# POLL CROSS ENTERING OF ASPC/AMHR HORSES AT SAME SHOW



## Belinda (Mar 6, 2012)

This is coming up at the Spring board meeting , just wanted to see what everyones thoughts are on this were , please keep it nice.LOL !!

This would allow double reg. ponies to show in both shetland classes and mini classes at the same show..


----------



## ohmt (Mar 6, 2012)

I voted no-i think it should be one or the other, though I do see the benefits of possibly bringing more revenue to shows.


----------



## muffntuf (Mar 6, 2012)

No. I don' think this should be allowed - choose one or the other.


----------



## squeaky (Mar 6, 2012)

Having a double registered mini, it has crossed my mind about allowing cross entering at shows. While it could potentially bring in more revenue for shows, I think it is a bad idea. I agree with trace, that you should decide which breed you want to be for the weekend. I also think that by allowing this cross entering, people are going to start requesting that the cross entering between driving classes be taken away. Not to mention that the amount of classes a horse would be competing in would double (i.e. go from 5 classes in one day to 10 classes) and I think that would have a negatve effect on our show horse's health.

JMO.

Amanda


----------



## LaVern (Mar 6, 2012)

i can't say how much I appreciate Belinda for telling us about this. Thank you so much.

Which ever way it goes, at least we knew about it.

I am so against this. Just another nail in the coffin of the Straight B miniature horse.

When is someone going to come up with something nice for the the Straight AMHR Miniature Horse, anything for us to hang on to. Or maybe it is just too late.

Some one on facebook also said something that made me think. Every-time we do something that makes it more advantageous to have a short shetland, it makes it less advantageous to have a tall one. I had never thought of that.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Mar 6, 2012)

IMO if this passes, which I hope it doesn't then they should make Congress to where you have to qualify like you do for Nationals. I think it would only be fair. Also you would have to pay to show 2 different horses even tho your just showing 1 its still doing paperwork on 2. I think this is going to far IMO.


----------



## dannigirl (Mar 6, 2012)

I agree with Jamie (JMS Miniaturea) in that they definitely should have to pay for two totally different animals at a show if this is allowed. What I am wondering is the responses here are all against it (I voted 'no' also) and there are currently equal number of yes and no votes. I am curious why you voted yes. Maybe there is a really good reason that many of us are unaware of.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Mar 6, 2012)

The only reason I see why AMHR/ASPC breeders would want this is so they can earn HOFs and awards for both in AMHR and ASPC. Even though you can still do that its just tougher if you have to choose one or the other.

I can sort of understand if Congress you had to qualify to show at but you don't.


----------



## bevann (Mar 6, 2012)

I am very much against this.I have never liked the idea of permitting an equine to be registered as both Shetland and Mini.I call them Sheminis.Make up myour mind .Is it a shetland or is it a Mini?I'm sure I will be flamed.that's just my opinion.


----------



## squeaky (Mar 7, 2012)

Bevann - Minis are a height breed, so techincally, if a tenessee walker measured 38" then they could have (before they closed the books) been registered as a mini. I am not flaming you at all, just explaining it a little differently, which I am sure you have heard enough of. Minis have come a long way in breed type in the past few years, and it is now obvious to tell the difference between a shetland and a mini. In the judges clinic, they showed photos of minis, classic shetlands and foundation shetlands. There is certainly a difference between each division and I think that by allowing this cross entering, then we will mess up that breed type that all of the breeders (like Lavern) have worked so hard to get into the miniature genetics.

Again, JMO.


----------



## MindyLee (Mar 7, 2012)

How come the miniatures dont become a breed then? We breed them as a breed. I was wondering if you take a horses entire pedigree as far as it can go... look at all the heights in there and if its 70% or more under 34", why not make it a breed. Im sure there bugs to work out in doing so, but as for me, I will never own/breed for B size or shets or mixs. Im sure Im not the only one. I like them tiny and correct, so thats what I will stick with. Nothing wrong with biggies, just not my style. I guess if I was to own/show a B horse, I sure dont want to compeate against a shetland nor do I in a A class as folks are scaling them down. I guess I always pictured minis and shetlands then ponies then horses all my life. Now everything is starting to be confusing and all look the same. I have a friend who has a shetland that she calls a mini. To me its a pony as it looks like it can eat my tiny minis for lunch. Totally diff looking in everyway. jmo...


----------



## disneyhorse (Mar 7, 2012)

Just to add some information to this, since many mini people don't know:

Exhibitors WOULD be paying for "two different horses" at the show in a situation like this.

The Modern Shetland is often double registered as a Show Pony, and exhibitors can show in both classes at one show... They can show their pony in ASPC Modern Stallion Halter and then later in ASPR Stallion Halter.

When I enter my own ASPC/ASPR registered horse, I send in two separate entries and get two back numbers... And it's the same horse.

So yes, would be extra revenue for the shows.


----------



## disneyhorse (Mar 7, 2012)

I do find some value in the comment about overtaxing a horse showing in double the classes.

However, shows offering both class lists are typically multiple days. So there are breaks between the classes. At our local mini shows, the show is one day only.

I had a mini Pleasure/Roadster horse who showed in EIGHT back-to-back driving classes... They (ladies, gentlemen, ammy, open and stakes) were all clumped together after halter. So there is no perfect world there.

Qualifying for Shetland Congress would be fine... But we are not talking about making Shetland classes mandatorily offered. Just being able to cross enter at one show. In our area, the local mini club does not preference Shetlands at all... So much so that we don't even have an Area show.


----------



## dannigirl (Mar 7, 2012)

I just got a private message from someone that also had a couple of points. I will share them with you. First, she makes the point that some areas only have very few shows within 6 or 8 hours of many exhibitors. With the cost of fuel, exhibitors can't go to a lot of distant shows and allowing entries in both divisions will allow them to get experience for their ponies before congress as well as qualifying for nationals. Yes, showing is similar, but there are enough differences that some actual showring experience as a pony is benificial.

Second, there may be legal issues. If you have the papers, you should be able to show your mini/pony. This is especially true since there is already an option to show your shetland pony and show pony at the same show. What if someone decides to pursue this legally? Who would win? I am not sure the club would win that.

So there is a lot more to consider in this thing than just personal feelings.

Now I need to go rethink this thing through. I am thinking that maybe it is not a bad idea. Just not sure.

Angie


----------



## Yaddax3 (Mar 7, 2012)

I am all for it.

Besides increasing revenue for shows -- many of which are losing money or finding it difficult to break even -- it could mean Shetland classes with more than one or two ponies in them.

And many double-registered minis/ponies never go to Congress so they never get the chance to compete as a Shetland. This would allow it.

As for over-taxing your horse, if your pony can't handle it then you have to be smart about it. We have one mini/pony we show in Pleasure, Roadster, Hunter, Jumper and Liberty, and sometimes obstacle, and his best class at a show often is his final class. We have others who aren't as willing or able to do a number of classes so we restrict their classes.


----------



## muffntuf (Mar 7, 2012)

Well if we want to talk about travel hours - currently (until two others are sanctioned) only one show is 4.5 hours from me, the rest are 6-8 hours away from me. So I can't invest in that assessment.


----------



## AshleyNicole (Mar 7, 2012)

Exactly the reason we are switching to AMHA. AMHR is becoming a registry for small Shetlands and AMHA seems to be taking steps to make them a breed which is what I want. It is rare for a B sized mini to win against a Shetland or Shetland/mini. I suppose if I bred a AMHR Shetland than I would be for this but as LaVern said it is just another nail in the coffin for the straight B sized miniature. I am not sure many care what happens to the straight B sized horse and thats too bad as we have several very nice ones but I doubt they would ever win against against a Shetland/mini. This would make it that much more difficult for them or their offspring to ever get a HOF as we would like to show some in AMHR when we happen to go to a combined AMHR/AMHA show. I doubt we will if it becomes much more difficult.


----------



## Leeana (Mar 7, 2012)

No.....................!!! Call me old fashion.


----------



## PNARanch (Mar 7, 2012)

I agree, don't allow cross entering. I love my B minis!


----------



## Belinda (Mar 7, 2012)

AshleyNicole said:


> Exactly the reason we are switching to AMHA. AMHR is becoming a registry for small Shetlands and AMHA seems to be taking steps to make them a breed which is what I want. It is rare for a B sized mini to win against a Shetland or Shetland/mini. I suppose if I bred a AMHR Shetland than I would be for this but as LaVern said it is just another nail in the coffin for the straight B sized miniature. I am not sure many care what happens to the straight B sized horse and thats too bad as we have several very nice ones but I doubt they would ever win against against a Shetland/mini. This would make it that much more difficult for them or their offspring to ever get a HOF as we would like to show some in AMHR when we happen to go to a combined AMHR/AMHA show. I doubt we will if it becomes much more difficult.


Ashly ,

I am not sure why you are so bitter toward the AMHR shows when several of your horses including the ones that came from me have been National Champions at AMHR ?? If you are showing under 34" minis' and showing AMHA , then there is no difference in showing AMHR , Most of this discussion is over the B size which YOU can NOT show at AMHA shows any way .. And I hate to be the one with the bad news for you , but there are MANY yes MANY already in AMHA that are Reg. Shetlands , So I ask how are you getting away from the shetland by not showing AMHR ?? , I don't mean this to be ugly ,and I think you are a very nice person and so is Billy , but you are still learning and let me also say the background of Bare and several of the Rowdy bred horses you own are SHETLANDS .. Not a thing in the world wrong with it , And You can compete with your horses and your bloodlines at both Assoc.. Condition and training is all you need to add you already have the horse flesh and you will be succesful..




:FirstPrize


----------



## wpsellwood (Mar 7, 2012)

The only comment that I can make, as we dont show alot of R, but tyring to go back to it




We did get one to R nationals last year!! Is that the over showing of one horse, lets face it some people are not that smart, sorry folks but I see it in the AMHA show on person will show a horse in 12-15 classes just imagine them doubling it! I feel sorry for those poor horses getting drug around and burnt out. Just saying..... sometimes you have to protect the horse from some people, and please Im not saying all just some of those few. So does that mean no??? LOL


----------



## Devon (Mar 7, 2012)

I don't want any drama and I DO see BOTH sides but I figured I'd post my opinion here as some wanted to hear why one would even choose yes.

I have AMHR only and a few ASPC/AMHR love them both, but recently thought hey I'd love to show them for what they are bred as Shetlands but then I started thinking well they have to qualify for nationals first and some need their HOF in mini, Which is more marketable in my area being there is no ASPC shows. Honestly ASPC would probably thrive if they allowed cross entering as then they'd offer the classes here and I could get some over sized shetlands as well and have a market for them.

In my area there are NO ASPC shows at all so yes I think it'd be neat as we would probably start offering ASPC here because everyone with Double horses would compete, therefore I could get into the bigger shetlands and have classes in Canada. I Do go over the boarder to show a couple times a year, plus nationals but that's still hardly worth it to show against 3 or 4 horses in ASPC instead of 12+ Mini. So in a selfish way YES it'd be awesome if when I took my ASPC/AMHR horses over the border which ends up getting pricey with health papers and gas , then I could get HOF points in both divisions if I thought the horse would be competetive in the ASPC division.

Someone mentioned on FB that they didn't want the ASPC shows turning into mini shows, but I mean these horses ARE shetlands who matured small enough to be AMHR (A Height Breed



). So really I wouldn't even cross enter all my double papered horses because some probably wouldn't stand up against the big guys but I DONT think we need a smaller class in ASPC I mean if we want to show them as the breed they are Shetlands; then I would assume that we feel they could do well based on conformation not height. These ASPC/AMHR horses have every right to show ASPC of course and it'd be neat to do both BUT I mean I wont be mad either way.

I also understand everyones concern with the AMHR only horses , I know my one broodmare is R only bred to ASPC/AMHR and was told several times "I would have bought her foal if it was ASPC/AMHR" even though the filly looked full shetland and was in fact 3/4 shetland. BUT that being said I don't think dis allowing cross entering will fix our market value on AMHR only horses , it may give us more time but it will inevitably matter to some people about double papers and not to others.

I feel Disallowing it is understandable but I also would be in favour of allowing it ..

I think we all have to remember that up untill the books closed anything under 38" could be registered Mini weather it had hackney in it or welsh pony or whatever ..



So Really it doesn't make sense to not allow cross entering considering they are TWO totally seperate things a Shetland Pony and a Horse under 38"! Think about if it was a tiny welsh pony and there was a welsh show next door you wouldnt wonder why it was showing welsh and mini; Its just ASPC and AMHR are basically one registry in the essence that their int he same building etc , etc


----------



## Enchantress (Mar 7, 2012)

So I guess I'll be an odd one out on this topic. I think it should be allowed. If my horse has both sets of papers, why not? I don't think overexerting a horse will be any more of an issue than it is now. Any good horse owner will know their horses' limits and keep their best interests in mind. I'm not close to Shetland shows, and the Shetland competition is minimal if it exists at all. So, when I have to choose, I'll show as a Mini, and the ASPC only horses just stay at home, which is a shame. I generally just show halter, so wow, I could do 2 classes instead of one! It's not like it's saying any random horse can show....they'll have both sets of papers which means the horse belongs to both registries, so why should options be limited? If that's the case, then why allow double registry at all? Yes, you'll have to meet the requirements to show as each and be entered and pay as two separate entries, but if you're willing to pay for it...

Many people are concerned about hurting the B Minis. I guess my question would be....where was the breed 50 years ago? I would guess your B minis are pretty different than they were then. And it's all just a judges preference. There are some judges that don't prefer the Shetland look and some that do. But there are some that like more of a stock horse type, and some that like more of a "saddle horse" type even in the A minis. Buy what you like, show what you like, breed what you like, and always remember, even if the judge doesn't like you, there are people watching that might take note of your horses because it's what they like and not what's popular at the moment.

Another question to consider: If there's a combination weekend with AMHA one day and AMHR another day, should A/R horses have to pick which registry they'll be showing with in that particular weekend? As someone else brought up, all ASPC and AMHR classes aren't usually crammed into one day.


----------



## LC Farm (Mar 7, 2012)

After I started reading this I also wondered how the AMHA/ AMHR shows worked since we have no AMHA shows in Michigan. I'm assuming you would be able to show the same horse on different days for that registery. I'm the owner of both AMHR and AMHR/ASPC horses so I will have to vote yes. Since the AHMR/ASPC horse is already showing against the AMHR horse it is in the judges hands who wins. I love the horse for the horse not what kind of papers he/she has. A great horse is a great horse. I think this idea would make money.


----------



## Field-of-Dreams (Mar 7, 2012)

I voted yes. I feel the entries in the pony classes would increase dramatically! Then you wouldn't have to choose mini or pony, and those that don't have many shows in their area would be able to show their pony/mini.

We have a ton of R shows down here, and the entries in the Mini classes way outnumber the entries in the pony classes. Might even out a bit if you could show both. And the shows might actually make a bit of $$ for a change!


----------



## LaVern (Mar 7, 2012)

I can certainly see why the double people would like to see this go through. It was done many years ago and there was such an uproar that it was put to bed by the board.

It is not that I don't think our B minis can't beat the pants off most of the ponies, I have done it for years. 

No Shetland has come close to Express in the AMHR .

But here is the deal, my good mares are bred down from Welsh. That is the look I like. 

Doing this is, just telling the exhibitors and the public that the B horse is supposed to look like a Shetland. And to me they should all look like little adorable Welsh ponies. Others might like similarities to other breeds. 

I have decided to just show a few of my Welsh Miniatures and advertise the heck out of them. 

I am buying a little Welsh Stallion for some of my B mares and will just sell a few pretty ponies. No more registration stuff. If someone want to register them 1/2 Welsh they can.


----------



## AshleyNicole (Mar 7, 2012)

Belinda said:


> Ashly ,
> 
> I am not sure why you are so bitter toward the AMHR shows when several of your horses including the ones that came from me have been National Champions at AMHR ?? If you are showing under 34" minis' and showing AMHA , then there is no difference in showing AMHR , Most of this discussion is over the B size which YOU can NOT show at AMHA shows any way .. And I hate to be the one with the bad news for you , but there are MANY yes MANY already in AMHA that are Reg. Shetlands , So I ask how are you getting away from the shetland by not showing AMHR ?? , I don't mean this to be ugly ,and I think you are a very nice person and so is Billy , but you are still learning and let me also say the background of Bare and several of the Rowdy bred horses you own are SHETLANDS .. Not a thing in the world wrong with it , And You can compete with your horses and your bloodlines at both Assoc.. Condition and training is all you need to add you already have the horse flesh and you will be succesful..
> 
> ...


Not really bitter I don't think. It's just when we have talked to some judges including the one that we had at the last show they kind of told us that you have to go to Shetlands because that is what AMHR is going to even in driving they basically said you cannot compete otherwise. I do see some small Shetlands in the under classes. I know that you have some in AMHA but not as many and I hope they close the books for good and start to make the miniature a breed. I realize that Rowdy as well as many of the minis come from a Shetland background but I don't think that they look like the Shetlands of today.  They don't seem to have the neck and not as refined....for sure Gold Melody Boy and some other older style Shetlands look nothing like todays Shetland. Not meaning to come across nasty (hope I didn't lol). Some have even told us Bare would not win in todays show ring because of the Shetlands and it has been just a few short years since he was really showing. I LOVE Bare he is my favorite horse period and really in the end just want to give his offspring the best chance


----------



## kaykay (Mar 7, 2012)

I can kinda see both sides but not the vehment opposition.

So many shows are hurting and for sure this would help keep those shows going.

Even if this does not pass you will still have to show against ASPC/AMHR registered minis. That isn't going to change either way.

If you do not own ASPC/AMHR horses why on earth do you care if they show both? That just doesn't make sense to me.

I have no problem with someone else choosing to do it. Just like I have no issue with someone showing AMHR one day and AMHA the next.


----------



## AshleyNicole (Mar 7, 2012)

kaykay said:


> I can kinda see both sides but not the vehment opposition.
> 
> So many shows are hurting and for sure this would help keep those shows going.
> 
> ...


I think we care about them showing in both because it is tougher competition for the AMHR only B horse. Yes it's true some are great enough to beat a AMHR/ASPC horse but as many judges want a more Shetland look a nice correct B horse will not win against a AMHR/ASPC horse. It will take that much longer for that AMHR only horse to HOF thus they will have to go to more shows or give up. That is why many with AMHR only B sized horses would be against it.


----------



## fancyshadow (Mar 7, 2012)

AshleyNicole said:


> I think we care about them showing in both because it is tougher competition for the AMHR only B horse. Yes it's true some are great enough to beat a AMHR/ASPC horse but as many judges want a more Shetland look a nice correct B horse will not win against a AMHR/ASPC horse. It will take that much longer for that AMHR only horse to HOF thus they will have to go to more shows or give up. That is why many with AMHR only B sized horses would be against it.


I just don't understand how this idea will make it harder for the AMHR only B horses because they will be showing against many of the same horses anyway. I am planning to bring out 2 AMHR only B geldings and I plan to show them against my own AMHR/ASPC geldings. I see no reason the R-only horses can't beat the double registered geldings. There are some amazing single registered horses and some amazing double registered horses. I guess I am just dense because this is not getting through to me. And as for the hall of fame--the more horses in the classes, the more points are available. To me, that is a winning idea.


----------



## ohmt (Mar 7, 2012)

After some thought, I have changed my mind and it is because I looked at my list of shows that I'll be attending this summer. I have one that is only an hour away, but it's the day my best friend is getting married so can not attend. The next one is 5 hours, and the rest are 7-9 hour drives, one way. AMHA shows up here are few and far between-it is mainly AMHR. I think this would allow an increase in revenue for shows, which would be highly beneficial, especially in this economy.

THIS:



> I love the horse for the horse not what kind of papers he/she has. A great horse is a great horse.


That's how it should be, always. I don't want to be a person that doesn't want certain horses to show just so I don't have to show against them. I want my horses to compete against the best there is out there. I breed for 34" and under, though I did just buy an AMHR/ASPC yearling colt that will be showing this year. I didn't buy him just because of his papers. I love his proportions and I hope to get that with my 34" and under horses later on.


----------



## Minimor (Mar 7, 2012)

I don’t think this is going to take anything much away from your straight AMHR horses if it gets passed. * I think perhaps a number of people are overlooking this: Very likely the majority of the double registered horses that are showing at the dual ASPC/AMHR shows are already showing AMHR*. I know that a good majority of the people I know that have the ASPC/AMHR got them specifically to show AMHR—and that is what they are doing. Will they now enter ASPC as well? No doubt some will; some surely won’t. Many owners get to only 2 shows, so have to show AMHR in order to qualify for Nationals. Some, if they get to more shows, do show AMHR at some shows and ASPC at others. Some stay with AMHR at every show just because that is where they want to show—they have no interest in showing ASPC. And yes, some people are showing their small ponies ASPC only and don’t do AMHR classes, for whatever reason. These people may decide to show AMHR now if they are able to show at both divisions at a single show. Obviously it will vary from show to show, maybe even from Area to Area, but I am quite sure that there are a number of shows that won’t see much of an increase in small ASPC entering AMHR classes. It is the ASPC divisions that will see the most benefit from this rule change—like Bob said, perhaps with this we will see more shows with bigger ASPC classes. I am not sure how that hurts the straight AMHR horses?



Andrea—actually there are a number of one-day shows that have both AMHR and ASPC approved shows. Our Brandon fair show is one example. So, a ASPC/AMHR driving horse could be shown in all his driving classes in that one afternoon. The good thing there is, we don’t offer all the classes in every division. We offer the open, youth and stake classes for most divisions. A few divisions have only open and stake classes, no youth. We do not offer ladies and gentlemens classes. So, a horse could have 12 driving classes if he were being shown in pleasure driving and roadster, and if a PMC drivier were also driving that horse—ASPC Classic Pleasure Driving Youth, Open and Stake, AMHR Pleasure Driving Youth, Open, PMC and Stake, ASPC Roadster, Open & Stake, AMHR Roadster, Open, PMC and Stake. The only other performance class would be hunter—we offer AMHR hunter, and only one class for each size.



But—that is my only real issue with allowing the cross entry—I do not like to see any horse driven into the ground and I can see a few exhibitors getting carried away with the number of classes they enter with one horse. If they haven’t conditioned that horse for that many of classes, and/or it happens to be an exceptionally hot, humid day, the potential is there for someone to overwork a horse.



People have often complained on here that the Shetlands don’t pull their weight---that the AMHR shows support the ASPC classes….and now something—this proposal-- is presented that would serve to increase ASPC entries at the dual shows…since horses would no longer have to pick & choose which way they will show—the dual shows would surely see more revenue from the ASPC classes, making them more self supporting… and people are complaining about that. 



Makes no sense really….except I guess those opposed don’t want the horses to show both ways, they just want them to leave AMHR and stay with ASPC only. There’s the rub, eh? This rule still won’t get them out of AMHR.





I don’t think this is going to take anything much away from your straight AMHR horses if it gets passed. I think perhaps a number of people are overlooking this: Very likely the majority of the double registered horses that are showing at the dual ASPC/AMHR shows are already showing AMHR. I know that a good majority of the people I know that have the ASPC/AMHR got them specifically to show AMHR—and that is what they are doing. Will they now enter ASPC as well? No doubt some will; some surely won’t. Many owners get to only 2 shows, so have to show AMHR in order to qualify for Nationals. Some, if they get to more shows, do show AMHR at some shows and ASPC at others. Some stay with AMHR at every show just because that is where they want to show—they have no interest in showing ASPC. And yes, some people are showing their small ponies ASPC only and don’t do AMHR classes, for whatever reason. These people may decide to show AMHR now if they are able to show at both divisions at a single show. Obviously it will vary from show to show, maybe even from Area to Area, but I am quite sure that there are a number of shows that won’t see much of an increase in small ASPC entering AMHR classes. It is the ASPC divisions that will see the most benefit from this rule change—like Bob said, perhaps with this we will see more shows with bigger ASPC classes. I am not sure how that hurts the straight AMHR horses?

Andrea—actually there are a number of one-day shows that have both AMHR and ASPC approved shows. Our Brandon fair show is one example. So, a ASPC/AMHR driving horse could be shown in all his driving classes in that one afternoon. The good thing there is, we don’t offer all the classes in every division. We offer the open, youth and stake classes for most divisions. A few divisions have only open and stake classes, no youth. We do not offer ladies and gentlemens classes. So, a horse could have 12 driving classes if he were being shown in pleasure driving and roadster, and if a PMC drivier were also driving that horse—ASPC Classic Pleasure Driving Youth, Open and Stake, AMHR Pleasure Driving Youth, Open, PMC and Stake, ASPC Roadster, Open & Stake, AMHR Roadster, Open, PMC and Stake. The only other performance class would be hunter—we offer AMHR hunter, and only one class for each size.

But—that is my only real issue with allowing the cross entry—I do not like to see any horse driven into the ground and I can see a few exhibitors getting carried away with the number of classes they enter with one horse. If they haven’t conditioned that horse for that many of classes, and/or it happens to be an exceptionally hot, humid day, the potential is there for someone to overwork a horse.

People have often complained on here that the Shetlands don’t pull their weight---that the AMHR shows support the ASPC classes….and now something—this proposal-- is presented that would serve to increase ASPC entries at the dual shows…since horses would no longer have to pick & choose which way they will show—the dual shows would surely see more revenue from the ASPC classes, making them more self supporting… and people are complaining about that.

Makes no sense really….except I guess those opposed don’t want the horses to show both ways, they just want them to leave AMHR and stay with ASPC only. There’s the rub, eh? This rule still won’t get them out of AMHR.


----------



## ahrobertspony (Mar 7, 2012)

Will readily admit I didn't read all of the posts of this thread. However, I can tell you this without doubt or reservation: well better than 80% of the people I know who are the MOST ADAMANTLY STRONG SUPPORTERS of removing the prohibition between cross-entering at the same show are AMHR exhibitors who are wanting to be able to show their double registered in the Shetland classes in addition to the AMHR classes they already support, NOT the other way around. Certainly, there will be some ASPC ponies that might double up if registered AMHR but nearly everyone I know most in favor of this change are AMHR looking to double into ASPC.

I also encourage folks to look at the difference in the mind set on showing between the two sides. Longer-time show & performance folks aren't going to run full tilt to show both ways at a show because we want to get the absolute best performance out of our animals. I know I wouldn't run a pony in full set of both classes at one show. However, I might take advantage of qualifying in something like costume or color for Nationals.

Yes .... there will be a few folks who over show their animals. Frankly, it's the SAME folks who are already doing it. This rule won't change that one way or the other. Unfortunately, you cannot legislate common sense.

There is one additional reason why this might not become as large a problem as some predict. AMHR prohibits shoeing. Many performance Shetlands are shod. They won't be able to show both ways at a single show as a result.

Honestly, it's not been THAT long ago that being able to show both ways had NOT YET been prohibited. I can name you a month, year and show the last time I saw it happen. Shoot I can even tell you who the judge was! I know the mare that was a primary catalyst for the discussion and the "stable/farm" that was, therefore, targeted. I STILL think of this prohibition as the "so&so family" rule. I've heard this joked about in committee meetings at conventions since it was passed ... by the figurehead of the same family ... who also joked about it being their family rule.

Undoubtedly, the reasons for keeping this prohibition in place this long have grown, changed and expanded. Some posts here have excellent points ... both ways.

However, the current realities have also changed as well.

The ASPC, Inc. - encompassing ASPC, AMHR, ASPR & NSPR - already has other registry divisions whereby crossing over at the same show CAN occur. Therefore, legally, any rules prohibiting similar crossing for other registry divisions present a problem. Further, I don't know the details, but there might even be an additional legal consideration simply prohibiting something related to a registration.

Will be interesting to see what happens.


----------



## muffntuf (Mar 8, 2012)

I am curious, there have been two references to 'legal' considerations on these threads - can these people enlighten the rest of us?


----------



## Devon (Mar 8, 2012)

AshleyNicole said:


> I think we care about them showing in both because it is tougher competition for the AMHR only B horse. Yes it's true some are great enough to beat a AMHR/ASPC horse but as many judges want a more Shetland look a nice correct B horse will not win against a AMHR/ASPC horse. It will take that much longer for that AMHR only horse to HOF thus they will have to go to more shows or give up. That is why many with AMHR only B sized horses would be against it.


I am confused ? Us being allowed to put our ASPC/AMHR horses in ASPC and AMHR at the same show won't affect how the AMHR class will be pinned or change the judges opinion especially if they show shetland after Mini. And not every shetland is noticable form a Mini I've seen some AMHR only horses win thought they were shetland only to find out their not, a lot of minis have shetland blood in them



This shouldnt be a Mini Shetland debate topic though.

And I do understand the points about horses being overshown but I would hope people wouldn't abuse being able to cross enter.. PErsonally my horse would be in one halter class AMHR and one ASPC if they did performance I would still only do AMHR.


----------



## racingfan72104 (Mar 8, 2012)

I had bought a filly that was sired by a Mini Stallion and out of a Shetland mare. Both parents were registered with their respected registry. but the filly i bought could not be registered so i sold her. This is why i am thinking of selling all my horses as i am tired of all the politics and crap of the registries. IF YOU WANT A MINI SHOW MINI OR A SHETLAND SHOW SHETLANDS.


----------



## LaVern (Mar 8, 2012)

I kind of think that this will fly now, as years ago when it was so strongly opposed there was not so many of the doubles and it would probably benefit most of our directors. But I was wondering if it would help the shows as they would have to hire double the amount of judges. A judge can't have seen the horses already.

Maybe the double trainers wouldn't like it as well as they wouldn't make as much money.


----------



## LaVern (Mar 8, 2012)

Another thing I want to know is how this proposal came in. A few years ago I presented a proposal to the board ( about having them decide how many years we had held Nationals) I wrote and sent it to all the directors,and then put it on the Forum. Is it not necessary to present something to the spring meeting that way? It seems to me that a lot of stuff gets handled at the spring meeting that we are not made aware of.

If it had not been for Belinda we would not know anything about this. Thanks again Belinda.


----------



## LaVern (Mar 8, 2012)

I promise I will stop, but this is just stuck in my craw. I said earlier that this proposal was just another nail in the coffin of the B horse, but I also think it is one for the over 38 inch Shetland. So many advantages to owning a short one. And all the more reason to hold Congress and Nationals together. Not what I want to see, but I think it will come.


----------



## Yaddax3 (Mar 8, 2012)

For Belinda or anyone else in the know:

Is this something that, if passed, would be implemented during the 2013 show season?

And ...

With most shows not yet having been held, any chance it can be implemented immediately?


----------



## AshleyNicole (Mar 8, 2012)

Devon said:


> I am confused ? Us being allowed to put our ASPC/AMHR horses in ASPC and AMHR at the same show won't affect how the AMHR class will be pinned or change the judges opinion especially if they show shetland after Mini. And not every shetland is noticable form a Mini I've seen some AMHR only horses win thought they were shetland only to find out their not, a lot of minis have shetland blood in them
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not really trying to turn it into a mini/Shetland thing lol. I usually like to talk to a lot of people before I have a opinion about something and after talking to some judges etc. this is what they told me. AMHR knows people want a double registered horse and they know that if that horse is ASPC/AMHR it keeps the money in AMHR. It is good business really. Those same judges told us that yes they are looking for a ASPC Shetland like horse in halter, driving etc...this is just what we were told not making this up now. Now I realize that many miniatures come from a Shetland. Shetlands then do not look like Shetlands today. At least not the ones that were used in miniatures IMO. (Not talking about crossing a ASPC/AMHR horse with a AMHR horse) As I said before I have seen a straight miniature beat a Shetland but mostly it is Shetlands who win against the miniatures if not then why are so many registering a ASPC horse as AMHR and then showing that horse in AMHR? I do think it will pass and it will benefit AMHR/ASPC. The question is will it benefit the straight miniature B sized horse? If not what happens to them? I know that they will likely show against the same horses anyway but perhaps a ASPC/AMHR horse might be trying to HOF in ASPC at that show. I took my straight B mini to a show last year where she would have gone up against more ASPC horses if this rule was in affect then. (she did get a 2nd) I am in no way wanting to stir something up but from what I've been told I just worry about the straight B sized horse, as well as the tall A sized horse. Flame if you want but as I said I am only repeating what I was told by judges/trainers who have been in it for a long time and from what they say it is the ASPC style horse they are looking for.


----------



## ckmini (Mar 8, 2012)

I think this is a great way to increase revenue at shows for our local clubs as well as promoting the ASPC (which it would be great to see more than 3 ponies in a class at the local shows!)

As far as the comments regarding the the straight B minis, I don't get the opposition. A good mini will ALWAYS beat a bad shetland. That being said, I like what the small shetland has brought to the mini world: longer, more upright necks and higher and more athletic trot. Yes, this is re-defining the miniature horse of 20 years ago, but the 'straight B minis' (and A's for that matter) have also started this trend years ago by breeding for the arab look.

And I agree with what someone else previously posted, those who have ASPC/AMHR are already showing AMHR because that is where the competition is, this is primary going to impact the number of under classic shetlands showing.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Mar 8, 2012)

Honestly this proposal doesn't have anything to do with AMHR. It won't affect the minis in any way. Obviously this is just another way to get people more involved showing in ASPC due to lack of enteries. I will say it again make Congress a qualifying show, then I will be more for this. Also perhaps it would get more people showing at our shows if they made it a qualifying show.

Also I don't see how this could be a legal thing because its not like once you get mini papers you can never show that horse as a shetland. They have a choice at that time in which registry to show that horse in. After thinking about it honestly I really don't care. As long as it doesn't affect the miniatures and my horses classes I don't care. This vote is obviously 50/50 perhaps more leaning towards no. I will still vote no until they make Congress a qualifying show.


----------



## LaVern (Mar 8, 2012)

JMS I have to disagree, I think it would affect AMHR. Unless there are two sets of judges, the doubles would get looked at twice. We already complain that we don't get looked at once. Do you think that a Judge that has just place a Champion Shetland Stallion is not going to give him a very good placing when he comes in against the minis?

It says a bunch of stuff in our rule book about the judges not seeing the horses ahead of time.

Maybe it would work to have one day Shetland show with a set of judges and then the next a regular show with other judges, or something like that.

But then already we have so many AMHR/AMHA shows put together, that the weekend wouldn't be long enough.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Mar 8, 2012)

I see what you are saying Lavern and I can't disagree with you.


----------



## ahrobertspony (Mar 8, 2012)

Am not a legal expert, however, I would guess that we need to look at TWO potential related areas that could cause legal problems:

1) If we allow crossing of OTHER double registered animals at the same show (ie, Modern to ASPR ... Classic to ASPR), then are there any legal ramifications when we then prohibit another exact similar situation ... AMHR to ASPC at the same show?

2) If something is issued registration and those registrations are considered valid & legal and the animal meets height, age or other parameters for an area of competition, is it legally problematic if the assocition then says "yep, you have those papers but ... so sorry ... we aren't going to allow you to do the things those papers should by all rights entitle you to do and for which the horse meets all the other criteria" ???

And ... some cross points to the idea "but my horse will be hurt (or helped) in the second division. Well, again, you do not HAVE to show both ways. The rule doesn't make it mandatory. It would make it opitonal. Second, I believe it will cause more current AMHR competitors to show the second way into ASPC than primariliy ASPC competitors to show the second way into AMHR. That's the reality of the majority of the folks who are supporting this. So ... if those folks want to take the chance the second time, then it's their choice and the consequences are theirs to face. If you are that concerned about Shetlands hurting the AMHR classes, you can always petition your local show committee to get them to put the mini classes FIRST before the Shetland classes. Then, those Minis that were already touted as being better than the ponies will have a double advantage ... not only are they better to begin with, they have a win. Surely that means they'd do better if they come back in the pony class... following the arguments made earlier in this thread. Works better for me anyway because it takes me way more time for my braids, stud-tack, etc.

Did we NOT recently remove the prohibition requiring AMHR secondary championship & grand qualifiers to be stood & placed in a similar order to their previous class are qualifier? Aren't classes supposed to be all new EVERY single time?

Hope judges aren't reading this. Some might be insulted by the insinuation that they aren't smart enough or able enough or non-political enough to do what they ought to .... and see the class as new every single time. Additionally, are all the entries always the same in every class at every show? Often they are not. But, judging assignments often go in streaks. You can guarantee that anyone tapped to do Nationals is going to be making many appearances at other shows earlier in the season. So, following the same basic point of argument, a judge who tied a horse at a show in April is going to automatically turn around and tie that horse exactly the same way at a show four weeks later in another state .... even if their is a way better horse in the ring at the second show.

I'm going to have to reconsider some of my thinking. Apparently, I should automatically count myself out every time I get beat. I should just know I am not going to go ahead and do well when I come back for a championship. And, if I get my butt whooped in the driving qualifier, I definitely shouldn't stake something. Who knew? Glad I wasn't aware of that before OR I would have missed out on some championships I'm pretty proud of.

And ... for the record ... I was in favor of the limitation before and have voted for it. I'm not personally in favor of changing it now. However, I'm reasoned enough to understand why the association might have to consider it. I also understand the points that my friends who are adamantly in favor of this make.


----------



## LaVern (Mar 8, 2012)

I guess those legal things have to be addressed. The law doesn't care if things are practical.

How can we kick out AMHR horses if they measure over 38. I don't think we can.

How can we not have all the classes for the smaller ponies at Congress if we have them for the taller ones.

Must we have classes at Nationals for the Sport Pony, and classes at our shows so we can qualify.

I was thinking also that if this goes, many of the ASPC Awards, other than Congress will go to the miniature ASPC horses, because some of the taller ones only go to a few shows, and the double will be shown lots. And how could we not have many classes for them at Congress if they are the best and take all the awards.


----------



## kaykay (Mar 8, 2012)

> If it had not been for Belinda we would not know anything about this. Thanks again Belinda.


Lavern the meeting agendas (spring and convention) are supposed to be on the website no later than 10 days before the meeting. For some reason this is not happening. Most of the items on the spring agenda are submitted by directors for the agenda (but not all) I think they should also be in the Journal. But no one asked me





This is why I put the entire agenda on another post. But again if members act disinterested or do not ask for information to be made available they will not have it. I have been posting agendas for the last couple years but probably will not continue doing that (which will make some people very happy LOL)



> How can we kick out AMHR horses if they measure over 38. I don't think we can.


It can be done because once again AMHR is a height only registry. Once it becomes a breed that cannot happen. But going from the last post on this when I proposed someone submit a proposal to make them a breed, very few agreed.



> How can we not have all the classes for the smaller ponies at Congress if we have them for the taller ones.


A few classed for the shorter ones were added but added so late and without promotion that I really don't think most even knew they were added.



> And how could we not have many classes for them at Congress if they are the best and take all the awards.


Number one you (and some others) are the ones saying they take all the awards LOL. I never said that for sure. We are constantly told that since Congress loses money we can't add classes etc etc.

To whoever (I cant scroll back far enough to see the posters name) had a judge tell them that they "look" for ASPC/AMHR horses to judge and pin, that is ridiculous and never in all my years I have heard a judge say that. Not to be snarky but many times what someone actually says and what someone hears are two totally different things. I just cannot believe a judge would say that.

Bottom line this rule will make *ZERO difference* in what horses show AMHR!!! *Zero!! *It will only change what is showing in ASPC classes.


----------



## LaVern (Mar 8, 2012)

I think you misunderstood me on one point KayKay. I was talking about the number of shows that the miniature Shetlands would show at. The miniature people are known for going to a lot of shows. That is were you rack up points. Trailer points I guess, so that is why I said they would take a lot of the Shetland awards.

Again I go back to the same thing, every time you make it more advantageous to have a double you make it harder for the B horse and the tall Shetland, to survive.

And a few classes for the smaller ponies at Congress, I think a judge would say same for all.


----------



## Filipowicz Farm (Mar 8, 2012)

I would love to see this pass. With the price of gas and many people limiting how many shows they go to. Many of the shows here in Michigan are for minis only and if I have a aspc/amhr horse would like it to get points as a mini and Shetland.


----------



## Minimor (Mar 8, 2012)

How can we kick out AMHR horses if they measure over 38. I don't think we can. Probably we cannot—some people have been saying that for awhile now..it’s just that no one has actually put it to the test yet by filing a lawsuit. It is easier to just hide the oversize horse behind the barn and use him/her for breeding then it is to take it to court.

How can we not have all the classes for the smaller ponies at Congress if we have them for the taller ones. There are classes for the smaller ones at Congress. 42” and under and over 42” (I believe for Moderns the cutoff is 43”?) The only people who really think that a smaller (39” or 38”?) division is necessary are the AMHR people who are hung up on believing that the smaller ponies are not competitive against the bigger ones. In the pony classes this simply isn’t true—size doesn’t matter in ASPC the way it does in AMHR so a good 38” pony has as much chance of winning as a 41 or 42” pony. 

I truly don’t get the AMHR-only people. They squawk because there aren’t enough ponies being shown and they feel they (AMHR) are carrying the ponies. But then they keep going on about having a smaller division….if there aren’t enough ponies being shown now to fill the over/under classes why would you want to add more classes? That will just cost more money and will mean that classes are overall smaller than ever.

Must we have classes at Nationals for the Sport Pony, and classes at our shows so we can qualify. Sport pony? Do you mean National Show Pony? NSPR?

I was thinking also that if this goes, most of the ASPC Awards, other than Congress will go to the miniature ASPC horses, were as some of the taller ones only go to a few shows, the double will be shown lots. I would think that if anyone is hauling taller ponies to show, they will go to all the shows the owner hauls to, with the exception of the AMHR-only shows where there are no pony classes at all. Those AMHR shows won’t add anything to the ASPC year end awards, so make no difference. In any case, it's no different from always--the ponies that show the most end up with the most all star points...so the person that shows at only 2 shows is always at a disadvantage over those who haul to 6 shows.



I also fail to see how this rule would take away from the taller ponies, as you have suggested. There are people who specifically like the taller ponies, and I’m quite sure that they aren’t going to dump those ponies now just because the smaller ponies can show AMHR. Even if they have smaller ponies they may not want to show them AMHR—I know I have little interest in showing AMHR; I have 3 or 4 ponies that might possibly measure in to AMHR but I don’t know if I will bother putting them in. It’s just extra money, and I would probably never show them R anyway…for several reasons. One of the big things for me is the way Minis are shown, at a tiddly little shuffle, not even a real trot. I like to go out in the ring & show off what my horse can do, so I love the rail work the ponies do. THAT is the way I prefer to show. And I do love my taller ponies.


----------



## jeniemac (Mar 8, 2012)

_IF THIS IS ALLOWED THEN ..AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR 3 YEARS.. WE NEED TO START TYPING THE CLASSES_

_AMHR -ARAB TYPE-(FINE)_

_ AGE..HEIGHT...GENDER_

_ QUATER TYPE_

_ AGE--HEIGHT--GENDER_

_ DRAFT TYPE_

_ AGE --HEIGHT--GENDER_

_THIS MEANS ADDING MORE CLASSES AND MORE DAYS TO THE LOCAL SHOWS NOT TO MENTION THE EXTENCION OF THE MINIATURE HORSE ITS SELF WHICH IS WHATS HAPPENING WITH THE MINI/PONY CROSS._

_IT IS HARD ENOUGH TO COMPETE WITH THE PONY CROSSES AS IT IS.THIS WOULD JUST MAKE IT HARDER ON US THAT WANT TO PRESERVE THE MINIATURE AS A BREED._

_AMHA HAS THE RIGHT IDEA BUT ARE GOING ABOUT IT THE WRONG WAY.._

_AMHR IS A HEIGHT REGESTRY YES BUT THOSE OF US THAT WANT TO SHOW AMHR IN OUR RESPECTIVE CLASSES ARE ALWAYS GETTING PASSED OVER FOR THE PONY CROSSES BECAUSE OF THEIR TYPE NOT THEIR HEIGHT._

_AMHR IS THAT AMHR_

_ASPC IS THAT ASPC_

_BY ALLOWING AMHR TO REGESTAR AS AMHR/ASPC THEY HAVE ALREADY OPENED THE DOOR FOR THIS TO HAPPEN.. IT WAS WRONG THEN AND IT IS WRONG NOW ON THE PART OF THE AMHR HORSE._

_JUST MY OPINION_


----------



## ruffian (Mar 8, 2012)

Karen - the AMHR/AMHA shows typically have a full day of each. So for example Saturday would be the AMHA show, and Sunday could be the AMHR. I stewarded a show last year and am doing it again where the manager is doing AMHR on Saturday and ASPC on Sunday.


----------



## chandab (Mar 8, 2012)

Minimor said:


> How can we kick out AMHR horses if they measure over 38. I don't think we can. Probably we cannot—some people have been saying that for awhile now..it’s just that no one has actually put it to the test yet by filing a lawsuit. It is easier to just hide the oversize horse behind the barn and use him/her for breeding then it is to take it to court.


It took awhile, but this is why excessive white horses are now allowed into AQHA, someone finally took it to court. If both parents are registered, then the foal should be elligible for registration.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Mar 8, 2012)

chandab said:


> It took awhile, but this is why excessive white horses are now allowed into AQHA, someone finally took it to court. If both parents are registered, then the foal should be elligible for registration.


Until AMHR becomes a recgonized breed and not a height registry I don't think anyone would win, but until one day in the future when the AMHR miniature horse becomes a recgonized breed I think they will need to have breeding papers available to those who go over becomes of legal matters. I think we will see something like this happen in AMHA if they don't recgonize it once they close and not all oversize stock keep their papers.


----------



## sdmini (Mar 9, 2012)

..


----------



## TomEHawk (Mar 9, 2012)

The issue I have with this proposal are a few rules between the ASPC & AMHR. The biggest one is the razor rule that doesn't allow for the ASPC ponies to be razored but does allow for the AMHR horses to be. Rather you agree the rule or not, it's still a factor. There are plenty of other reasons I don't agree with the proposal, but this is a big reason for me.


----------



## disneyhorse (Mar 9, 2012)

An exhibitor showing in both would just need to be careful of the rules.

Regarding razoring, just don't do it if you're showing as a pony as well as a mini. It's not necessary anyway. A 40 blade is just fine.

Maybe down the road, it will evolve to no razoring for any horse.

Andrea


----------



## Belinda (Mar 9, 2012)

Wow I want to thank each and every one of you for such a great debate , and heck you kept it nice !!!



I am on my way to the board meeting and have printed off most of this , although a lot went on after I did that. I guess between all the private emails and the comments on my face book page where I posted it, It seems to be very close on how folks feel, So this is a tough one ..

Also Kay , yes the agenda is suppose to be published , and when I got back and saw everyone ON YOUR forum asking for it I posted it , and thanks for copying it and putting it here.. I thank that is what Renee was referring to !!





Well if anyone has anything else that you want to say or for me to bring up on this subject just email or post as I will continue to keep a check on this topic.

And many thanks again for everyones input .


----------



## kaykay (Mar 9, 2012)

> Also Kay , yes the agenda is suppose to be published , and when I got back and saw everyone ON YOUR forum asking for it I posted it , and thanks for copying it and putting it here.. I thank that is what Renee was referring to !!


Belinda my post was not in any way a dig at you. Nor was it to pat myself on the back. I do appreciate you posting it. And I appreciate the other Director that posted the 2nd half of it.

My only point was that the entire agenda should be available to every member that wants to see it before the meetings. I believe that was passed by the BOD at a BOD meeting yet no one is doing it.

Its just very frustrating to see things passed and then get ignored.


----------



## andi (Mar 9, 2012)

Slightly unrelated, but it has come up on this topic a few times. I understand the people who are bringing it up may just be playing devils advocate, but someone needs to speak up and say how wrong it is and something we all need to help prevent. It is the entire topic of the possibility of "Sueing" the registry for enforcing it's rules. I don't care if it worked in another breed. There are plenty of horrible things that have "worked", that has NO bearing on if they should have. The idea that you join a registry, with a set of specific rules or bylaws, then sue the registry for enforcing them, disgusting. When you join you agree to abide by the rules and also are aware that they can change if the membership votes to change them. If you dont like a new rule you work to rally the people to change it. No respect or tolerance should ever be given to those who decide to control and force the hand of us Members. If you look at the whole think from the other side. I joined a registery that has rules that said it could and would REVOKE papers if a horse is suspected of not meeting the height requirements. It goes on to state that, if in question, it is the owners responsability to PROVE they meet the requirements. If they refuse, papers will be removed immediatly with out any further investigation. I based a career of these rules, my income relies on the integrity of this registry and the ability of it to enforce the rule book that the majority of its members follow. If any lawsuit was brought against a registry it should be for NOT following their rules, not the opposite. I would love to see us all reminding eachother of that instead.


----------



## andi (Mar 9, 2012)

I guess I should probably answer the poll. 








I am not sure where I stand. Yes, in all reality, if the horse qualifies for the classes they should be able to do both. I think the trouble many are having is while AMHR and ASPC are part of the same club many of the members see each other as a competing registry. Like many mentioned this is going to increase the entries in the ASPC classes, a boost they really do need. I think the frustrating part is, like it or not, the interest in ASPC horses has been revived because they are reaching a larger audience by being bred smaller and being bought by the AMHR members to show AMHR. I see this rule change as the next step in "tempting" those members to show Shetland also and go to Congress. In this limited economy, buyers are harder to find and I think some AMHR people are extra sensitive about "losing" their clients to another breed.

I guess in the end, let the Free Market do its job. Let the people be free to show their horses without the Registry having rules to limit and influence their choices. But I think the ASPC should really think about what it was that hurt the Shetland value years back, to help make sure it doesn’t happen again. If things go the way they look to be, ASPC is on the rise with new interest and will have a "second chance" to turn this momentum into a stable market.


----------



## jeniemac (Mar 9, 2012)

WELL SAID..THE WORD BREED IS THE KEY POINT..BY BREEDING THE PONIES TO THE MINIATURES WE HAVE CREATED A NEW BREED.

SO LET THE SHOWS REFLECT WITH CLASSES FOR THAT BREED...SHETLAND CROSS OR FINE..

THAT WOULD ELIMINATE MOST OF THE COMPLAINTS FOR CROSS SHOWING AMHR...

ITS LIKE ALL THE COMPLAINTS FOR THE PLEASURE AND COUNTRY PLEASURE CLASSES...THEY CREATED A CLASS WESTERN COUNTRY PLEASURE. DO THE SAME FOR THE HALTER...SHETLAND CROSSES...MINIS...PONIES..


----------



## Katiean (Mar 9, 2012)

In this economy if your horse is registered both, If the show offers both, Why shouldn't you show your horse in both? It is not like showing a horse in 34" and under then showing it in 35" and over. ASPC and AMHR are 2 different registries. It is like if you have pintos that are registered both AMHR and what ever the pinto horse registry is. If they had a combined show, I am sure you would want to show both registries.


----------



## LaVern (Mar 9, 2012)

I love this Forum. I love Mary Lou. I love KayKay and I love Belinda and I love all that disagree with me or agree with me. I love anyone that will say how they feel about stuff. Thank you. Which ever way this goes, we got to have a say. I noticed that one of the other directors was on Face Book saying that he was headed out to the Convention and had read all the posts and it gave him much to think about.


----------



## Yaddax3 (Mar 9, 2012)

jeniemac said:


> WELL SAID..THE WORD BREED IS ...


Your posts are all in capital letters, which, as you probably know, is the written form of yelling. Are you doing it to be emphatic, or is your caps lock button broken? I find it jarring and annoying and skip over posts in all caps. Perhaps I'm the only one, but I wanted to mention it because your opinions might not be getting read by everyone and they might be worth reading.


----------



## Belinda (Mar 9, 2012)

I think the board should table this and send it to convention , there are many good ideas on both sides presented here !! And Renee we love you too


----------



## dannigirl (Mar 9, 2012)

Belinda--I think you may be right. So many things to consider and the last thing that needs to be done is make a decision and then have to change it in 6 mos or a year when everyone understands and knows what is happening and wants it different.


----------



## kaykay (Mar 9, 2012)

Thanks Lavern. You know I adore you and I still want that cup of coffee. We truly would have a blast chatting with a cup of java.

Belinda I totally agree. Table it, research it some more, maybe send an email blast poll out to members and then put it out there at convention. Great idea!

Kay


----------



## ruffian (Mar 9, 2012)

deleted


----------



## disneyhorse (Mar 9, 2012)

Ruffian...

The placings may differ according to competition... Some horses may be ASPC only, some may be AMHR only, or the owner may not have money or desire to show in both.

It would be like insinuating that the A size horses always are placed the same at an AMHR show versus an AMHA show. Are both Nationals and World placed the same????

As for finances, passing this would encourage more ASPC entries and this help the ponies foot the bill. It would make it more financially "fair" in your eyes.

Andrea


----------



## Katiean (Mar 9, 2012)

I think I should clarify my opinion. I do not feel a horse that is ASPC should enter in an AMHR class unless it is also registered AMHR or visa versa. But if the horse is duel registered, it should be allowed to compete in all classes it qualifies for if the owner wants to show that way. That will allow a person to show in more classes at the same show. I think I would start looking at the bigger minis if I had a better opportunities in showing and value.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Mar 9, 2012)

Belinda said:


> I think the board should table this and send it to convention , there are many good ideas on both sides presented here !! And Renee we love you too


Belinda I think this is the best idea.


----------



## jeniemac (Mar 9, 2012)

Yaddax3 said:


> Your posts are all in capital letters, which, as you probably know, is the written form of yelling. Are you doing it to be emphatic, or is your caps lock button broken? I find it jarring and annoying and skip over posts in all caps. Perhaps I'm the only one, but I wanted to mention it because your opinions might not be getting read by everyone and they might be worth reading.


Sorry I am not yelling ..I am old and blind so I type in caps so it is easier for me to read..lol

Didn't mean to get anyone upset cause they thought I was yealling...


----------



## disneyhorse (Mar 9, 2012)

Katiean said:


> I think I should clarify my opinion. I do not feel a horse that is ASPC should enter in an AMHR class unless it is also registered AMHR or visa versa. But if the horse is duel registered, it should be allowed to compete in all classes it qualifies for if the owner wants to show that way. That will allow a person to show in more classes at the same show. I think I would start looking at the bigger minis if I had a better opportunities in showing and value.


Yes, that is the issue being proposed. Only ASPC horses with AMHR papers can show as a mini. This would only apply to dual registered horses.


----------



## Minimor (Mar 9, 2012)

jeniemac—they are not necessarily “crosses”—there are those….the Arenosas as one example…that have been dual registered “forever”. They were ASPC registered from way back, long before AMHR was created. When AMHR was created, those owners didn’t throw away their ASPC papers….they kept them, and paid to have their ponies registered AMHR. So, from day 1 of AMHR there have been those horses that had ASPC/AMHR papers. Are you really going to tell them that now they cannot be counted as Miniatures, just because they kept their Shetland papers right through? They have as much right to show AMHR as anyone, and yet they also have the right to show ASPC…because they have those papers too. Just because they have ASPC papers doesn’t mean they aren’t Miniatures. 



James—like it or not, there have been a number of breed registries that have been hit with a lawsuit which challenged some current rules at the time….and those people have won. Like it or not, past court rulings set precedents for rulings in future court cases. AQHA and AMHA (M=Morgan) both lost lawsuits and had to change their rules to comply with the court ruling. It would be foolish to think that a similar challenge of ASPC/AMHR rules couldn’t have the same result. Like it or not, a breed registry pretty much has to recognize the fact that Registered Parent x Registered Parent = Registered offspring. AMHR isn’t fully closed, but it is closed to “outside” horses and I personally wouldn’t count on a court ruling in favour of the registry if someone chose to file a lawsuit because the registry had pulled papers on their horse. 

ruffian--why would it make people pack up & go home if the double registered horses are allowed to show in both divisions? Chances are the majority of those Shetlands are already showing in AMHR, so the AMHR competition isn't going to change. So, what difference does it make to an AMHR exhibitor if some of the competition turns around & goes back into the ring in some Shetland classes?

To clarify registration numbers--in the past however many years (would have to go look it up again--it isn't that many years) the AMHR registrations have dropped by 25%, while the ASPC registration stay steady...who can say if that trend will continue, but since ASPC numbers haven't declined in the past 20 or so years it seems likely they will continue to hold steady. AMHR saw a huge surge in popularity in the recent past, but how likely is it that it would ever be able to maintain those numbers indefinitely? As Andrea said, passing this rule change would help the Shetland side of the registry. Why complain about the Shetlands not earning their keep, and then oppose something that would help correct that?

I don't disagree that old type Minis and Shetlands have different temperaments....but then again my 'old type' Minis have differing temperaments too--they are not all the same--some are hotter, some are more laid back. Some are very agreeable, some are more opinionated and less agreeable... Likewise my Shetlands vary in temperament--some are hotter, some are more laid back. I am not sure what that part of it has to do with anything in this topic? As a side note...my hottest pony is also my best mannered pony, he has beautiful show ring behavior...so he sure wouldn't scare anyone out of the ring!


----------



## tifflunn (Mar 10, 2012)

Would appreciate cross entering - There are no shetland shows here yet - cross entering would help get the ball rolling.


----------



## jeniemac (Mar 10, 2012)

Minimor said:


> jeniemac—they are not necessarily “crosses”—there are those….the Arenosas as one example…that have been dual registered “forever”. They were ASPC registered from way back, long before AMHR was created. When AMHR was created, those owners didn’t throw away their ASPC papers….they kept them, and paid to have their ponies registered AMHR. So, from day 1 of AMHR there have been those horses that had ASPC/AMHR papers. Are you really going to tell them that now they cannot be counted as Miniatures, just because they kept their Shetland papers right through? They have as much right to show AMHR as anyone, and yet they also have the right to show ASPC…because they have those papers too.	Just because they have ASPC papers doesn’t mean they aren’t Miniatures.
> 
> So as I understand you... the American Shetland had the first registry and the ones that could no longer meet the requirements for the ASPC broke off and formed the AMHR reg. which origionaly consisted of shorter American Shetlands.
> 
> ...


----------



## Minimor (Mar 10, 2012)

So as I understand you... the American Shetland had the first registry and the ones that could no longer meet the requirements for the ASPC broke off and formed the AMHR reg. which origionaly consisted of shorter American Shetlands. It was nothing to do with ponies being unable to meet the requirements for ASPC--it was simply a matter of size, those that were small enough were registered with AMHR. It is exactly the same now as it was then--any ASPC pony small enough can be AMHR registered.

Through the years AMHR flurished while the pony club stayed the same or fluxuated slightly, but the numbers were and are not there for them to cut away from the the combined club. Why would the ponies "cut away" from their own club?? The club is and always has been the American Shetland Pony Club. AMHR is a division of that.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 10, 2012)

I voted NO as I always do on this subject. I have a cherished dream that one day Minis won't be a height registry and will be a BREED registry. Which is really silly when you think of it as that has been the reasoning for AMHR/ASPC double registry is that AMHR is a height registry.

Oh really? So can I register an under 38" any horse I found whatever the genetic background? NO. Truthfully AMHR should have been called AMSR - American Miniature Shetland Registry as that's how it's been treated since it's inception.

I have nothing against Shetlands, it's what Mini's come from, but as a Mini breeder, many of us are working to establish Miniature Horse lines and a breed standard for Minis (DNA/PQ testing, tracking pedigrees, etc.), and I'm looking forward to the day when other BREEDS will not be allowed into either registry (AMHA & AMHR).

So, will allowing a Shetland to show as both at the same show help revenue? Possibly from the Shetland breeders, but many of the pure Mini breeders may forego the shows. Six of one, half a dozen of the other on how that can play out. I hope they won't allow it, but if it's financially beneficial to ASPC/AMHR they likely will.


----------



## StarRidgeAcres (Mar 10, 2012)

This has been very interesting to read. Right or wrong, the only thing that keeps coming to my mind is "I'm glad I've transitioned to mostly AMHA." Again, not saying right or wrong, but I realize all groups, registries, organizations, etc. have issues and factions that disagree, but it really seems constant with AMHR/ASPC, whatever it wants to be called today. Maybe the disgreements are just more public with this group, I don't know. But what a constant mess it seems to me.


----------



## Minimor (Mar 10, 2012)

WHY would the Mini-only exhibitors stay away if this rule change goes through, when in so many cases they would be showing against exactly the same horses they will be showing against if it doesn't go through?

I know in a few cases it may mean a few extra Shetlands showing in AMHR at a particular show....but overall, truthfully, how many AMHR registered Shetlands are currently showing ASPC instead of AMHR at any given show? How many ASPC registered Minis are showing AMHR instead of ASPC. Here all the AMHR registered Shetlands are showing AMHR, not Shetland.


----------



## jeniemac (Mar 10, 2012)

WHY would the Mini-only exhibitors stay away if this rule change goes through, when in so many cases they would be showing against exactly the same horses they will be showing against if it doesn't go through?

Why would you reg a pony as an AMHR? Cause it didn't make the height requirement and AMHR still gives those somewhere to exibite maybe?

Yes, you are right we show against them as it stands now and don't like it much, so there is really no need for a rule or rule change.

Also the show managers added the pony classes in our area to try to get more ponies at the show..that didn't work.They got AMHR papers and started showing in AMHR classes.

This is why I believe to appease all that show the same type of stock in a height regestry introduce typing classes.

This puts the s/c in their own class-"FINE" ( those refined enough and meets the height requirment this is where they would go.. S/M crosses..arabian type) and the LESS FINE type in another(those of us that have quaterhorse type minis) and the DRAFT type( those of us that have the foundation type mini) in another, then there would be not as much complaining and fussing.

I would like to see a club try this one year. Then if it flys I would like for AMHR to reconize the classes at the Nationals.


----------



## andi (Mar 10, 2012)

It is the principal of the rule that would possibly cause AMHR members to stay away. It can easily be seen as a technique to move "their" , AMHR's, customers towards the ASPC. Up to this point, Shetland only shows are very poorly attended, to the point that they can not afford to be put them on. So in essence, the AMHR is helping them a TON, to have a "competing" registry come and show at "their" shows. To now target those AMHR members, at THEIR shows, it is going to bother people.


----------



## jeniemac (Mar 10, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> I voted NO as I always do on this subject. I have a cherished dream that one day Minis won't be a height registry and will be a BREED registry. Which is really silly when you think of it as that has been the reasoning for AMHR/ASPC double registry is that AMHR is a height registry. Oh really? So can I register an under 38" any horse I found whatever the genetic background? NO. Truthfully AMHR should have been called AMSR - American Miniature Shetland Registry as that's how it's been treated since it's inception. I have nothing against Shetlands, it's what Mini's come from, but as a Mini breeder, many of us are working to establish Miniature Horse lines and a breed standard for Minis (DNA/PQ testing, tracking pedigrees, etc.), and I'm looking forward to the day when other BREEDS will not be allowed into either registry (AMHA & AMHR). So, will allowing a Shetland to show as both at the same show help revenue? Possibly from the Shetland breeders, but many of the pure Mini breeders may forego the shows. Six of one, half a dozen of the other on how that can play out. I hope they won't allow it, but if it's financially beneficial to ASPC/AMHR they likely will.









Only thing is we have a breed regestry..AMHA. but they have shetland crosses reg there also now...Now they are trying to "shut the barn door after all the cows have gotten out" by closing the reg on all... but AMHA reg. horses

I don't like that as I have several I would like to hardship reg AMHA but only one parent is AMHA. The other is AMHR only.


----------



## LaVern (Mar 10, 2012)

You nailed it James. All my blabbing all these years and you put it into a few sentences.

Where is the Gee Thank you, you nice miniature people for putting a show on for us to show at? It's move over we want to show some twice.


----------



## Minimor (Mar 10, 2012)

> Cause it didn't make the height requirement and AMHR still gives those somewhere to exibite maybe?


WHAT height requirement???? ASPC does not have a height requirement, other than the pony must be no taller than 46" in order to show....if it measures over 46" it cannot show but does not lose it's shetland papers.... but there is no minimum height requirement. A pony can show in ASPC if it is 38" or 36" or even 34"


----------



## susanne (Mar 10, 2012)

If two small equines stand side by side to be judged, assuming both meet the written breed standard, shouldn't the best horse win? Assuming this to be true, those who worry endlessly about the Shetlands taking all the wins must have little confidence in their own minis, or their definition of what a mini should look like is not in agreement with the registry.

The stated goal is the look of a full-sized horse in miniature. I feel that the champion horses in recent years are indeed the best representatives of this ideal.


----------



## ohmt (Mar 10, 2012)

Exactly, Susanne!


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Mar 10, 2012)

Mary Lou - LB said:


> My personal opinion… BUT this rule ONLY benefits the dual registered ASPC/AMHR horses and throws the so-called "straight" AMHR Minis even further under the bus..





andi said:


> It is the principal of the rule that would possibly cause AMHR members to stay away. It can easily be seen as a technique to move "their" , AMHR's, customers towards the ASPC. Up to this point, Shetland only shows are very poorly attended, to the point that they can not afford to be put them on. So in essence, the AMHR is helping them a TON, to have a "competing" registry come and show at "their" shows. To now target those AMHR members, at THEIR shows, it is going to bother people.


So very true in both statements. Yes this rule doesn't affect the minis at shows much. Altho I don't see how this will bring more revenue to shows, I honestly don't. You'll be showing 1 horse but paying for 2 so that may potentially decline the number oF horses shown in paticular in AMHR. This is just another incentive for AMHR/ASPC breeders to allow to show their horse in 2 different divisions, have a chance to gain more awards, certaintly more positive for owning, showing, and breeding AMHR/ASPC horses. People say that the ASPC is in trouble, instead of getting involved once again with the AMHR why don't they look into that division and see what can change, why is people not registering, why aren't they showing? IMO if its because you have to qualify at Nationals then I don't think thats a good enough excuse. Why not make Congress be a qualifying show. If your shows don't offer pony classes request that they do.

If AMHR is helping out ASPC instead of backdooring AMHR breeders why not offer more incentives like offer a foundation halter class. I think it saved the driving division when it came to the western pretty soon you'll having nothing but AMHR/ASPC ponies showing in AMHR halter classes and I've seen such a decline of exhibitors in halter.


----------



## Minimor (Mar 10, 2012)

> If your shows don't offer pony classes request that they do.


Good luck with that! There are some clubs/show committees out there that you can ask and ask and ask again and there is no way no how they are ever going to agree to add pony classes. They wlll give you every excuse in the book and then come up with a few more besides.


----------



## AshleyNicole (Mar 11, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> I voted NO as I always do on this subject. I have a cherished dream that one day Minis won't be a height registry and will be a BREED registry. Which is really silly when you think of it as that has been the reasoning for AMHR/ASPC double registry is that AMHR is a height registry.
> 
> Oh really? So can I register an under 38" any horse I found whatever the genetic background? NO. Truthfully AMHR should have been called AMSR - American Miniature Shetland Registry as that's how it's been treated since it's inception.
> 
> ...





andi said:


> It is the principal of the rule that would possibly cause AMHR members to stay away. It can easily be seen as a technique to move "their" , AMHR's, customers towards the ASPC. Up to this point, Shetland only shows are very poorly attended, to the point that they can not afford to be put them on. So in essence, the AMHR is helping them a TON, to have a "competing" registry come and show at "their" shows. To now target those AMHR members, at THEIR shows, it is going to bother people.






:yes Totally agree


----------



## eagles ring farm (Mar 11, 2012)

I haven't read all the replys so maybe this has been brought up earlier. But shouldn't there be a mature age like 3 or 5 yrs old before ASPC horses can be measured to hardship into the amhr ? I am very uneducated as to when they are hardshipped. But seems like they are at a very early age to compete as yearlings unless I am totally clueless as to what is going on in the amhr which is quite possible.


----------



## Minimor (Mar 11, 2012)

Lori--Shetlands have to be a full 3 years old in order to be hardshipped into AMHR. There are, of course, plenty of weanlings, yearlings and 2 year olds showing in AMHR, but those are the Shetlands that have been born into AMHR--foals from double registered parents.


----------



## eagles ring farm (Mar 11, 2012)

Minimor said:


> Lori--Shetlands have to be a full 3 years old in order to be hardshipped into AMHR. There are, of course, plenty of weanlings, yearlings and 2 year olds showing in AMHR, but those are the Shetlands that have been born into AMHR--foals from double registered parents.


Well then you've cleared that up for me sorry for my ignorance than I guess they have more than earned their amhr registration since it is a height breed.

One more question do they have to be formally inspected to hardship? Not trying to rock the boat just wondering.


----------



## Enchantress (Mar 11, 2012)

I have a mare I hardshipped in this year. I had to have a judge inspect and sign off on her being measured, and he looked her over and checked her bite.


----------



## eagles ring farm (Mar 11, 2012)

Enchantress said:


> I have a mare I hardshipped in this year. I had to have a judge inspect and sign off on her being measured, and he looked her over and checked her bite.


Then IMO fair and square they do qualify for AMHR registration.

Of course I have not addressed the question of this post I voted no as I think you should have to decide

what you want to show as.

Thanks everyone for helping me try to understand whats been going on with amhr/aspc


----------



## Riverrose28 (Mar 11, 2012)

James you hit the nail on the head! And, as far as the nail in the coffin remark, those nails have already been in that coffin for so long they are starting to rust. Just my opinion, but I think the AMHR horse is being pushed out, not just back but totally out, it's either join the club or leave. For those of you that say the judge will place the better horse, well not always, I've been to show, just an observer and seen pony judges place horses in first that toe out over a mini that doesn't, simply because they looked more like ASPC. ASPC/AMHR horses are placed over miniatures all the time, especially at Nationals, especially in halter. I've been showing for many years and yes I know you pay for the judges opinion, and yes not all judges are the same, but I think this is just another thing to get the straight up mini breeder to change their program to include ASPC/AMHR. I've seen it coming for years the whole breed is changing in that direction and it is even effecting AMHA. Flame away!


----------



## Minimor (Mar 11, 2012)

> I've been to show, just an observer and seen pony judges place horses in first that toe out over a mini that doesn't, simply because they looked more like ASPC.


Really? Are you sure that there were not other differences as well? In all truth there is a lot more to good/poor conformation than toeing out--if one horse toed out but otherwise had really good conformation, while the other one had a really poor hip...or a straight shoulder....a good many judges would place the toeing out over the bad hip without paying any attention to the Shetland vs. Mini issue.


----------



## Belinda (Mar 11, 2012)

I am happy to report. That this will be brought to convention in St. Louis 2012 to be decided on by you the members and breeders, and exhibitors . And it is many thanks to all your response here and on my face book page . So folks I can say this board is willing to listen to what you the members want !!


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Mar 11, 2012)

WHOOO HOOO!!!


----------



## ruffian (Mar 11, 2012)

Deleted - apparently offensive to too many people


----------



## disneyhorse (Mar 11, 2012)

ruffian said:


> Here's a thought - if you want to register your 38" or smaller ASPC as a MINI, then throw out the ASPC papers. That's how this all started.


Would then throwing the ASPC papers away magically transform the animal into a mini?


----------



## Minimor (Mar 11, 2012)

Apparently so, Andrea? Thing is, not all Shetland papers did get thrown away when the ponies were Mini registered...I've asked this before & no one answered...are those that kept their Shetland papers at time of AMHR registration (years ago when AMHR was just starting) less Mini than those that had their Shetland papers thrown away???

Another thought which I keep forgetting...JMS has posted about requiring qualification for Congress and now ruffian mentions it too....I would suggest that if it were to be ruled that Shetlands must qualify in order to show at Congress then it should also be ruled that in order for a show to be AMHR sanctioned it must also include a full ASPC show (all divisions).


----------



## Belinda (Mar 11, 2012)

Ruffian,

You know up until this post , I thought we were all doing a great job staying civil , Really there is no aneed to bash the folks that want to show in the Aspc classes and have ask the shows to put in some classes for them !!! And how is that hurting YOU as a Mini exhibitor ?? It brings more revenue in for the shows , And did you ever think that those sheltand folks might like to a put HALL OF FAME titles on their pony&#39;s the same as You do on YOUR mini&#39;s and they can not do that by going to Congress ONLY !!

 

I tell you I am in the Mini breeders corner 100 % , But Don't slam the Pony exhibitors and their right to show at any show that the club agrees to put in the classes . No one can gurantee how many horses will show up at a show .. How can you say they do not warrent asking to have classes put in for them to show in ?? What if those shows felt that same way the day the Miniture Horse ( shetlands really) ask to have those first Mini classes put in at a show ?? Why Why would you turn this in this direction , We ALL BELONG TO THE SAME CLUB !! 






I guess I had better stop at this , but I have busted my butt , posting , debating and standing in YOUR corner this weekend as a Director , a Miniature Breeder and yes I own well over a 100 of what you might want to call STRAIGHT MINIATURES ,!! But then I also started in Shetlands and own a small group of Classic Shetlands with MOST being well over the Mini Height and many that are double reg. So I feel that your post was a total slap in the face to me for everything I have tried to do for you this weekend , Never once did the Shetland folks say WE do not want those minis at our show !! Once again we are ONE Club , and should not fight among our own breeds ... There is room for all of us !! 





..

Ok it has been a long weekend and I feel a very productive weekend for many aspects of the ASPC/AMHR.


----------



## ruffian (Mar 11, 2012)

Belinda - I am NOT slamming the Shetlands. What I am saying is that in the past the Miniature Shows in Michigan had Shetland classes. Every year the numbers dropped until there were virtually no ponies showing at all. Those shows have 80 to 100+ Miniatures. If you offer the classes, you have to be prepared to distribute the ribbons, etc., for each class. That is why the pony classes were eliminated. It's very expensive to have all those extra costs and have no income to offset the costs. It's absolutely not a slam against them, or them vs us. It's simply a fact that IN MICHIGAN the ponies have not been showing at the local level for the clubs to keep their classes on the showbills. As example, at the last show that had pony classes, ONE pony showed. They walked away with their class ribbon, champion dsash and trophy, and grand champion sash and trophy. Ball park about $50 in awards. They Paid entries for one class (their halter class) - $20. The club also had ribbons for the other classes, champion and reserve sashes and trophies, and reserve grand champion awards. So for one pony to show, probably cost the club about $200. The other club had already eliminated their pony classes due to lack of entries.

I like Shetlands. Love to see them move. But unless they are getting out to the local level and showing as ponies, they are going to be shut out of more shows simply due to economics. If there is enough people willing to get out there and show their ponies, the clubs may look at adding the classes back in. But one or two ponies won't be enough for most clubs to add the classes. It's got to be enough to be profitable for the clubs to add them.

Would it help if they could show as dual registered animals at a show, probably. Will some folks love it? Yes. Will some folks hate it? yes. But I am NOT one of those who would hate it. I'm just expressing my thoughts as a Miniature Horse breeder for over 30 years.


----------



## Belinda (Mar 11, 2012)

Well. LOL. You could have fooled me ! However there are many ways to make your shows work with the classes added. Heck offer the classes and if the pony owners want $50 prizes have them sponsor the class and if they don t then they get no award just points. And I can tell you lots would be good with that, and glad you have been in the minis for 30 yrs Myself it has been a lifetime and way more years than I care to admit. But it is my intent as long as I am in this director seat , to try and do what is in in the best interest of AMHR and ASPC and the members that belong to this club regardless of what horse or pony the choose to own.


----------



## kaykay (Mar 12, 2012)

> We ALL BELONG TO THE SAME CLUB !!
> 
> 
> 
> [/size]]


I second and third that!! If you read this thread and didn't know better you would think we all belong to two different associations. Its one association!

Ruffian I truly do not think you realize how offensive your post comes off. Maybe step back for a minute and read it with neutral eyes.

I have sold several ASPC/AMHR and ASPC horses up your way. The biggest complaint I hear is the lack of pony classes. So there are people in Michigan that truly want those classes in. When they do not have these classes they are forced to either drive further to another state or they leave them home. I have been told that the clubs there are very negative about putting those classes in.

Belinda I am glad they are going to put it to the membership!

Minimor we all know there are quite a few shetland/miniatures that never lost their papers. Those are the ones that are often ASPC/AMHR/AMHA. In my eyes it makes them more of a "miniature" then any of the rest LOL. They for sure have the longest recorded pedigrees.

I sincerely hope that no one ever throws registration papers away on any ASPC horse again. It was such a loss when that happened. To suggest it be done again is just crazy to me.


----------



## ahrobertspony (Mar 12, 2012)

I think everyone would do well to remember ... there is no ASPC membership or AMHR membership ... or ASPR or NSPR memberships for that matter. There is ONE organization. THAT IS WHAT WE ALL belong to. Frankly, everyone should be proud to belong to one of the oldest equine organizations in this country ... an organization that has managed to weather more ups & downs than anyone who has been a member less than 50 years can even begin to imagine.

It is a multi-breed organization. Sometimes when considering one matter, there are more aspects to be considered than most of us can possible imagine ... from balancing needs of various subsegments to legal matters (everything from the Disabilities act to not-for-profit law) to fiduciary matters to governing laws of the state of incorporation.

I can absolutely, positively, without doubt or reservation tell you this:

This board of directors is committed to doing the right things, balancing the needs of ALL divisions and members, incentivizing & giving back to the membership when possible, promoting the breeds to the extent the budget allows, sussing out all the ramifications AND working increasingly hard to do things in the right way. Do they always all agree on how to best do that? No. But they do try to work together and hash it out to come to that end result.

Most of us can't even imagine all of the various aspects that need to come up on ANY MATTER this group must consider and review because of our overall size and diversity. Then, when you factor in IL not-for-profit states & state law (which has to come to play on many things) as well as legal advice needed on a a variety of concerns, there is a lot to be considered for everything.

I went to the board meeting. I was impressed with this group's commitment to making the right decisions ... and... more importantly their emphasis on making decisions the right way. There commitment to the financial picture as well as re-upping their service to the members is ... without doubt... unparalled.

I just want to thank them all for their hard work and efforts.


----------



## disneyhorse (Mar 12, 2012)

In response to having very few ponies showing when classes are offered...

In my area there has always been lots of mini shows... It is easier to buy and show horses when there are lots of shows. Why would someone buy and breed registered horses if there is never a hope to show them? I am one who believes ( and I know many do not) that breeding stock and offspring should hold their own in an actual show ring against others of their kind, and if they're not placing well they should be replaced with horses that are. That is kind of the point. Otherwise, the show ring is for fun (chariot and costume are obvious examples) so that we have somewhere to enjoy our registered animals.

What IS the point of showing, think about that.

If your stock can't hold it's own in halter and this is important to you, get animals who can.

I still don't believe that judges are blindly picking animals just because they are also ASPC. I have seen PLENTY of amhr only horses winning and I have great respect for the judges for the most part. I don't think that papers make the horse... Ive seen TONS of horribly conformed Shetlands so I fail to see how Shetland papers magically make a horse a winner in the ring and a lack of them make it impossible for a horse to compete. I think it's pure stereotype... I hope people can all be more open minded someday.

If getting the Shetlands to be more popular so they show more is important to you, this rule change would only encourage more entries. If we've got a lot of mini shetlands showing, then they may cross enter and you won't get that single pony walking away with your one $50 award. There would be more competition and everyone would win.

So ruffian I don't see how you can be against this and yet it would solve many of your gripes???

Bottom line I feel that papers don't make the horse's quality though...


----------



## disneyhorse (Mar 12, 2012)

I don't even have an area show here in CA this year, and in the past ten years there have been few if any pony shows in southern CA. What would encourage me to go out and buy a huge herd of show quality stock and spend time shoeing and training them so that in the event of an ASPC show popping up here I have a string of ponies to enter? Those around me who do/have such a show string has had the time, money, and ability to travel very far away to WA or OR or UT to show additionally. If classes aren't consistently offered, it's very tough to support the Registry.


----------



## susanne (Mar 12, 2012)

*^^^*

*THIS*


----------



## ruffian (Mar 12, 2012)

disneyhorse said:


> In response to having very few ponies showing when classes are offered...
> 
> In my area there has always been lots of mini shows... It is easier to buy and show horses when there are lots of shows. Why would someone buy and breed registered horses if there is never a hope to show them? I am one who believes ( and I know many do not) that breeding stock and offspring should hold their own in an actual show ring against others of their kind, and if they're not placing well they should be replaced with horses that are. That is kind of the point. Otherwise, the show ring is for fun (chariot and costume are obvious examples) so that we have somewhere to enjoy our registered animals.
> 
> ...


Whoa people. I DON'T have GRIPES about Shetlands. I guess this will be my last post. FYI - I voted FOR having them show in both divisions. I think it would absolutely increase entries in the pony classes. I was talking about what has ALREADY happened in Michigan. Pony Classes were not supported and were dropped by the clubs offering them. This is proven historical fact. I did NOT say I was against this. I'm just wondering where all the pony folks were when the classes WERE being offered? Thanks everybody. I'm done.


----------



## MindyLee (Mar 12, 2012)

ruffian said:


> Whoa people. I DON'T have GRIPES about Shetlands. I guess this will be my last post. FYI - I voted FOR having them show in both divisions. I think it would absolutely increase entries in the pony classes. I was talking about what has ALREADY happened in Michigan. Pony Classes were not supported and were dropped by the clubs offering them. This is proven historical fact. I did NOT say I was against this. I'm just wondering where all the pony folks were when the classes WERE being offered? Thanks everybody. I'm done.


I agree with the pony classes not here in MI. Ponies are growing popular (only reciently) but not enough of them at the shows yet. Just like AMHA, they stopped here in MI because not enough folks entering there as well and now they are gone too. I am a mini horse breeder of 34" and under only and would LOVE to compeate in AMHA shows, BUT MI wont bring it here because of the bad resaults in the past. I believe Ruffin is saying that this is the same thing with the ponies too. Maybe soon we will have both ponys and "A" classes/shows again but not until more interest and folks stepping up a begging for them. Lack of funds = no shows/classes. Until the funds can be accounted for, then the shows/classes will come...


----------



## Filipowicz Farm (Mar 13, 2012)

We have had a aspc/amhr horse that went over as a yearling or two year old and when showing in area 2 there are not that many shows that do the ponies and if they do we are the only one in the class. This would let the aspc/amhr horses that are shown as a mini to cross over at the same show and compete aspc. It would save some money for the excibitor by being able to show their horses in both mini and Shetland and I think help the horses that are just Shetland get there points easier.I heard this was once done in the beginning and changed to just showing in either division. Why not bring it back again if that is the case since there are many more aspc/amhr horses here in the States and in Canada


----------



## horsefeather (Mar 14, 2012)

I totally agree with LaVern.


----------

