ndobson/history.html


----------



## OhHorsePee (Nov 16, 2006)

I can tell you the larger minis aren't hard to handle. I have Buckeye WCF Classical Blue Eyed Baby who is out of Graham's Little King Lee and she would climb in your pocket if you let her. She is not high strung. She has the sweetest disposition you could ever want. I have AMHA/AMHR, AMHR and AMHR/ASPC so you can see I like them all. My farrier even comments on the AMHR/ASPC horses that I have. They are easier on him to do. I co-own Crunch with Kay and he isn't high strung either. Come visit me and handle them and I bet you would change your mind in a heart beat.



: I do believe that besides the bloodline if you were with one that was actually handled as a routine (as with any breed horse/pony) you wouldn't hesitate to own one. They are awesome.

Fran

Baby






Crunch






Lacie


----------



## Beccy (Nov 16, 2006)

I have started to post on this topic twice before now, then decided not to, as I TRULY don't want to offend anyone.

Our smallest mature miniature is 26.50", and our tallest AMHR mare is 36.00", and I love and appreciate all our horses.

However I do have to say that a correct, well proportioned TINY horse always takes my breath away. Just the term miniature, would suggest we are breeding for "small" horses, which would also be why if two horses are judged equal in the show ring, the prize is given to the smaller of the two.

That said though, if I want to drive, I will be thinking taller.


----------



## HGFarm2 (Nov 16, 2006)

OhHorsePee said:


> I can tell you the larger minis aren't hard to handle. I have Buckeye WCF Classical Blue Eyed Baby who is out of Graham's Little King Lee and she would climb in your pocket if you let her. She is not high strung. She has the sweetest disposition you could ever want. I have AMHA/AMHR, AMHR and AMHR/ASPC so you can see I like them all. My farrier even comments on the AMHR/ASPC horses that I have. They are easier on him to do. I co-own Crunch with Kay and he isn't high strung either. Come visit me and handle them and I bet you would change your mind in a heart beat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree, you can have high strung ones in any breed. Look at the Arab. My daughters Arab mare bugs her eyes out and gets all snorty and I have had people comment that my daughter could not handle an Arabian or one guy at a gymkhana thought that she would end up killing my daughter etc.. etc... She is the sweetest thing, willing to please, eager to learn, SUPER smart and wouldn't hurt anyone. She is not even bad. When she gets excited, startled, happy or whatever her big ears go up, her eyes bug out and she gets the snorty look where you think she would flip any secound but nope, thats all she ever does. I have an A mini and a B mini and both are easy to handle. My POA is probably the more headstrong of the group. You will have both in any breed it is just easier to snatch the little guys up and have a "meeting" with them when they are misbehaving.


----------



## mountain_waif (Nov 16, 2006)

....


----------



## Buckskin gal (Nov 16, 2006)

Soooo true...those so well proportianed small ones are so breathtaking [to me] and really are what the miniature horse people were to strive for, according to the Standard of Perfection. I give a lot of credit to the AMHA breeders for really doing a wonderful job of producing some gorgeous little horses, in miniature. That said, I have to admit that we do have some of each, and love both, for different reasons. I do hope AMHA never gets so money hungry that they raise their height limit to 38. Sure those little ones can be more of a challenge to breed but I still want to see the miniature horse stay small and people who can breed for that most perfect miniature. Nice thing about having the two main registeries is that people can choose what they want. Mary



Beccy said:


> I have started to post on this topic twice before now, then decided not to, as I TRULY don't want to offend anyone.
> 
> Our smallest mature miniature is 26.50", and our tallest AMHR mare is 36.00", and I love and appreciate all our horses.
> 
> ...


----------



## HGFarm (Nov 16, 2006)

I dont think they are losing their size. I think there is enough diverse interest out there from tiny to the larger ones that will keep them ALL going strong.... different strokes for different folks!! :bgrin


----------



## disneyhorse (Nov 16, 2006)

There is an AMHR registered animal for EVERYONE.

Some are more of an old style that you are used to seeing, and some are very extreme. I had just come across THIS horse, it is AMHR registered and owned by Sandy at Establo/A Stable Business:






The above stallion is Dun-Haven Grand Event... how many of you would say that's the average miniature horse? Nope, he's something special for sure! A mini like him has a lot to contribute to the mini world particularly in the driving ring. There are so many minis that barely move well enough for country pleasure. And park harness is usually a joke. Let's see these little guys reach their full athletic potential, which can only be BRED in, it cannot be artificially made with training.

One of the members in my club has a daughter by Dun-Haven Grand Event... not only will these Modern Shetland lines affect the driving ring but halter as well. His daughter (proudly owned by the O'Bannons) was the Reserve National Grand Champion over mare this year... as a yearling in halter! Modern Shetlands and Classic Shetlands just plain have a LOT to offer the stagnant miniature lines. SOME of them are under 34'' too! A miniature horse is ANY equine that can measure small enough, and there is no breed standard that gives preference to the old style (which I find a LOT more 'pony' looking than the American Shetland... the American Shetland often surprises people who expect shetlands to look like the old Shetland Isle ponies!). The AMERICAN Shetland was bred to have more refinement, elegance, class, and presence than the original imported ponies. That refinement, elegance, class, and style is equally sought by miniature horse enthusiasts and that is why, I think, we are seeing a huge recent adoration of them. I look in my old Journals and yep, I see lots of ASPC/AMHR stallions being advertised. Maybe just no one realized it.

The amazing thing is that tiny horses can do ANYTHING! But they must be bred for it. You cannot make a mini something it's not physically able to, and that is where some of the smaller Modern shetlands are helping out with their heavily hackney-based bloodlines. There are a lot of fans of extreme refinement and motion, and I think it's exciting to have it more easily available.

Andrea


----------



## kaykay (Nov 16, 2006)

i have to say one thing. the part about some people wanting amha to recognize the over 34" horse. It has nothing to do with money. I have an amha mare that has a very long amha generation pedigree. She went over 34". So now shes not an amha horse. That isnt right. And that is why amha can never call itself a bloodline. Because if they did you cant kick horses out that go over 34" I will say this mare has had 3 foals now and not one has gone over 34". We all know that there are tons of amha horses that are over 34" they are just kept in the backlot. So to me its just hypocritical to say that amha horses are 34 and under when clearly so many are not


----------



## Sue_C. (Nov 16, 2006)

> The above stallion is Dun-Haven Grand Event... how many of you would say that's the average miniature horse? Nope, he's something special for sure! A mini like him has a lot to contribute to the mini world particularly in the driving ring. There are so many minis that barely move well enough for country pleasure. And park harness is usually a joke.


Honestly??? I personally think that should I want to drive a hackney (which I love, BTW) I will buy one. _Not expect my mini to BE one. _ I personally see nothing in this stallion that I want in my miniatures...no matter haow beautiful he is, he is NOT my ideal in a _pleasure driving_ type of horse...and THAT is what _I_, and many other miniature horse breeders breed for.



> Let's see these little guys reach their full athletic potential, which can only be BRED in, it cannot be artificially made with training


In my opinion, a horse or pony can certainly reach their full athletic potential, without becoming small hackneys.

That all said, I own A's and B's as well, and love them all, but they are all thelong-strided, far-reaching pleasure types.

Flamesuit on......


----------



## justjinx (Nov 16, 2006)

Sue, thank you. I have been reading this and trying to find a way to say what I feel and you said it perfectly for me! jennifer :saludando:


----------



## Filipowicz Farm (Nov 16, 2006)

Hi Mary. I have a few horses that are amha/amhr registered. All the other horses are B size and many aspc/amhr. It Is all in what you like, remember the registery is a height club amha and amhr over 38 is a pony.We happen to like the B size horses for there spirit and movement. Especially the double registered ponies.We also find we like there movement in a cart.


----------



## disneyhorse (Nov 16, 2006)

I am not trying to say that ALL minis should BE hackneys. But the ONLY thing that ''makes'' a miniature horse is it's small size. People who were into larger breeds but maybe cannot anymore due to age, disability, or perhaps just the monetary end of feeding/boarding big horses (as is true in my own case) can have a HORSE to enjoy on a smaller scale.

Not ALL minis should be hackneys. The American Shetland Pony (which is where the first registered minis came from less than a century ago) has a pony for everyone... quiet stocky Foundations, elegant Classics, and the flashy Moderns. I think this is where the minis might be headed similarly. Park Harness for the minis has been a joke overall, there have always been so few minis with the true bred action for it (not saying there's been none, just way less than Country types by the numbers) so it's nice to see some close Modern blood coming in to enhance it on a larger scale.

After all isn't the tag line supposed to be ''a horse for everyone''? The versatility of the miniature horse breed is what makes it so darn attractive to people like me. It's not all about super small, cute animals that if it has straight legs and can trot and doesn't look like it's got something wrong with it's gait is a ''quality'' animal. The bar is being raised at an aggressive level lately. I think that's just what is happening.

I think the bar was raised not to long ago, looking at the old magazines... just small didn't cut it, and the horse had to have decent conformation. THEN the ''arab type'' minis came in a decade after that, and not only did the mini have to have decent conformation, it had to have presence and a type about them, too. NOW the breed is moving again, and you can whine all you like but it's happening!

Andrea


----------



## HGFarm (Nov 16, 2006)

I agree with many of the comments made here. I wouldnt want my Minis to be a small Hackney either, but I think the comment was made that extreme movement like that could certainly improve on the Minis who move like their legs have no hock and knee joints- the stiff legged movement with no BEND to it. I have seen MANY minis winning driving classes that trot looking like they are doing Hitler's armys goose step. Out, but no flexion. To me, this is not pretty, nor does it look like a 'horse in miniature' to me, because large horses do not move that way. Perhaps to find a happy medium for an all around, small, pretty and athletic horse?

Flame suit on here too, I feel the heat coming.....


----------



## JWC sr. (Nov 16, 2006)

In reading this long list of responses I find several things very interesting. But before I go there, let me remind everyone that we came form having only "R" registered horses and up until about 10 years ago that was all we had. Then we moved into the "A" horses and everything we have on the place is double registered with the exception of a few older mares that will end up livng out the rest of the days they have on this earth here.

We are big fans of the smaller horses ie less than 30", but with that said we have also found it very very hard to produce less than 30" horses that can consistently compete with the taller horses in the halter ring. Facts is it is just easier to produce balanced, proportional taller horses than it is to produce the conformation in the smaller ones. You see a few, but the large majority are not. To us a miniature horse is one that is less than 38" when measured at the withers, ( not the last cheater hair as we all see in both registries now days) and conformation, movement and soundness are of primary importance.

Personally I love the looks of some of the taller horses being shown now days and it will take a number of years before that look filters down into the smaller horses in our opinion. But I do not want our horses to be slightly smaller version of the modern/classic shetlands either, they are pretty but not what we want to breed for.

As long as the breed the " American Miniature Horse" hold true to its original mantra which to us means the smallest correct horse in miniature. I do not see a problem with the size of todays miniatures. If they change things and start trying to allow larger horses in either registry then I believe we might have a problem.

Just our two cents worth,


----------



## Shari (Nov 16, 2006)

Thank you Sue C. Well said.

I like the smooth low sweeping movements, over the chin kickers. Each person has what they like..as as was said before. If I want an Hackney I would buy one.

Would like the mini's not to follow fashion, so we end up with balance conformation and an all around good mini.

Have an Icelandic with the low sweeping motions and my other Ice horse has fancy movement as snappy as any Hackney and it is all natural. However... the low sweeping motions are a whole lot smoother, than the horses with the snappy high gait.

We do not ride our mini's but to me the smoothness or lack of it, transfers over to cart.

No flames here.... :lol:


----------



## Loess Hills (Nov 16, 2006)

*I can feel the heat!*

The intent of this thread, I think, was to ask for opinions. I certainly admire and respect many different types of horses. But I want a "Miniature Horse" to be a miniature horse. I don't want it to be over 38"......in fact, I prefer it to be under 34". We all know that the miniature is an evolving breed composed of many different types of horses in its background, and we're going to continue to see the limits streched in both larger and smaller horses as the breed evolves.

JCW stated it very well



> As long as the breed the " American Miniature Horse" hold true to its original mantra which to us means the smallest correct horse in miniature. I do not see a problem with the size of todays miniatures


Just my opinion. I'm simply not interested in the Shetlands and Hackneys as *miniatures*.


----------



## disneyhorse (Nov 16, 2006)

Thank you for your reply Loess Hills... I think the key is PERSONAL PREFERENCE. The lack of a standard and type is something that obviously causes a lot of grumbling and differences of opinion within our breed BUT it is the sheer variety that allows there to be a miniature horse for everyone.

I have really sought a big-moving mini ever since I started really getting into them. A 34'' Modern Shetland would be a dream come true for me.

I live, love, and work with draft horses. I love driving them, the six-ups really excite me. However, I do not like the ''draft type'' mini and I would never want to breed or show them. But I can appreciate that someone else might.

I don't like Quarter Horses. At all. And thus I really can't stand QH type minis. BUT the QH is a VERY popular breed for a lot of reasons, and some of it comes to personal preference. Fortunately in our breed, we have the QH type minis too! So people who can't keep, handle, or show QHs anymore for whatever reason can still ENJOY that type of horse in miniature.

Andrea


----------



## kenna (Nov 16, 2006)

: :aktion033: Disneyhorse, I agree completely. Getting some high action shetland blood into PART of the mini population isn't bad at all. I'd LOVE a tiny "shetland" and i love the minis we have now.


----------



## Buckskin gal (Nov 16, 2006)

It is true that with miniature horses if they go over the size limit of the registery they are no longer considered aminiature horse. Unlike "breeds" of horses miniature horses are only a size registry. Pedigree really makes no difference, unlike Shetlands which has to show they are oF Shetland lines. Miniatures can be crosses of anything in the background! There may be tons of horses that still have their AMHA papers with them but as far as the registry is concerned they are not AMHA miniature horses. How else are we going to have a heigth registry if sizes aren't going to matter? NOthing over 34" is AMHA and nothing over 38" is AMHR even if some owner wants to say they are. That is just the rules of Miniature horses.



: Mary



kaykay said:


> i have to say one thing. the part about some people wanting amha to recognize the over 34" horse. It has nothing to do with money. I have an amha mare that has a very long amha generation pedigree. She went over 34". So now shes not an amha horse. That isnt right. And that is why amha can never call itself a bloodline. Because if they did you cant kick horses out that go over 34" I will say this mare has had 3 foals now and not one has gone over 34". We all know that there are tons of amha horses that are over 34" they are just kept in the backlot. So to me its just hypocritical to say that amha horses are 34 and under when clearly so many are not


----------



## HGFarm (Nov 16, 2006)

Miniature horses, in my opinion, are not a 'breed' <phew, it's getting hot in here> It is a SIZE 'breed', with a combination of all types of colors, coat patterns, body types, etc...

I know that many years ago, the AMHA allowed 'foundation oversized' horses to be used as breeding stock. Not sure when that started or stopped. Now, if you have a long line of small horses, and get a foal that happens to go oversized, oh well!

In the POA breed, if the horse happens to go oversized, it cannot be shown at a POA show, but can still maintain it's registration papers for a breeding animal. After all, they do still carry the smaller genes to produce another showable POA.

So, not sure why that was done away with in AMHA...... but it is too bad that many nice ones that just go over the height limit a bit, cant continue to add to the breed with nice foals that are smaller within the limit, rather than waiting until the SAME foal is 5 and then hardshipping it back in with no pedigree??



:


----------



## ruffian (Nov 16, 2006)

> Modern Shetlands and Classic Shetlands just plain have a LOT to offer the stagnant miniature lines. SOME of them are under 34'' too! A miniature horse is ANY equine that can measure small enough, and there is no breed standard that gives preference to the old style


Since I've been in mini's for 20+ years, I'm going to stand as an Old Mini Breeder.

Yes, the breed has changed from 20 years ago. But I feel they maintained the Miniature style.

You're right - they don't move like a modern shetland, and they may not be as straight up front as a classic, but I'm not breeding or showing them. I don't agree that adding a huge influx of shetland blood is necessarily a good thing for the miniature horse.

Suppose you loved the chiseled head of Arabians, but adore leopard apps. Should you push the Arabian Horse Assocation to allow spotted Arabians because YOU like them? Or breed Quarter Horses to Arabians to give them more bone - don't Quarter horses have a lot to offer the Arabian breed?

Allowing non-spotted Appys to be shown and registered has drastically affected that breed.

Registering a Saddlebred as a Morgan has caused that Registry to suffer tremendous financial and reputation damages. Did it improve the breed? Well they got big action and straight up fronts from this particular horse. Millions of dollars later, they stuck to their guns and booted the original mare and all her prodigy from the Morgan Registry. Sorry off topic, but a similar story to what's being done to AMHR.


----------



## Minimor (Nov 16, 2006)

Sorry ruffian, as far as the Morgans I have to comment. For every saddlebred/cross booted out of the Morgan registry there were several others that didn't get "caught". Those stayed in. You'd be surprised how many horses suddenly & mysteriously "died" when registry officials started nosing around various farms! This has been going on in the breed since the registry closed--it's not a 'new' thing at all. I'm totally opposed to having Morgans look like saddlebreds, but as far as I'm concerned, they may as well have let Maxine's & Bruce's horses stay in. At least they used nice Saddlebreds!

And "sudden influx" of shetland in the Minis?? Come on, Minis are "mostly" shetland from way back at the beginning of AMHR.


----------



## disneyhorse (Nov 16, 2006)

Yes I think that sometimes adding blood from another breed can enhance it.

I don't know a TON about other breeds, but the Percheron way back when had some Arabian blood added, so this particular breed of draft horse inherited a prettier head (well prettier for a big ole clunky drafter!) a slightly hotter temperament and some action.

The Quarter Horse has had some TB blood bred into it, and you get the Appendix QH, which is more refined and excells in the Hunter divisions (I think... I really am not a QH person).

The Paint Horse, I kinda think is a lot like the minis. The Paint Horse allows outcrosses from TB and QH sires and dams... much like the AMHR allows you to get papers on your Shetland if they meet the other requirements (height).

The Shetland pony allowed outcrosses, hackney was very popular obviously and even though they don't do it anymore (cross to hackneys) the Modern Shetland endures.

And Minimor... the Morgan is an excellent mirror to the minis maybe. Yes there are the Saddlebred type Park horses... but there are also Western type reining horses... the Morgan is a little breed that can do it all and has very distinct ''types'' that are shown within the breed. You can stand the western morgan next to the park morgans... they will look similar but yet different and special in their own ways. And each type will have trainers and exhibitors and enthusiasts that prize them for those differences.

Andrea


----------



## midnight star stables (Aug 24, 2011)

I found this thread fascinating back years ago, wondering if any opinions have changed?

My only thought is I wounder if some people really realize how big 38" is, and if you add an up-right head and neck, it can make horses appear that much taller. It is amazing how much of an optical illusion with height can be created by conformation.

I know I have a 33.5" A horse and a 34.5" B horse and conformation gives the B horse a much bigger appearance, even though he is only one inch bigger.


----------



## disneyhorse (Aug 24, 2011)

Well, Desiree, you can see that the B size mini is still going strong!

I think one benefit of the popularity of the "B" minis... people's kids can enjoy riding them and driving them for a long time! A child just can't ride a 28" mini as much as they can a 38" mini.

I didn't know this thread was five years old!

Andrea


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Aug 24, 2011)

Due to the fact that I have't seen any arguments about the ponies coming into AMHR much at all this year I think thats a HUGE plus lol. I was one of those that was really against it but I have opened my mind to it and learned to accept it. Shoot I'm not going to say I will never have an AMHR/ASPC pony one day.

I haven't seen any arguments at shows this year concerning height. IMO AMHR/ASPC registeries are coming together, and we are not near as divided as we once was.

Of course this all may change after Nationals so we shall see lol. I think the registries are strong this year and hope they will continue. These are hard times we need to help each other not be against one another. The big plus is the quality of horses are getting better.


----------



## midnight star stables (Aug 24, 2011)

disneyhorse said:


> Well, Desiree, you can see that the B size mini is still going strong!
> 
> I think one benefit of the popularity of the "B" minis... people's kids can enjoy riding them and driving them for a long time! A child just can't ride a 28" mini as much as they can a 38" mini.
> 
> ...


I kind of did the same look at the date as you!

I know that personally in five years, I have added many more B's to my herd. I have acquired two fancy AMHR/ASPC horses, and bred an AMHR only filly who has Modern Shetland and hackney bloodlines. I still have my two main show horses, one a refined A and the other is a stocky AMHR only B. My herd is very unique, and not one horse is truly similar to the next, but I love them each. I have nothing to sell, I just have the joy of going out to work with the miniatures that _I personally prefer_




. My minis range from 33" - 36".

I love the miniatures, no matter the size. I look forward to watching the AMHR Nationals this coming year.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 24, 2011)

To the original question - yes and no. I don't think we're losing our height, in as much as the diversity of Minis is increasing.

People that want to drive/CDE are looking for a taller (in general horse). The under 30" are not competitive as a rule in driving.

People that want to breed the under 30" and work towards the smallest most correct can.

People that want to keep infusing Shetland into Minis can.

Personally, I love the look of many Shetlands, but it's not my breed of choice. All mine are fairly close in (3-4 generations) Shetland, but I want to set a 'Mini' look, not a small Shetland look, so I've chosen to NOT add Shetland back in to our program at this point.

As for the registeries: AMHR will never restrict the ASPC/AMHR cross registration, and will likely always keep it that way. Financially I understand the 'height registry' view, but do not agree with it at all. I want a 'breed' not a height registry. Then you have AMHA that won't recognize the oversize even as breeding stock, so we either have to lie, sell off nice horses as grade ponies or double register to keep papers on our horses. That annoys me to know end.

So people wanting to breed the breed of Miniature Horses are stuck between to entrenched, but differing opinionated registries. Which leaves those of us working towards having a "breed" stuck. (Our herd runs from 26.5" - 38" in height, my preference 31-32")

Truly though, I'd love to see a variety of Minis (under 38") accepted at shows for draft, saddle, stock 'type' Minis - true Miniaturized versions of the big breeds. How awesome would that be? A class of under 38" drafts competing? lol I see people that have gravitated to Minis from the big breeds tend to favor the 'look' of the breed they came from.


----------



## MindyLee (Aug 24, 2011)

Not sure around in other states, BUT as a breeder of A size, and show my minis PLUS do local farrier work, I dont see to much in a differance here in Michigan. I see some folks from the show world either keep their small minis or change over to bigger. BUT I also see many new owners/breeders coming into the market who prefure smaller, So to me it just balances out the breeder who had small that went big. So I say 50/50 here!

There will always be tiny, med, and big minis and shetlands. And just like the wind, the trend will change all the time.





Whats todays _"have to be"_ could become _"tomarrows has beens"_. Who knows. Its all in what your preferance is.


----------



## wingnut (Aug 24, 2011)

ooops...I didn't see this was a bumped old thread...nevermind!


----------



## LittleRibbie (Aug 24, 2011)

susanne said:


> Speaking strictly as a non-breeder, I do not see a move away from the tiny minis so much as a grwing appreciation for the best small horse possible, whether A or B.
> 
> Small at all costs may be a thing of the past, but along with the popularity of leggy B sized horses, I see more and more beautifully proportional A minis who look deceptively taller in photos.


i love it when people that are better w/words can say the same thing id like to say!!


----------



## maestoso (Aug 24, 2011)

I think what is happening is progress in quality. It is MUCH harder to get the quality in a smaller package. So, as people learn more, breed more, compete more, and want to win more, they look to finding and breeding superior horses, and often times that means breeding for something a little taller. Not only that, because we compete by height, and there is no argument that it is an advantage to be the tallest in the class rather than the smallest, there will always be that push to be the 30" horse, the 32" horse, the 34" horse. It's hard to be competitive in a sr class with a 30.5 inch horse, even if the horse is outstanding.


----------



## stormy (Aug 25, 2011)

The truth of it is there are many, many, many of us who do not agree that the Shetland type should be the standard for the miniature horse, there is already a shetland registry for those who wish to own shetlands and though both Miniature horses and Shetlands came from the same roots they have gone in seperate directions over the years making them unique and differant. I surely do wish the value of that differance could be seen by the registry and encouraged in the show ring, I still have hope that one day it will.

As to the movement part would adding Saddlebred to the quarter horse improve the breed??

Would adding Hackney to the thoroughbred improve the breed???

Not all of us value the same type of movement. For me the extreme hackney type action is fun to watch but I do not want it in my breeding program. My preferance is for the dressage type stretchy, forward and athletic movement seen in the traditional pleasure horse. As I have said before Park movement is not better then pleasure is not better then country is not better then western country...it is just differant and should not be held up as a standard for ALL.

(PS I do not hate Shetlands, they are beautiful as Shetlands. I do not hate Hackneys, they are beautiful as Hackneys, I do not hate Saddlebreds, they are beautiful as Saddlebreds)


----------



## Charlotte (Aug 25, 2011)

> I and my husband finally got our Journal today, and his remark was boy are the minis getting big? I told him this is a registry of Miniature Horses and American Shetland Pony Club.


 What does he think of the situation of the AMHA miniature horse?



> though both Miniature horses and Shetlands came from the same roots they have gone in seperate directions over the years making them unique and differant.






Let's celebrate the diffferences.


----------



## Reble (Aug 25, 2011)

Charlotte said:


> What does he think of the situation of the AMHA miniature horse?
> 
> Not sure what your are referring too?
> 
> ...


----------



## MindyLee (Aug 25, 2011)

_STORMY : "The truth of it is there are many, many, many of us who do not agree that the Shetland type should be the standard for the miniature horse, there is already a shetland registry for those who wish to own shetlands and though both Miniature horses and Shetlands came from the same roots they have gone in seperate directions over the years making them unique and differant. I surely do wish the value of that differance could be seen by the registry and encouraged in the show ring, I still have hope that one day it will."_

*YES YES YES!!! You nailed it on the head in my opinion!*


----------



## JennyB (Aug 25, 2011)

I agree with a lot of posts here concerning adding more Shetland lines to mini lines, but of course if you didn't know it or DON'T believe it ALL of your miniatures come from Shetland lines!!! 





 

I knew many breeders when ASPC opened their Miniature Registry went to the local stockyards and any small pony than ran through they would buy them up like candy. Ponies were selling for peanuts back then and the killers didin't want them. Then they would hardship them into the AMHR.. AND if they were found to be 34" and under they would hardship them into AMHA(Here is where your over 34" AMHA foals come from folks! 



 ) Many were probably reg. with ASPC at one time or had relates who were...

 

When ASPC did their revailadation of all pony papers in 1970<?>, many, many breeders would not or could not afford to re-register their huge herds of ponies did not re-register, so they sold them off without papers and many, many where under 38" tall. This is why we lost so many ponies sired by C-Jo's Topper, Seth Thomas, Curtiss-Frisco Pete and countless others. It still irriates me to no end that ASPC did this! 



 ...but I don't think they even realized that so many pony lines would disappear because of this fatal mistake. 





 

Then AMHA and the registry before them, can't remember the name maybe IMHR<?>...they didn't want the Shetland pony to be seen in the AMHA miniature PONIES so those ASPC papers were chucked into the garbage and lost forever! 



 A very few breeders asked to keep those papers thank the Lord for them. It makes me ill to think of so breeders now who KNOW the truth but will NOT confess! 





 

Years ago I spoke with a Miniature breeder and when I mentioned the Shetland lines in her stock, she hung up on me! 



 That is how close minded and determined they were to not breathe that nasty name of "PONY" with a Miniature Horse! 





 

I do agree that people make their choice whether they want Miniatures under 34" that trace to all unknowns, Miniatures under 38" who trace to some unknowns and some Shetlands or Miniatures who are also either ASPC/AMHR or ASPC/AMHR/AMHA.... it is as simple as that. 

 

Do I think that Miniatures are getting larger, yes and no. If you keep the older lines going they stay small and mares will produce larger foals sometimes NO matter their own height, OR smaller foals no matter their height. By adding the Shetland lines yes they are getting taller, but as said by others here they prefer the minis who are larger with more movement..and of course the 100% ASPC Shetlands when bred to smaller Minis are going to produce taller foals, but again this is a personal choice!

 

We breed 100% Arenosa's and most all come in a smaller size of under 38", but some come smaller under 34" and some over 38" also..we just love everything about them...this is our choice! 





 

Good topic to discuss, especially for newbies!

 

Blessings,

Jenny


----------



## Charlotte (Aug 25, 2011)

> It is true that with miniature horses if they go over the size limit of the registery they are no longer considered aminiature horse. Unlike "breeds" of horses miniature horses are only a size registry.


I see this over and over again and honestly (no offense intended) I don't understand the thought. The American Miniature Horse is a breed....with BREED REQUIREMENTS (doesn't matter which registry you are talking about). Like all other domestic breeds of registered animals from chickens to cattle. If the animal doesn't meet the breed requirements it's out. Last time I looked American Shetlands had 'breed requirements'.


----------



## Jill (Aug 25, 2011)

I don't think so. If a person wants to get out there and have fun, I really don't know how you could beat a B size driving gelding. However, we recently added our smallest horse to date, a little under 29" 2yo 3x National Champion (in halter classes against larger A size horses). I think that there's a great range of sizes and a lot of great quality to be found in all heights.

Just my opinion, but maybe now that miniatures aren't just a fad or a novelty, some people have sought out the "larger can do more" types and for that reason, you are seeing and hearing more about the taller version of minis? We do breed for A size, but not for tiny A's (double registered breeding horses), we really enjoy the taller B gelding boys that we own, and are excited about the new tiny guy but are surely not parting ways with Destiny (33") nor DunIT (31").

Lots of variety in our breed


----------



## Minimor (Aug 25, 2011)

> Not all of us value the same type of movement. For me the extreme hackney type action is fun to watch but I do not want it in my breeding program. My preferance is for the dressage type stretchy, forward and athletic movement seen in the traditional pleasure horse. As I have said before Park movement is not better then pleasure is not better then country is not better then western country...it is just differant and should not be held up as a standard for ALL.


I am not sure why so many people persist in saying/thinking that shetlands = “hackney” movement. I too love the long strides and extension of the sport horse type movement….and that is what my Shetlands have. My ponies have some modern shetland lines behind them, and they still have that wonderful extension that I like. Yes, they do have some knee action as well, and if I were to really collect them up they would have more knee action yet—I have one colt that can trot level without even trying, but along with that he does have extension. His movement varies according to what I ask of him. Tim, who is one of my best moving ponies, would make an awesome dressage horse—right up to Grand Prix level—if only he were big enough for me to ride (if I were small enough to ride him as he is!). It isn’t the height of his action that makes him stand out over the best moving of my Minis (and I do have some good moving Minis!)—it is the FLUIDITY of his stride.

The majority of Miniatures lack fluidity in their movement. Yes, there are good moving Minis out there, and they are much improved now to what they were years back, but even the most fluid movers amongst them lack the fluidity of a good pony—and fluidity of stride is what I see the ponies having to offer to the Miniatures.

One would hardly cross a Saddlebred with a QH to make a better moving QH—because those are two distinct breeds and are totally different in what they are supposed to be. Miniatures and ponies….not really so far apart, especially since Miniatures are a height breed, and basically they still are anything that breeders want to make them. I disagree that “Shetlands and Miniatures have gone two different directions”. It’s not so much that Miniatures have gone a different direction—it’s more that they were founded on a certain size pony (whether that pony was Shetland, welsh or something else) and back then ponies of that size were generally a rather uniform type. That type has been evolving since the Miniature registries were started—but because of the size limitation on the breed, breeders have had to work within a certain base of horses. It’s long been the goal of Mini breeders to produce a horse that is longer legged, smaller bodied, longer necked and better moving than the older style Minis—many are breeding for that even if they aren’t using Shetlands in their breeding program.

The majority of the other horse breeds don’t have requirements that—if they aren’t met—will get an animal expunged from the registry. At one time Morgans were not allowed to have high white or blue eyes—if one did have it wasn’t supposed to get registered. If someone registered it anyway & then later the registry received a complaint about that horse they would investigate & if the horse did indeed have blue eyes or high white it would lose its papers. However, the white rule was rescinded years ago and Morgans can now keep their papers even if they have high white or blue eyes. Other than finding proof that a specific horse is not the product of two registered Morgans there is nothing in the breed requirements that will cause a Morgan to lose its papers.

What will make a Shetland lose its papers? Appaloosa coloring—because appaloosa coloring is proof that the pony has something other than Shetland pony in its ancestry. A 49” Shetland cannot show, because in order to show a Shetland must be 46” or smaller, but he will not lose his papers. I am curious what requirement you looked at, Charlotte, that told you a Shetland will lose its papers if that requirement is not met?


----------



## JennyB (Aug 25, 2011)

A Shetland would only loose it's papers if you turn them in for one. 

 

If a reg. Shetland is found to have the appaloosa pattern then yes if you wanted to breed that mare or stallion you would not be allowed and the papers would be voided.

 

If they go over-size they don't loose their papers either, they just can't be shown. They can be bred I believe to smaller Shetlands and still have reg. foals. Someone please correct me if this wrong?

 

If they are found through DNA that the parents are not correct they can loose their papers.

 

Jenny


----------



## Charlotte (Aug 25, 2011)

Hi Minimore. You just answered your question



> What will make a Shetland lose its papers? *Appaloosa coloring—because appaloosa coloring is proof that the pony has something other than Shetland pony in its ancestry*A 49” Shetland cannot show, because in order to show a Shetland must be 46” or smaller, but he will not lose his papers. I am curious what requirement you looked at, Charlotte, that told you a Shetland will lose its papers if that requirement is not met?


that is a breed requirement. The requirements may vary from breed to breed, but to my knowledge there are no domestic breed registries that don't have some requirements. And they have a right to make their own rules and requirements. we can either play by their rules or we can take our toys and go elsewhere.


----------



## ruffian (Aug 25, 2011)

"I agree with a lot of posts here concerning adding more Shetland lines to mini lines, but of course if you didn't know it or DON'T believe it ALL of your miniatures come from Shetland lines!!! "

Not 100% true - there are no appaloosa Shetlands.


----------



## JennyB (Aug 25, 2011)

Very True Ruffian! There are no registerable American Shetland ponies that are Appaloosa colored..and yes Miniature horses have the Appy patterns because of POA and Falabella bloodlines. I didn't mean to say(even though I did)that ALL miniature horses come from ALL Shetland bloodlines..I apologize for that.. 




 ...But what I was trying to say is that there are/were A LOT of miniatures that came from Shetland lines, my feeling is 90%. 

 

I guess being a Shetland breeder I feel maybe just as angry sometimes as Miniature horse breeders do because they are offened by the very lines that I and others are so very proud of. So believe me I do understand your offense to the Shetland lines. You are raising what you believe to be the true Miniature horses and that is your right and choice 





 

I still believe that Miniature horses are currently not a breed as they haven't had enough time and numbers to close their books and not allow other lines in thus becoming a breed like the Quarter horses did.

 

Realistically ALL breeds of horses and ponies are not 100% pure because they had to start somewhere and that somewhere was this breed and that breed put together, add maybe, this and that other and finally it developed into a animal that people liked. A Registry was started and it went on from there to become a breed. 

 

Also I firmly believe that ALL breeds have some skunks in the wood piles! Sometimes they are not wanted and hurt the breed, but sometimes they inhance the breed. 

 

We are just talking Equines now...a breed of horse or pony is a line of animals that have a closed book Registry! Color registries are just that, color! The Appaloosa was just a color until they closed their books. The Appaloosa horse is full of every breed you can think of because for the longest time they let anything in to their registry with spots, striped hoofs or scalera. They have worked hard to become a true breed.

 

As for the Paint horse, well I consider them just a color registry even though they must be a Quarter horse. 



 Quarter horse people and Arabian people are a breed to themselves..no offensive intented here...Quarter horse people only have the color "sorrel" and the pattern "paint" and Arabian people will only call their sorrels "chestnuts" ...I love both breeds! 

 

Pinto horses can be any breed and any size as they consider themselves only a color breed which is what Paint breeders should do too, but that is a can of worms in itself.. 





 

The Falabella horses are a true breed, but are also a pony too. The reason I say that is because any Equine 14.2 hands or under is considered a PONY period. I have raised Arabian horses and had many that where 14.0-14.2 hands and I didn't get offened when someone called them pretty ponies because they WERE! I don't have a problem with any breed of horse being called a PONY because some are 14.2 hands and under. NO they will never change that thought or rule! 

 

So your Miniature Horses and mine are either 100% Shetland PONY or close to it. By Registry(AMHA-AMHR) standards they are considered Miniature HORSES. I would like you to consider this...When someone comes to your place and says what nice ponies you have, then politely say, yes I think so too, but they are registered Miniature Horses and do trace to Shetland ponies, but the are NOT Shetland PONIES! Thank you very much 



 When people come here they sometimes say those are nice Miniature horses, but aren't they kinda large? We say yes because they are also Reg Shetland ponies which don't make them any better or worse than other breeders Miniature horses who are smaller. 





 

I kinda ansered your view in my own opinion and a few other opinions too...That is all I have to say right now on this still interesting topic 





 

Blessings,

Jenny


----------



## Minimor (Aug 26, 2011)

Charlotte--yes, that is a breed requirement--no appaloosa coloring/breeding in the ponies, but that's a little different than a height requirement in the Minis....because appy coloring means a non-Shetland ancestor, which means not purebred shetland...If Miniature Horses were a real breed they would have that same requirement--that a registered mini must have two registered Mini parents, and if one parent were found to be a registered Arab, and not a Mini at all, that Mini would (hopefully) lose its papers. But the Mini that does truly have two registered mini parents would keep his papers even if he grew to 40". A height requirement isn't the same IMO as a purebred requirement. You may not agree, but that's okay.







> Since the breed objective is the smallest possible perfect horse, preference in judging shall be given the smaller horse, *other characteristics being approximately equal.*


Sometimes people overlook those bolded words--if all things be equal the smaller horse is supposed to win, but a lot of times all other things are not equal. The taller horse might have the longer neck, longer legs which might mean more movement, it's hard to say what features the judge might see as not quite equal.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Aug 26, 2011)

I must say it has been kinda fun re-reading this historical thread and seeing the changes in direction that different individuals have taken since the thread originated.





The best part for me about the Miniature Horse is that it is only a height registry leaving it open to each individual to breed for the type of horse that makes them happy - hopefully also breeding for correct conformation in that type. While different types do show marked differences in their look, correct equine conformation really doesn't alter from breed to breed or type to type. Breeds have taken certain characteristics and bred for them as form follows function but on a whole correct conformation IS correct conformation.

What I would like to see is more judges judging conformation rather than type in the show ring which can alter the look of the breed/height registry animals because most people want their horses to do well in the show ring if they are serious about breeding and so change their direction to suit the judging. I have had the pleasure many times to show under judges that were actually judging conformation and although they may not have put all my horses at the top I could admire their integrity and knowledge as they were able to look past the type and their own personal preferences and place the conformation in front of them correctly but lately I have seen leanings towards only placing a certain type no matter what the conformation.

It is a fact that judges have the ability to change the look of any breed by focusing their placings on a certain type. Although I understand that it makes their job a bit tougher to actually have to look at each individual horse in the show ring, and use a good working knowledge of correct conformation to place the horses, I think that is what their job is rather than to sway the breed in any one particular direction.

Why do we even have the various different driving classes such as Western, Country, Pleasure, Park and Draft if we are not going to recognize all of those different types in the halter ring as well? It seems to me that if we are going to offer them a place to show it should be in all divisions fairly so that breeders who like the different types can continue to improve their type.

While I love to watch the heavies drive at the Fairs - I don't want one. While I can admire the flash and pizazz of the high stepping Hackneys - I don't want one. While I think the Shetland Ponies are beautiful little animals and do own a couple - I don't want to breed them. I love my Minis and have bred them to be what I like or as close to it as I can get (and am stilling working in that direction) by selecting 38" or under horses of various different bloodlines and breed backgrounds not just Shetlands. I am not having any trouble getting legs and refinement and good movement, which is the look I like, even without bringing in more Shetland blood.


----------



## Genie (Aug 26, 2011)

*American Miniature Horse Standard of Perfection *

*"General Impression: A small, sound, well-balanced horse, possessing the correct conformation characteristics required of most breeds. Refinement and femininity in the mare. Boldness and masculinity in the stallion. The general impression should be one of symmetry, strength, agility and alertness. Since the breed objective is the smallest possible perfect horse, preference in judging shall be given the smaller horse, other characteristics being approximately equal*

I often feel that a lot of weight is given to who is on the other end of the lead and I also have wondered how difficult it must be for a judge to forget about their preferences and bias.

With regard to preferences, I witnessed a judge, who I knew preferred the taller horses, consistently overlook smaller horses in every class. Many exhibitors and spectators commented on the quality of the judging and remarked that it was very obvious which type she preferred.

Many say going big is where it's at but our program will always be geared toward the tinies. Miniature horse to me means "miniature horse"


----------



## StarRidgeAcres (Aug 26, 2011)

To answer the original question from year ago, yes, I do.

I think the overall percentages have shifted from the smaller to the tallest horse possible (but still eligible to retain their A papers). That's the downside as I see it. The upside is that across the board I feel the quality of the horses, of all heights, has improved. I personally feel the under 30" horse has seen the most dramatic change. Why I feel this way is when I look at past World Champions, the 32-34" winners were balanced even 20 years ago. The 28-30" winners were sometimes balanced but more were still cluncky, large heads and long backed. My opinion obviously, and this is a generalization. There are some that were beautiful, by today's standtards, even back then.

I am one of those people that is a stickler for rules. I obey them. I think rules are a good thing. I think having a "breed" standard is good and having a rule book that is maintained and updated as necessary is a requirement. So that is why I go a little crazy over this issue. As other have quoted, the AMHA rulebook clearly states all other criteria being equal, the winner shall be the tinier horse.

I think breeders, owners and trainers are missing out by discounting this "group" of horses.

Some stats taken from the AMHA World Show results archive:

*2002 (I'm not confident this show represents all entries above 10):*

Senior Mare 28" & Under: 9 entries (25%)

28-30: 10 entries (25%)

30-32" 10 entries (25%)

32-34: 10 entries (25%)

Senior Stallions 28" & Under: 10 entries (25%)

28-30: 10 entries (25%)

30-32" 10 entries (25%)

32-34: 10 entries (25%)

*2003:*

Senior Mare 28" & Under: 9 entries (14%)

28-30: 11 entries (17%)

30-32" 22 entries (34%)

32-34: 22 entries (34%)

Senior Stallions 28" & Under: 8 entries (11%)

28-30: 21 entries (30%)

30-32" 21 entries (30%)

32-34: 20 entries (28%)

*2004:*

Senior Mare 28" & Under: 11 entries (18%)

28-30: 12 entries (20%)

30-32" 21 entries (35%)

32-34: 15 entries (25%)

Senior Stallions 28" & Under: 12 entries (20%)

28-30: 14 entries (23%)

30-32" 16 entries (27%)

32-34: 17 entries (29%)

*2005:*

Senior Mare 28" & Under: 11 entries (19%)

28-30: 15 entries (25%)

30-32" 17 entries (29%)

32-34: 15 entries (25%)

Senior Stallions 28" & Under: 9 entries (15%)

28-30: 11 entries (19%)

30-32" 19 entries (33%)

32-34: 19 entries (33%)

*2006:*

Senior Mare 28" & Under: 6 entries (13%)

28-30: 10 entries (22%)

30-32" 13 entries (28%)

32-34: 17 entries (37%)

Senior Stallions 28" & Under: 13 entries (24%)

28-30: 11 entries (20%)

30-32" 14 entries (26%)

32-34: 15 entries (28%)

*2007:*

Senior Mare 28" & Under: 9 entries (17%)

28-30: 13 entries (24%)

30-32: 12 entries (23%)

32-34: 19 entries (36%)

Senior Stallions 28" & Under: 13 entries (20%)

28-30: 13 entries (20%)

30-32" 22 entries (35%)

32-34: 15 entries (24%)

*2008:*

Senior Mare 28" & Under: 7 entries (13%)

28-30: 11 entries (21%)

30-32: 15 entries (29%)

32-34: 19 entries (37%)

Senior Stallions 28" & Under: 7 entries (14%)

28-30: 6 entries (12%)

30-32" 18 entries (36%)

32-34: 19 entries (38%)

*2009:*

Senior Mare 28" & Under: 3 entries (6%)

28-30: 10 entries (22%)

30-32: 20 entries (44%)

32-34: 13 entries (28%)

Senior Stallions 28" & Under: 7 entries (12%)

28-30: 16 entries (28%)

30-32" 16 entries (28%)

32-34: 18 entries (31%)

*2010:*

Senior Mare 28" & Under: 7 entries (17%)

28-30: 8 entries (19%)

30-32: 13 entries (32%)

32-34: 13 entries (32%)

Senior Stallions 28" & Under: 7 entries (12%)

28-30: 12 entries (21%)

30-32" 21 entries (38%)

32-34: 16 entries (29%)

With the exception of one class in one year, the under 30" horses are outnumbered by the 30 and over. with the margin increasing (overall) in recent years.

While I agree that it IS harder to breed for balance, correctness and fluid movement in the 30 and under horse, I still do not understand the thinking behind not including them in your program just as you would a 32" horse. Having those horses on your show string means, if you are a trainer, more clients, more chances to win, more visibility for your business, more money in your pocket. If you are a breeder, having those horses on your sale page means more prospective clients, more variety to offer, more chances of having the right horse for your customers, more opportunities to advertise something else you offer, more money in your pocket.

Even though I am a member of AMHR and my horses are generally double registered, I mostly participate in AMHA shows only. So, my frustration right now is focused on AMHA and how, in my opinion, they are cutting off their own nose! This is not a registry that includes horses up to 40-something inches. All A has to work with is 34" and under. And as a person with a business background I see them allowing the demise of part of their own "business" by how they are not mandating *their judges adhere to their own rules!* If AMHA continues to push the under 30" horse to the background, they will continue to see a decrease in membership, participation in shows and overall popularity of their "product."

OK, going to try and step down off this very tall soap box now.







stormy said:


> The truth of it is there are many, many, many of us who do not agree that the Shetland type should be the standard for the miniature horse, there is already a shetland registry for those who wish to own shetlands and though both Miniature horses and Shetlands came from the same roots they have gone in seperate directions over the years making them unique and differant. I surely do wish the value of that differance could be seen by the registry and encouraged in the show ring, I still have hope that one day it will.
> 
> As to the movement part would adding Saddlebred to the quarter horse improve the breed??
> 
> ...


I really agree with these comments~



Castle Rock Miniatures said:


> I think what you said that, "it is an advantage to be the tallest in the class," is a sad statement, since in the AMHA Rule book it clearly states in the Standard of Perfection:
> 
> THE AMERICAN MINIATURE HORSE
> 
> ...


Thank you Diane for posting this!!!!



MiLo Minis said:


> I must say it has been kinda fun re-reading this historical thread and seeing the changes in direction that different individuals have taken since the thread originated.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very well stated.


----------



## kaykay (Aug 26, 2011)

Years ago when I first started I had 30" and under minis. I never could show AMHA as we never lived in areas with AMHA shows.

But to really change this you have to get rid of this:

other characteristics being approximately equal

I have talked to judges and the ones I have talked with say they disregard the "smallest rule" because it says "other characteristics being approximately equal" When does that ever happen? When are two horses ever equal? It doesn't happen so the judges totally ignore the rule. If it was rewritten to say

"General Impression: A small, sound, well-balanced horse, possessing the correct conformation characteristics required of most breeds. Refinement and femininity in the mare. Boldness and masculinity in the stallion. The general impression should be one of symmetry, strength, agility and alertness. Since the breed objective is the smallest possible perfect horse, preference in judging shall be given the smaller horse. (period the end)

Then the judges cannot ignore it.

I know over the years I have watched Jody (when she was an AMHA director) say if you do not like something make a rule change etc. And shes right! Try to change it if it is really important.



> What will make a Shetland lose its papers? Appaloosa coloring


Unfortunately many appy colored ponies are showing up with Shetland papers. Some have had their papers taken away and some have not. Someone even went to the board last year I believe trying to get their appy colored shetlands papers back. Since this is the one rule we have that is NOT vague I dont know why we keep seeing appy Shetlands pop up. Now that we have pictures on the papers it should be easy to spot. Especially since they are from a certain bloodline


----------



## StarRidgeAcres (Aug 26, 2011)

kaykay said:


> But to really change this you have to get rid of this:
> 
> other characteristics being approximately equal
> 
> ...


Wow.



This is NOT toward you Kay, as you are just posting what you heard, but if my AMHA club was looking to hire judges for a show and one of them had ever been known to say this, they'd not get hired.

So, for the judges that feel this way, please help me understand where it ends? What other factors do you "disregard" since no two horses are ever equal???? Sorry, but sounds like someone doesn't want to take the time to do their job. Does it take more to judge a tiny horse? Sure! But I see those judges that get down on one knee or bend over so they can get a true perspective on the horse. Yes, I think it takes a few more minutes to go back over the class and really compare two or three horses before marking your card final. But that's what the judges get paid for...following the standard as it's set out in the association's rule book. Should it be changed? Maybe. But today, the judges should make their placements based on how the current impression reads.

Gladly, I know not all judges are like this. I've shown under "pony" judges who have placed me well when my horse and I deserved it. They obviously did not disregard any portion of the standard/impression.


----------



## kaykay (Aug 26, 2011)

Maybe I am not explaining it right? Its hard to put in type. I really feel these judges have a valid point. If two horses are never "equal" when does the smallest part of the rule ever come into play? Do you see what I am saying? I do not at all think it makes them bad judges.

Of course again it comes down to how you interpert the rule. Most people I have talked to take it to mean that if two horses are exactly equal the smallest horse places over the taller horse. But again, when have you ever seen two horses equal? There will always be something that puts one horse ahead of another horse. While I can imagine it occasionally happens that a judge sees two horses that are equal; I have to think it doesn't happen very often.

To get judges to use the rule you just need to take out the "equal" part. Then the smallest horse wins. But is that what you all really want? Or do you want the best conformed horse to win?

Just throwing that out there as I really don't know the answer. I know Charlotte has been a huge help in trying to get judges to look at the 30" and under horses and judge them correctly.

I know its hard! It was really hard when I was showing our 30" stallion. I remember I took him out to a show just so a trainer friend of mine could get points on her 30" under stallion. She had zero competition so asked me to bring my old guy out. There just are not a lot of the tinies showing in the AMHR circuit in Ohio.


----------



## Minimor (Aug 26, 2011)

Parmela—are you saying that in your view the smallest horse should win no matter what? The rule currently states that if all else is equal, or nearly equal, then the smallest should win. But if a judge says that all else is not equal & therefore he didn’t pay attention to the “smallest should win” wording….that makes him a bad judge? So maybe the smallest horse had a lovely head & eye, a good neck & shoulder, refined body and longish legs for the size of him, but he had a terrible hip…while the taller horse had a lovely head & eye, good neck & shoulder, refined body, good length of legs, and an absolutely lovely hip—you would still say the judge should give it to the smaller of the two, terrible hip and all? I would hope that if the smaller horse had super conformation all the way around and the taller horse had a major flaw then the smaller horse should win….because I don’t think that any judge should be putting more importance on height than on conformation—and that works both ways, taller or smaller. The smaller horse should win if he is the superior of the two, but at the same time the smaller size alone does not make that horse superior. If you have two horses of the same size, the judge should be picking the better conformation and I believe it should be the same when two horses of different sizes compete against each other. Conformation should be the most important thing.

If you want the judges to judge on small size first and foremost you could end up going backward--someone could show up with a very short, very stumpy legged, big headed horse that has to win because he's the smallest one in the ring? I don’t think that size should ever take precedence over conformation.


----------



## StarRidgeAcres (Aug 26, 2011)

Minimor said:


> Parmela—are you saying that in your view the smallest horse should win no matter what?


\


----------



## Jill (Aug 26, 2011)

Minimor said:


> Parmela—are you saying that in your view the smallest horse should win no matter what?


At least I can give you credit for putting a "?" at the end of that sentence because that is absolutely not what Parmela has been saying.


----------



## maestoso (Aug 26, 2011)

The standard states that the smaller horse shall be chosen when all other things are equal. Most of the time, all other things are not equal. The standard also implies that a miniature horse should look "horsey" not "pony". In many cases, the smaller the horse, the more pony it looks. This often means courser, shorter legs that are out of proportion to body size, shorter necks, etc. It is easier to get desirable features in a larger package. It is easier to get the miniature more "horsey" looking and less "pony" looking in a larger package. Breeders are naturally going to breed for the best, and when the best is easier to get in a larger package, it's only natural that you would breed for that too.

As far as not including them in your program, that answer, at least to me, is simple. Again, it is harder to get the quality in a small package, so why would you risk using a 28 inch mare, when it's quite possible the result would be something more pony and less horsey.

Not only that, the smaller horses are less marketable, both for halter and performance. If someone is specifically looking for a horse to compete in a 28 and under class, then yes, a small horse would be marketable, but that doesn't happen often. If you're looking to buy a winner, you want something that will win, plain and simple, and that's not usually a tiny horse.

Can anyone give me a list of 10 very outstanding 28 and under size miniatures????

How about a list of 10 very outstanding over 30 inch miniatures??

Which list is easier to come up with?

The result of that isnt just because people don't breed for smaller ones. A large part of that is because the smaller ones just arent as good.


----------



## Tab (Aug 30, 2011)

Haven't followed this thread or been on this forum for several months. Just replying to the original post. I find the smallest, most perfect "horse" a challenge and so I will always be a 34" and under gal. The American Shetland and B horses are a trend right now, but I can understand why. ASPC/AMHR is a great registry to deal with, and they are more affordable. Also, in our neck of the woods you cannot find any AMHA-sanctioned shows. They are only R and open. I will continue to do business with both registries because I am an A gal. AMHR is also fast, I couldn't believe how quickly I received my registrations and transfers. I really think the A-sized miniature horse could be the "it" horse again if they lowered their prices and amped up their customer service/speed, and they had more shows in more places. All I continue to hear is that AMHA has a reputation for elitism and snobbery. Don't shoot me! I never said it myself, and I don't necessarily agree! It is only what I've heard.


----------

