# Closing AMHA Registry



## JWC sr. (Oct 24, 2009)

How does everyone feel about the closing of the AMHA registry in light of the research and presentation John Eberth gave at the annual meeting last year on dwarfism and the genetics of AMHA horses.






Are we being short sighted and setting ourselves up for problems in the future?


----------



## kaykay (Oct 24, 2009)

I definitely think its a huge mistake. For the reason you posted and financially.

I dont really think they will do it though. But I guess time will tell.

Kay


----------



## Becky (Oct 24, 2009)

I can't say that I'm really for it or against it at this point. I've hardshipped in some great horses; all were well under 34". Some were shown AMHA after that and won and the others went on to produce show winners.

I strongly disagree with the thought that if we close the registry we will increase dwarfism or have more genetic problems. Breeders need to look outside the box.


----------



## JWC sr. (Oct 24, 2009)

Can you explain for me what you mean by outside the box? If Eberth is right then a large percentage of the backbone of the prominent bloodlines of all of our horses are carriers. Which scares the heck out of me, to tell the truth. We have been lucky and never produced one and don't want to buy into all that heartache etc, in the future.





By the way, Hi Becky. LOL





Thanks,


----------



## Sue_C. (Oct 24, 2009)

I think that they should wait until there is a proper test for dwarfism.

Let us have the opportunity to KNOW if our horses carry the harmful genes or not. If they come out with a mandatory test, and all horses which carry the gene taken from the gene pool, and/or lose their registration...it would be a good idea to allow hardshipping for several more years.

If it is found that there are not as many carriers as first thought to be, and they are FINALLY, and TOTALLY removed from the genepool...I cannot see that it would affect the breed by closing the books within a decade of this testing and subsequent culling.

A lot of this would be "easily" repaired by the breeders themselves, if those who KNOW their breeding stock produces dwarves would just STOP BREEDING THEM.


----------



## targetsmom (Oct 24, 2009)

I think we MAY be setting ourselves up for problems in the future, but of course, only time will tell. I see the idea behind closing the registry, and agree that long term, it needs to happen. I am just not sure that the gene pool is large enough at this point. I wonder how the size of the gene pool in AMHA compares with other registries that decided to close - not that that should be used to decide anything. The other breeds don't have the problem with dwarfism that plagues miniatures, and until there is a test for that, I think closing the AMHA registry is premature.

I also think when the test for dwarfism is available that education is needed, not a knee jerk reaction to eliminate all carriers immediately. This would provide the opportunity to identify carriers and remove the gene gradually through selective breeding to non-carriers.


----------



## Becky (Oct 24, 2009)

John, to quote you,



> Can you explain for me what you mean by outside the box? If Eberth is right then a large percentage of the backbone of the prominent bloodlines of all of our horses are carriers. Which scares the heck out of me, to tell the truth. We have been lucky and never produced one and don't want to buy into all that heartache etc, in the future.


I think you just answered your own question. If a large percentage of the prominent bloodlines are carriers of dwarfism, yet your farm has never produced one (assuming you are using prominent bloodlines), then perhaps genetic dwarfism isn't quite as rampant as has been thought previously? Certainly, there are genetic defects in every living plant and animal. I do hope in the future that tests will become available for miniature horse breeders to utilize in their breeding programs to lessen the chance of continuing any genetic defects that are hereditary. But, there are environmental issues that breeders need to be aware of that will produce defective fetuses/foals as well.

I don't see how closing the studbooks will increase the chances of producing genetic flaws?

Though this topic has been discussed on here previously, I think it makes for great discussion and I am glad you brought it up again.



As breeders, we need to be aware of all possibilities that may occur when we commit to breeding!


----------



## hobbyhorse23 (Oct 24, 2009)

It hadn't even occurred to me to worry about the size of the mini gene pool yet. Most of my concern was focused on what happens to the individual horses who now have no chance of papers regardless of their quality. Some very nice would-be B minis are out of luck since AMHR closed their doors and once AMHA closes the books there's going to be a lot of horses left out in the cold. At least as things currently stand someone could be interested in buying that unpapered horse because it could be hardshipped into AMHA and shown. Without that option, what's left? Child's leadline horse, lawn ornament, unpapered "foal mill" breeder, or if they're lucky participation in some sort of open event like 4-H, local saddleclub shows or the American Driving Society. Why would anyone limit their options that way when they can do the same things with a papered mini? I'm not saying unpapered minis are worthless- the opposite in fact, and the careers I mention are honorable ones with the exception of the foal mill. But I see that possibility of registration as a potential lifeline for an under 34" horse, something that may make someone go ahead and buy him instead of passing him over. Why take away that chance when so many of our horses are already being given away in this economy? Our minis deserve every opportunity we can give them for a happy life and just because the breeder was too lazy doesn't mean the next owner shouldn't be able to rectify that mistake.



targetsmom said:


> I also think when the test for dwarfism is available that education is needed, not a knee jerk reaction to eliminate all carriers immediately. This would provide the opportunity to identify carriers and remove the gene gradually through selective breeding to non-carriers.


Agreed!

Leia

P.S.- Forgive me if any of the above doesn't make sense, I'm more than a bit muzzy-headed this morning.


----------



## Charlotte (Oct 24, 2009)

I have a couple of thoughts here….and a couple of questions……..

1.	In the 90s, when AMHA was researching DNA testing, Frank served on the Genetics Committee and accepted the task of investigating a number of genetic testing laboratories. (this because of his job/experience within the animal health industry). During that time Frank mentioned that the geneticists at these laboratories commented as to the AMHA miniature horse having the most diverse genetic make up of any modern day horse breed.

So my question is……..Has something happened in the last 10-15 years to change that diversity? (I find it hard to imagine how that could occur in such a short time span)

2.	Since it is well agreed that the miniature derived much of it’s genetics from the Shetland Pony, how would it benefit the genetics of the AMHA miniature horse to ad back in the Shetland genes which may very well be where some of the dwarf genetics originated in the first place? (To clarify, I have been told by a number of people that the reason some don’t want the registry closed is so that they can bring in more Shetland Pony blood and when I look at web sites and advertising I do see some farms having Shetland Pony breeding programs as well as AMHA Miniature Horse programs…Stands to reason they might want to cross the two breeds they like and use)

I find this subject very interesting and hope we have a lot of replies with differing opinions. Something may be brought forward that is new to me……I love LB for these opportunities to brainstorm!

And now I’ll throw in my opinion here……. you know I am ‘The Opinionated One’.





I would like to see the AMHA registry closed. I see the AMHA miniature horse evolving into its’ own breed type which is unique within modern day horse breeds. They are truly heading toward a balanced and correct under 34” horse that breeds true, but the infusion of characteristics of other breeds would dilute and retard that progress. I don’t want to see the progress lost. I don’t want to take a step backwards.

Charlotte


----------



## Becky (Oct 24, 2009)

I want to add another thought here. Aside from the dwarfism issue, is the issue of height. A number of years ago, when AMHA was young, it had a division for Foundation Oversize horses. Because of the rarity of under 34" horses, those over that height could be registered and their offspring were eligible for registration as well. Initially, this was good for AMHA. But over time, with the numbers of under 34" horses increasing, AMHA voted to close the division for over size horses. Was that a bad thing for AMHA? I don't think so.

Those that are wanting to bring in horses now with taller backgrounds, need to be aware it will only cause the overall height of the AMHA gene pool to increase. That is a *fact*. I for one, choose to breed under 34" horses and the farther away from over 34" horses I can keep in my pedigrees, the more likely the horses I produce here will stay under 34" at maturity. That is what the AMHA was founded on and that is where I hope it continues to stay and grow.

Just some food for thought......


----------



## targetsmom (Oct 24, 2009)

Charlotte said:


> ...During that time Frank mentioned that the geneticists at these laboratories commented as to the AMHA miniature horse having the most diverse genetic make up of any modern day horse breed.


I was certainly not aware of this - one of things I love about LB is how much I can learn!!! This would certainly be a factor in support of closing the registry, but I would still like to see that test for dwarfism first. Does anyone know when it should be out? I had heard this summer, but summer is over.


----------



## blueprintminis (Oct 24, 2009)

To me the biggest questions is, "is AMHA a height registry or a breed registry?" If AMHA closes the books to allowing under 34" horses to be registered as an AMHA miniatuer, the I guess AMHA is saying it is a "breed registry". Meaning, all AMHA miniatures will have AMHA miniature parents only. OK, that is fine. Then let AMHA identify itself as a breed registry. However, being a breed registry, then all offspring of AMHA parents should be eligible for registration, regardless of their height. Even those occasional "throwbacks" that come out of small parents and are born so tall you wonder how it got out of there.

It does not make sense to have it both ways. And I don't think it should be both ways. Either 1. height registry where all miniatures under 34" at maturity are welcome for registration, or breed registry where AMHA registered horses are all those that are produced by registered AMHA parents regardless of the offspring's height at maturity.

Does this make sense to anyone else?


----------



## Sue_C. (Oct 24, 2009)

> Those that are wanting to bring in horses now with taller backgrounds, need to be aware it will only cause the overall height of the AMHA gene pool to increase.





> the biggest questions is, "is AMHA a height registry or a breed registry?" If AMHA closes the books to allowing under 34" horses to be registered as an AMHA miniatuer, the I guess AMHA is saying it is a "breed registry". Meaning, all AMHA miniatures will have AMHA miniature parents only. OK, that is fine. Then let AMHA identify itself as a breed registry. However, being a breed registry, then all offspring of AMHA parents should be eligible for registration, regardless of their height. Even those occasional "throwbacks" that come out of small parents and are born so tall you wonder how it got out of there. It does not make sense to have it both ways. And I don't think it should be both ways. Either 1. height registry where all miniatures under 34" at maturity are welcome for registration, or breed registry where AMHA registered horses are all those that are produced by registered AMHA parents regardless of the offspring's height at maturity.


_No_, we do NOT have to accept or keep the oversized horses, even with a closed registry. Every other breed registry I know of, in the beginning of it's inception, layed down ground rules within which they chose to grow their breeds. Quarterhorses were allowed no "high" white, Fresians nothing but black, Morgans disallowed unusual colours, Appaloosas would not allow horses of no colour...etc...and although the rules have changed for some of these breeds in the past decade...the rules at the time were followed stringently, and were there for a reason..to build a standard...a BREED.

Also, there are height rules for most breeds as well, so that is certainly not just a Miniature Horse "thing".

We too, can do that.


----------



## ShaunaL (Oct 24, 2009)

Is there a video available or a transcript of the dwarfism presentation from the meeting? I would be very interested in hearing it.

Thanks


----------



## sfmini (Oct 24, 2009)

I agree with Laura. Once the books close, an AMHA horse bred to an AMHA horse should produce an AMHA registered horse.

The horse shows will limit height and discourage breeding of oversized horses. This will open the doors though for people to hardship oversized AMHA horses into AMHR.

I hate to see horses lost to the gene pool because they grew a bit too tall.


----------



## sdmini (Oct 24, 2009)

I guess historically if you look at any breed they are started with a relatively small handful of horses that fit into the new breeds standards so I don't know if we are dooming our breed to anything beyond what we always are going to see.

However my objection to closing the registry has always been financial. I believe that the money from hardshipping would be better served in gelding programs like the AQHA incentive where every enrolled gelding at any show that wins a point gets a cut of the pot. Doing so would have a trickle effect in so many areas.

a. increase in gelding prices, most likely marginally but an increase non the same

b. if we make geldings profitable there will be more geldings which is always good for a breed

c. if we make showing profitable or at least offset the cost there will be more support for shows

d. Geldings have long been our base price, if we raise the price of gelding the horse market overall should rise.

Hardshipped horses represent such a small fraction of our numbers why not use the money from those horses to fuel a revolution in the industry rather than cut off our nose to spit our face.


----------



## kaykay (Oct 24, 2009)

> hose that are wanting to bring in horses now with taller backgrounds, need to be aware it will only cause the overall height of the AMHA gene pool to increase. That is a fact. I for one, choose to breed under 34" horses and the farther away from over 34" horses I can keep in my pedigrees, the more likely the horses I produce here will stay under 34" at maturity. That is what the AMHA was founded on and that is where I hope it continues to stay and grow.


Well going oversize is obviously already a problem in AMHA. This is why so many are hardshipped AMHR when they go over 34. Or as we all know they just keep showing them and insist they are 34 LOL. The very first mini I bought 9 years ago went over 34". (shes 35) Even though her pedigree showed all small (but then again you cant go by pedigrees as so many "fudge" on heights) Now she has to date had many foals and none of them have gone over 34" even when I bred her to my ASPC/AMHR 36.5" stallion

So you cant say adding Shetland back in is what causes height problems since the height problem has been there for many years


----------



## ClickMini (Oct 24, 2009)

This is an interesting topic, and there have been a few points brought up in here that I hadn't really thought about. I am against closing the registry. There are many, many fine under 34" horses that are more than worthy of an AMHA registration. I hardshipped one mare last year and am going to hardship my gelding after the 1st of the year, in order to show him. They are both unbelievable movers, and my mare may even help spur along the performance aspects of our breed through her foals, one area that is growing in leaps and bounds. After I hardshipped my mare, who was pregnant with an AMHA stallion, I futurity nominated her foal. Yeah, that is a lot of money in the coffers, and it does extend far into the future, well past the original hardship fee which is, by the way, not that insignificant in and of itself. It isn't just the mare, it is her babies, their registrations, their show fees, possible new memberships, and so on. And let's just make an educated assumption right now that no one in their right mind is going to pay $600 - $1200 to hardship an animal that isn't exceptional. It just flat out doesn't make any sense. Bpth of these horses were already registered AMHR, and the breeder had made a decision that they were only going to work with that registy. My gelding is, in fact, half Shetland. He is 33", and I would dare to say that you'd have a hard time telling him apart from any other high quality mini. My mare has no Shetland in her recorded background. All mini. Anyway, I feel it was well worth the investment to go ahead and hardship these qualifying animals.

I concur with Leia (HobbyHorse23) about the welfare aspect. I also agree with sdmini about increasing the worth of geldings through forward-looking incentive programs. We have just GOT to get to a point where everyone in the world buys a mini or three just to breed them. Right now, I would take my hardshipped mare over many, MANY of the AMHA horses being bred right now. Just because a mare or stallion has A papers doesn't mean it meets the breed standard and is producing outstanding foals. That is a FOR SURE. I would be willing to bet that most hardshipped animals meet or exceed a regional show winner in quality, merely due to the investment required to hardship them. You can go buy an "A" registered mare for $150 and hey! You're in business. This side of our breed really is a bad scene.

For these reasons, I was and remain *AGAINST closing the registry.*


----------



## Reble (Oct 24, 2009)

The question, how do I feel about closing AMHA Registry.

I have no problem with it. Change can be good.


----------



## sdmini (Oct 24, 2009)

kaykay said:


> Well going oversize is obviously already a problem in AMHA. This is why so many are hardshipped AMHR when they go over 34. Or as we all know they just keep showing them and insist they are 34 LOL.


Ok let me take a stab at this. Height is never going to breed true BUT your chances increase when your gene pool is from generations of under 34". Every time you add a horse from stock that is NOT 34" and under you've increased the odds of throwing oversized. Simply put which has more of a chance of oversized foals, a 32" horse bred to 32" with generations of 32" or a 32" horse bred to a 32" that has no immediate relatives under 34"? Your right just as in AMHR there are plenty of horses that by the height rules should not have their papers.



Sue_C. said:


> _No_, we do NOT have to accept or keep the oversized horses, even with a closed registry. Every other breed registry I know of, in the beginning of it's inception, layed down ground rules within which they chose to grow their breeds. Quarterhorses were allowed no "high" white, Fresians nothing but black, Morgans disallowed unusual colours, Appaloosas would not allow horses of no colour...etc...and although the rules have changed for some of these breeds in the past decade...the rules at the time were followed stringently, and were there for a reason..to build a standard...a BREED.
> Also, there are height rules for most breeds as well, so that is certainly not just a Miniature Horse "thing".
> 
> We too, can do that.


AQHA fought and LOST that argument in the courts. Now any horse from two AQHA parents must be eligible for AQHA registry, this includes excess white (including body white), double dilutes and embryo transfers. This all took place in AQHA's home base of Amarillo TX. Appaloosa's & Paints have long allowed a QH cross, even if the resulting horse did not have color they still remained in the association. A lawsuit would cost the association a huge amount of money even if they won and with the precident already set I don't see how they could win it. I'm sure AQHA didn't think they could lose either.

I have long been told that the lawyers have said that the thing that shelters AMHA from a similar lawsuit as AQHA is that they are a height breed rather than a breed. I don't know if it's true or not but most certainly those against letting 34"+ in but for closing of the registry should take pause. If we close the door on hardship but allow 34"+ in we have, increased AMHA numbers by more than the handful of hardshipped horses, throwing taller back into the gene pool anyways and denied ourselves the hardship money.

That's my opinion and remember you get what you pay for and I type for free.


----------



## JWC sr. (Oct 24, 2009)

Wow what a plethora of things to think about and comment on.

1. AMHA by its own by-laws is a height registry.

2. Even though we have never produced a dwarf, we do have a lot of bloodlines that have had dwarfs produced out of them by other folks.

3. We are lucky in that our main herd sire is Cherryville's Rio De Oro and he was hard shipped in a number of years ago(15 or so), so it may be that this has been the reason for the lack of dwarf offspring as it takes two carriers to produce one.

4. Height of adult AMHA horses does not regulate what they will produce with any consistency. Rio who is an honest 33 3/4" is a size reducer and over the years has produced numerous babies that were in the 32 and under area of size(along with a few that have went over to be honest). Again we have been flat lucky in that aspect. On the other hand we have another stallion that much smaller that consistently produces babies that push the limit. And he is from a well known line of AMHA horses.

5. Producing good quality geldings for the show ring and as pets is the best thing for this industry any of us can do.

6. AMHA needs the ability to have as much participation as far as number of horses in the registry and people involved in the registry as they can. At this juncture to eliminate anyone from being involved is financial suicide and we can't afford this action. Currently hard shipping adds 75 - 150,000.00 a year to the bottom line.

7. I would suggest that we make a partial move in this direction if that is what the majority of the members of the registry want much as AMHR has by letting in only AMHR registered horses to be hard shipped into AMHA. AMHR has done this with only allowing AMHA, ASPC horses to be hardshipped. Again inclusion is important and it would give us time for the dwarf testing to be perfected and put into place among other things.

8. I would really like to see some form of an over sized portion of the registry to be allowed for horses that are out of AMHA parents, but go over. It is the standard joke among many people that in most folks back pasture there are a few that are over sized, but still have the respective papers attached. What I would suggest is that those horses from AMHA parents that go over sized would not be allowed to show, but are allowed to produce AMHA babies that can show. Again inclusion is important to our registry.

9. For us as members of the registry to try and fool ourselves into believing we are a breed when we can't control height or hereditary defects or even color for the most part, is at best a marketing ploy in my opinion. That I do not need or want to be part of.

Okay there are a few of my thoughts, be gentle please. I am of fragile stature and mental frame of mind. LOL


----------



## wpsellwood (Oct 24, 2009)

I think it should be closed, with the exception to the AMHR. The AMHR is closed to everyone but Shetland and AMHA ( I believe) doing this would allow some really nice horses in with a known pedigree and both registries end up being a breed with height restrictions.


----------



## Magic (Oct 24, 2009)

JWC sr. said:


> AMHA needs the ability to have as much participation as far as number of horses in the registry and people involved in the registry as they can. At this juncture to eliminate anyone from being involved is financial suicide and we can't afford this action. Currently hard shipping adds 75 - 150,000.00 a year to the bottom line.




What I wonder is WHY is the registry so eager to cut off such a great income producing feature, especially in these tough times?


----------



## midnight star stables (Oct 24, 2009)

I'd like to see them all open





What I'd like to know, is why AMHA gave a *5 year *"warning window", before they plan to close off hardshipping, however, AMHR (as far as I know) simply ended hardshipping emediately after it was brought into effect, with very little, to no warning what so ever? I don't see how it was fair of AMHR, mainly for the same reason that AMHA stated when they wanted to hold off the 5 years before they closed - Some people had bought expensive stock in hopes of hardshipping when that animal was old enough. I assume the allowance of AMHA and ASPC horses was their way of being less harsh? I'm glad that that rule does stand though





But I am off topic, so I'll get off my soap box.


----------



## midnight star stables (Oct 24, 2009)

JWC sr. said:


> Wow what a plethora of things to think about and comment on. 5. Producing good quality geldings for the show ring and as pets is the best thing for this industry any of us can do.
> 
> 6. AMHA needs the ability to have as much participation as far as number of horses in the registry and people involved in the registry as they can. At this juncture to eliminate anyone from being involved is financial suicide and we can't afford this action. Currently hard shipping adds 75 - 150,000.00 a year to the bottom line.
> 
> ...


I really like all these points, but I absolutly agree with #8!


----------



## manelyminis (Oct 24, 2009)

Magic said:


> JWC sr. said:
> 
> 
> > AMHA needs the ability to have as much participation as far as number of horses in the registry and people involved in the registry as they can. At this juncture to eliminate anyone from being involved is financial suicide and we can't afford this action. Currently hard shipping adds 75 - 150,000.00 a year to the bottom line.
> ...




I totally AGREE!!! And I have always wondered why AMHA makes their hardship fee so HIGH! I know for a fact that they lose a lot of hardship money by not lowering that amount to make it more affordable for everyone. All of my horses are both A and R registered. However, when I purchase a mare of filly that is A only I always hardship them into R because at only $200 for the hardship fee plus the $60 registration fee I can afford that. Having double registered horses gives me a broader base for marketing and selling my minis since some people want specifically one or the other. This way I cover all potential purchasers. BUT, I have had to turn down purchasing many really nice R only mares or fillies simply because I can't afford the $600 hardship fee for A plus the DNA fee, on top of the purchase price. There's a lot of money AMHA is losing by not making it affordable to hardship R horses, including all the money they would make for registering all the babies those mares and stallions would produce, plus the potential money for showing those babies. Seems like in these bad economic times both associations would look at how they can increase their revenue.

And John, you gave all of us some excellent points to consider! I especially agree with #8 as I too know of people with those 34+ mares that produce smaller babies. Why lose out on those babies that can be shown and then later produce??? Another way to increase revenue for the association.


----------



## LaVern (Oct 24, 2009)

I don't give a hoot what they do anymore. It's all NUTS in my opinion. To try to base a breeding program on what may be changed from year to year in crazy. I feel that those who are breeding for horses and not registries will be the ones that will produce something to be proud of.


----------



## sfmini (Oct 24, 2009)

I must really be stupid as I swore I would never post about any politicing after the verbal beatings I got but I just can't shut up.

Why are we closing the registry? Well just who is we? The membership. Members composed and submitted the rule changes to close originally with a 3 year window. I and a few others felt 5 would be more fair to allow people who had already bought babies with a plan to hardship.

The MEMBERS voted for the fee change. The concept was that only horses very worth hardshipping would be hardshipped. Geldings as non breeding horses are cheaper.

One thing I just don't get.

All this wishing 'THEY' would change this or that. Folks, you are 'THEY' Submit your rule changes before the annual meeting, you have a deadline of the end of the meeting but if you get them in before the meeting, the committees can review them and give feedback to the submitting person, then will work on any changes made at the June meeting and then with approval of the board (except for bylaw proposals which MUST go to the membership for vote) they go to the membership for vote at the following annual meeting.

Now, note I said to the board for approval, only those proposals that are potentially illegal, in conflict with bylaws, not practical or affordable are voted down. Anything else goes to the membership for vote.

Now, I am not going to argue about voting or even on this subject, so don't bother slamming me.


----------



## sdmini (Oct 24, 2009)

Your right Jody and no flames here! Right or wrong we (AMHA members in attendance) got the chance to vote through or shoot down the proposal. I am perfectly content to leave things the way it is but just spit balling ideas.


----------



## LaVern (Oct 24, 2009)

I should have said "we" instead of they. But it seems that we are so concerned about what "we" may do. Should I breed this way because this rule may go it affect at some time, or gee I better do this because this is maybe the way it will be in 2013. I had better hardship this one and breed it this way just to cover my hind end, because maybe no one will want them if I don't have seven sets of papers. It's just too much for my old head. I am just not going to worry about it anymore. Whatever, is fine with me.


----------



## chandab (Oct 24, 2009)

blueprintminis said:


> To me the biggest questions is, "is AMHA a height registry or a breed registry?" If AMHA closes the books to allowing under 34" horses to be registered as an AMHA miniatuer, the I guess AMHA is saying it is a "breed registry". Meaning, all AMHA miniatures will have AMHA miniature parents only. OK, that is fine. Then let AMHA identify itself as a breed registry. However, being a breed registry, then all offspring of AMHA parents should be eligible for registration, regardless of their height. Even those occasional "throwbacks" that come out of small parents and are born so tall you wonder how it got out of there. It does not make sense to have it both ways. And I don't think it should be both ways. Either 1. height registry where all miniatures under 34" at maturity are welcome for registration, or breed registry where AMHA registered horses are all those that are produced by registered AMHA parents regardless of the offspring's height at maturity.
> 
> Does this make sense to anyone else?


I think it makes sense, and I agree, one or the other. I happen to prefer the taller minis, so most of mine are R only, but three of them have AMHA papers they have outgrown. [There's something in the air or water here, as the breeder told me that she didn't expect my stallion to get much over 32", maybe 33"; he's 36". He's from a 29" stallion and a 34" mare; most of his siblings from the same sire are well under, even with other 33-34" mares.]


----------



## Katiean (Oct 25, 2009)

I do not think they should close the registry. Just because there are a lot of really good horses out there that are infact registered and someone dropped the ball somewhere and papers were lost. I think if we can not re-register these animals it is a shame. The mare we are hardshipping was infact registered at one time. Everyone involved with the herd she came from says they were ALL registered. No one would come up with enough info to even try to get the papers for individual horses. What we were told was a man went to OR and bought 40 minis. Mares, geldings and studs. He put his little herd out in the field and had great pleasure just watching his horses. Well, he died. All of these registered horses were sold with out papers. Now they can not be shown. Now their offspring can not be shown and just because of a poor fileing system. If we close the registry we are shutting out a large number of very nice horses that could be the next Boons Buckaroo or Roudy or any of the other top studs. Could we have done with out those horses as a registry? Some say we could have but I say no we could not have done with out them. Then lets look at the financhial part of it. The cost to hardship a mare is $600. For a stud it is $1,200. Geldings are going to be $200 come the first of the year. That is a lot of money for the registry to be giving up.


----------



## Dontworrybeappy (Oct 26, 2009)

JWC sr. said:


> Are we being short sighted and setting ourselves up for problems in the future?



YES


----------



## HGFarm (Oct 26, 2009)

Great question John!

Knock on wood, I have never had a dwarf foal either..... but it can happen to anyone at any time.

I think closing the books with AMHA is a mistake and limiting the gene pool..... and I still see many nice Minis out there that are unregistered for some reason.... owners passed away, no paperwork done, purchased somewhere and no one knows the background, but they are a nice example and very loved family horses that could make great youth horses, etc... that do not have papers, and will be unable to get any.

Also, I will say it, but I think there are a lot of nice R horses or Shetlands, that carry different bloodlines that meet the criteria to be registered A as well, that could/would add a lot to the breed too in the way of refinement, movement, etc.... and all the above will be turned away. Many of the 'founding fathers' were Shetland!

I am sad to see the books being closed, as this will always be a 'size breed' and not a breed (I'm sure I will get flamed for expressing some of my thoughts here) and this is going to limit it to what ever we have now, with nothing new ever coming in. I just dont think it is doing the Miniature any favors.

I was just as sad to see the R books closed to hardshipping, for the same reasons, though they at least still allow A horses to come over and Shetlands.

I find the A hardshipping fees are NOT 'user friendly' to most folks, especially in today's economic times, but there has been nothing offered as an incentive for folks to get this done either, before the books close for good, by way of at least a small break on prices.

As the years go by, and many horses papers are voided for various things (oversized, lost, owners only show R, I've seen a variety of reasons) the gene pool will eventually get smaller and smaller, because no other small equines who fit the criteria will be allowed in to keep the numbers up and the gene pool a bit broader by being able to get any papers.

I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by doing this........


----------



## minimomNC (Oct 26, 2009)

How do you know you would be adding something different to the "gene" pool if you don't know the pedigree of a horse you want to hardship? How do you know its not the same gene pool that you already own? And if the gene pool is so small, what are the others that you think can be added? I keep hearing that closing the book will limit the gene pool but no one has really said where all of these new genes are coming from. And if you could add them, how would you know you did if you don't know the background of the horse.


----------



## JWC sr. (Oct 27, 2009)

I can't answer for anyone else, but ourselves. The only horses we have hardshipped into AMHA were AMHR horses that we know the history and background of. Even though it shows unknown on the AMHA papers that is not the case for us anyway.





There is a little bit of known bloodlines in the background of the horses we have hardshipped in from an AMHA standpoint, but it goes back to the shetland side of the known bloodlines that are in AMHA registried horses. So in reality even though there is a chance of having the genetics there, according to Eberth he has not found an instance of dwarfism in the shetland lines so far.





Hopefully that is the case and when the testing does come out, we can get a clean bill of health for our horses. I like everyone else we can only hope and pray that is the case anyway. Till we know for sure.


----------



## krissy3 (Oct 27, 2009)

midnight star stables said:


> I'd like to see them all open
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually the year I hardshipped my Gelding into AMHR I was told that in 3 years time the hardshipping would be closed. So I knew 3 years before.


----------



## manelyminis (Oct 27, 2009)

Pardon me if this has already been mentioned, I'm new here, but on the dwarf issue, isn't it thought to be true that BOTH parents have to have the gene in order to produce a dwarf? So once we know the genetics, as long as we breed a horse we know is positive for it to a horse we know is negative for it, wouldn't that solve the problem of no longer producing dwarfs? I just would hate to see a lot of really nice breeding horses that produce quality babies no longer wanted or used because they tested positive. At least that seems like a solution for RESPONSIBLE breeders, but I guess that's the KEY word. And to get back on topic, it would seem even better for the bloodlines and gene pool to leave the registry open.


----------



## Katiean (Oct 27, 2009)

blueprintminis said:


> To me the biggest questions is, "is AMHA a height registry or a breed registry?" If AMHA closes the books to allowing under 34" horses to be registered as an AMHA miniatuer, the I guess AMHA is saying it is a "breed registry". Meaning, all AMHA miniatures will have AMHA miniature parents only. OK, that is fine. Then let AMHA identify itself as a breed registry. However, being a breed registry, then all offspring of AMHA parents should be eligible for registration, regardless of their height. Even those occasional "throwbacks" that come out of small parents and are born so tall you wonder how it got out of there. It does not make sense to have it both ways. And I don't think it should be both ways. Either 1. height registry where all miniatures under 34" at maturity are welcome for registration, or breed registry where AMHA registered horses are all those that are produced by registered AMHA parents regardless of the offspring's height at maturity.
> 
> Does this make sense to anyone else?


I know in dogs and rabbits that if they do not meet the Height/weight standard they can still be bred and their offspring are registered. However, When I was showing Mini Rex Rabbits and at the top of our game, we did not breed oversized animals because what you breed is what you get. Also, I was breeding Yorkies and I had a contract for pic puppy. My female had one puppy and I had to surrender that puppy for the fee. That was not the problem. The problem was the pup had one front leg longer than the other. I did not want to sign the registration papers. I called AKC and they asked me if both parents were registered AKC. I said yes. They said that I had to sign the papers. They have since provided restricted registration. But that can also cause a smaller gene pool if someone just wishes to limit their bloodlines for breeding. I think they (AMHA) should just leave things alone.


----------



## Sue_C. (Oct 27, 2009)

> So once we know the genetics, as long as we breed a horse we know is positive for it to a horse we know is negative for it, wouldn't that solve the problem of no longer producing dwarfs?


Even if this is proven to be true...to breed a positive to a negative still gives that small chance for the gene to be passed on to the other generation. This is true of other genetic mutations such as HYPP, so I would think it possible with dwarfism.





The way I see it, two positives give a 50% chance of a dwarf foal, but a positive bred to a negative would still have a 25% chance of passing the gene on. Even if that resultant foal is tested, (and they all should be if a positive parent is involved) and people know it too is a carrier...how can we erradicate this gene if we continue to breed it at all?

I would like to be wrong on this...??


----------



## manelyminis (Oct 27, 2009)

Sue_C. said:


> > So once we know the genetics, as long as we breed a horse we know is positive for it to a horse we know is negative for it, wouldn't that solve the problem of no longer producing dwarfs?
> 
> 
> Even if this is proven to be true...to breed a positive to a negative still gives that small chance for the gene to be passed on to the other generation. This is true of other genetic mutations such as HYPP, so I would think it possible with dwarfism.
> ...



Oh I see now. Thanks for that information Sue. I thought the only way you get a dwarf is by BOTH parents having the gene. I didn't realize there was still a chance if only one had the gene. And I never thought about it being passed on to the foal. Makes sense.


----------



## Songcatcher (Oct 27, 2009)

manelyminis said:


> Sue_C. said:
> 
> 
> > > So once we know the genetics, as long as we breed a horse we know is positive for it to a horse we know is negative for it, wouldn't that solve the problem of no longer producing dwarfs?
> ...


Actually, there is no proof as of yet as to what causes dwarfism, or if it can result from one parent or if both must carry the gene, or even if it is caused by non-heriditary factors. It is still theory at this point.

However, _if_ it is a recessive gene, that requires both parents to have the gene for a foal to be a dwarf (i.e. homozygous for the dwarf gene) the mathematics would be the same as with any other gene. For example, both parents carriers (Dn X Dn) your percentages would be 25% DD (homozygous for dwarf gene and visually a dwarf), 50% Dn (carrier, like the parents, but not visually a dwarf) and 25% nn (non-dwarf).


----------



## Tony (Oct 27, 2009)

Becky said:


> I want to add another thought here. Aside from the dwarfism issue, is the issue of height. A number of years ago, when AMHA was young, it had a division for Foundation Oversize horses. Because of the rarity of under 34" horses, those over that height could be registered and their offspring were eligible for registration as well. Initially, this was good for AMHA. But over time, with the numbers of under 34" horses increasing, AMHA voted to close the division for over size horses. Was that a bad thing for AMHA? I don't think so.


Not to be argumentative, but that is really not true. When the registry was closed, except for hardship, in order to keep the membership from rebelling because there were many with large numbers of oversized horse because there were so few under 34" available. Anyone who had an oversized horse with AMHA papers had the opportunity to turn in the papers and have them marked with their actual height and stamped with Foundation Oversize. This was done in order to hopefully bring validity to the registry, keep people from losing money on horses that they had invested in since it was fairly early in the life of the registry. Knowing that the larger horses would eventually die off and if people were honest in the future only under 34" horses would remain in the future. It was not really a division, but a stop gap to make closing the registry less painful and to gain support for the closure. The horse had to be over five and the owner had a certain amount of time to make the horse "honest" by turning in the papers to be marked. If that was not done, the horse was to lose the papers if it was measured over 34" at any time in the future. It was an attempt to legislate honesty, which seems futile in reflection.


----------



## loveminis (Oct 27, 2009)

Just some thoughts ....

I know breeders who keep breeding their AMHA mares that go over 34". That is cheating and they keep adding foals that may go over.

I hope the AMHA stays with 34" and under horses only ! It is important to keep the "miniature" a miniature.

Quit breeding tall to tall and expect them to stay under.

As far as closing the registry - no opinion yet.


----------



## susanne (Oct 27, 2009)

loveminis said:


> ...I hope the AMHA stays with 34" and under horses only ! It is important to keep the "miniature" a miniature...


Sorry to be a nitpicker, but over 34 inches is still a mini -- just not AMHA. It can be up to 38 inches and be AMHR (although, granted, not via hardship).

IMO, the demand to close both miniature horse registries comes from a quest for legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the horse world. It will do nothing toward that particular end, but WILL hurt the miniature horse in the long run.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 27, 2009)

I agree with what John has said in his points. I think they are very good and you should bring it up to the board.

I think AMHA should close but they also have to find another way to get that good chunk of change back once they close it down. Like John has said perhaps let the AMHR horses in or something? But yet maybe perhaps AMHA wants to stay away from R and in a way I can understand.

Also I really think you have to welcome in the oversized AMHA minis. I don't think people will start not carring to try and not produce 34" and under horses cause now its ok, I think people will and should still produce 34" and under horses. Sometimes you get a freak horse that gets taller then its parents. I met a horse in person that had a AMHA pedigreed papers (altho no longer had them) and she grew to be 42" tall.

As far as reducing hardshipping fees I think besides the geldings they need to stay the same. I think its great and hopefully will still continue reducing the hardship fee on geldings, but I don't see why we need to do it for the mares and stallions. If your horses are so nice you will find every way possible to pay for that horse to be registered.


----------



## JWC sr. (Oct 28, 2009)

Just for informations sake in talking with the powers that be, there is now a genetic test for 2 of the 3 identified types of dwarfism. And yes from a genetic standpoint both parents have to have the gene in order for the offspring to be a dwarf.





If both parents are "carriers" then it is only a statistical chance of it being a dwarf. But if a parent is a carrier there is a chance of the offspring being a "carrier" from that single set of genes from the one "carrier" parent, but not express it visually also. In layman's terms it is what is called a heterozygous trait.





In any case, Tony I agree with you that was a lot of political wrangling done to make this rule change more palatable to the people at the annual meeting with additions, time frame extensions etc. being added and subtracted as needed in order to gain passage. Which in my opinion is a poor way to do business, when the litmus test should always be "What is in the best interest of the registry and it members long term".





There is a proposed rule change on the agenda according to a director I talked to that would revoke this rule change that will be voted on at the upcoming annual meeting. So I guess we will have to wait and see what happens. Hopefully those that vote on this will use common sense and the litmus test I alluded to above to make that decision this time around.





In my opinion we do not want to negate or forget about the fact that an AMHA horse is supposed to be under 34" and as such is special in a lot of peoples eyes. There are a lot of folks that have spent a lot of time and money to produce quality littler horses, which is important to remember so as not to alienate them in any way. With allowances even in a breeding only scenario made for taller AMHA produced horses.





I am personally not sure what the answers are, which is why I threw this out on the forum. In order to get as many people thinking about these situations as we can. the old saying on 200 heads (LOL)is better than one applies in my opinion. Hopefully then the powers that be can get some input form all of us and do what is best for the registry.


----------



## targetsmom (Oct 28, 2009)

JWC sr. said:


> Just for informations sake in talking with the powers that be, there is now a genetic test for 2 of the 3 identified types of dwarfism. And yes from a genetic standpoint both parents have to have the gene in order for the offspring to be a dwarf.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow that is really exciting if there are now tests for 2 of the 3 types of dwarfism. Does that mean they might be commercially available soon?

I know this is not a perfect comparison, but if you think of the genetics of dwarfism (if it is a simple recessive gene) as comparable to lethal white (LWO, another simple recessive gene), then you are right that you would never COMPLETELY remove the gene with selective breeding. There would likely always be carriers. But as long as the CARRIERS have no health issues and strict testing is followed so as not to breed carrier to carrier, it should be possible to eliminate the homozygous recessives - either lethal white foals or dwarfs. This could happen as soon as a year or so after testing is available!


----------



## loveminis (Oct 28, 2009)

susanne said:


> loveminis said:
> 
> 
> > ...I hope the AMHA stays with 34" and under horses only ! It is important to keep the "miniature" a miniature...
> ...


Hi Susanne, I am only talking about the AMHA, not AMHR. I dont want to see the AMHA letting oversize mares have their foals registered A. JMO


----------



## Sue_C. (Oct 28, 2009)

> If both parents are "carriers" then it is only a statistical chance of it being a dwarf. But if a parent is a carrier there is a chance of the offspring being a "carrier" from that single set of genes from the one "carrier" parent, but not express it visually also. In layman's terms it is what is called a heterozygous trait.


Exactly what I think as well







> Even if this is proven to be true...to breed a positive to a negative still gives that small chance for the gene to be passed on to the other generation. This is true of other genetic mutations such as HYPP, so I would think it possible with dwarfism... The way I see it, two positives give a 50% chance of a dwarf foal, but a positive bred to a negative would still have a 25% chance of passing the gene on. Even if that resultant foal is tested, (and they all should be if a positive parent is involved) and people know it too is a carrier...how can we erradicate this gene if we continue to breed it at all?





> Actually, there is no proof as of yet as to what causes dwarfism, or if it can result from one parent or if both must carry the gene, or even if it is caused by non-heriditary factors. It is still theory at this point.However, if it is a recessive gene, that requires both parents to have the gene for a foal to be a dwarf (i.e. homozygous for the dwarf gene) the mathematics would be the same as with any other gene. For example, both parents carriers (Dn X Dn) your percentages would be 25% DD (homozygous for dwarf gene and visually a dwarf), _50% Dn (carrier, like the parents, but not visually a dwarf) _and 25% nn (non-dwarf).


That is why I say, "Even if this is proven"; *but* the chances of passing it on by ONE positive carrier would still be 25% wouldn't it? To me...that is just too much of a chance for something I KNOW my horse carries.

IMHO, if we still breed the carriers...it is all fine and good for the reputable breeders who have the tests done, who keep the papers correctly marked, and inform the potential buyers...but what do we do with the not so reputable breeders? The gene is still going to be there because it is not being culled; so what is to stop these breeders from breeding indiscriminately as they do now...and just sell unregistered stock?

I KNOW it would happen.






I know of two stallion owners myself who continued to breed thier HYPP stallions to grade mares, and you can bet your booties that those mare owners were never informed. There are greedy $%#@!*&'s out there who just do-not-care...


----------



## targetsmom (Oct 28, 2009)

> If both parents are "carriers" then it is only a statistical chance of it being a dwarf. But if a parent is a carrier there is a chance of the offspring being a "carrier" from that single set of genes from the one "carrier" parent, but not express it visually also. In layman's terms it is what is called a heterozygous trait.





> Even if this is proven to be true...to breed a positive to a negative still gives that small chance for the gene to be passed on to the other generation. This is true of other genetic mutations such as HYPP, so I would think it possible with dwarfism... The way I see it, two positives give a 50% chance of a dwarf foal, but a positive bred to a negative would still have a 25% chance of passing the gene on. Even if that resultant foal is tested, (and they all should be if a positive parent is involved) and people know it too is a carrier...how can we erradicate this gene if we continue to breed it at all?



I am not sure where all these quotes came from as I thought I was following this thread, so let me clarify to the best of MY knowledge. IF (a big IF) dwarfism is a normal recessive gene you would need TWO carriers to produce a dwarf. YES, a carrier bred to a non-carrier could pass on the gene and produce another carrier, but they could not produce a dwarf. I believe this is what JWC Sr was saying that he just got on good authority!

And yes, I agree that there will still be uncaring or unscrupulous breeders so there would still likely be dwarfs but for those who would test and breed selectively dwarfism could be virtually eliminated (unless there are mutations/environmental factors, etc).

I think of it this way - I have a lethal white (LWO)+ mare and although I could be crazy and breed her to just any stallion and risk a lethal white foal that would be dead in 3 days, I test any stallion I breed her to so I DO NOT WORRY AT ALL about that happening.


----------



## Sue_C. (Oct 28, 2009)

> I am not sure where all these quotes came from as I thought I was following this thread,


They _are _from this thread.







> I think of it this way - I have a lethal white (LWO)+ mare and although I could be crazy and breed her to just any stallion and risk a lethal white foal that would be dead in 3 days, I test any stallion I breed her to so I DO NOT WORRY AT ALL about that happening.


But as long as she is bred to a non LWO+ stallion, that gene will never be passed on to future generations, isn't that right?

The problem I am afraid of with breeding a known dwarf-gene carrier, is that it CAN pass that gene on to the resultant foals. 25%, doesn't sound like much, until you think of it being a minimum of 2.5 foals out of every 10 foals you have born to that pair alone.


----------



## Songcatcher (Oct 28, 2009)

Sue_C. said:


> > If both parents are "carriers" then it is only a statistical chance of it being a dwarf. But if a parent is a carrier there is a chance of the offspring being a "carrier" from that single set of genes from the one "carrier" parent, but not express it visually also. In layman's terms it is what is called a heterozygous trait.
> 
> 
> Exactly what I think as well
> ...


I'm not trying to be snippy, but let me correct the math. _*If*_ it is genetic as all this thread is assuming, and only one parent is a carrier, there is a 50% chance of the foal being a carrier (like the parent) not 25%. If both parents are carriers, there is a 25% chance of the foal being a dwarf and 50% of being a carrier, and 25% of being a non carrier.



> But as long as she is bred to a non LWO+ stallion, that gene will never be passed on to future generations, isn't that right?


Again, your math in inaccurate. One LWO+ parent has a 50% chance of producing an LWO+ (Frame Overo) foal. Two LWO+ parents have a 25% chance of producing a Lethal White foal (homozygous for LWO), 50% chance LWO+ and 25% chance of LWO- (non-Frame).


----------



## Sue_C. (Oct 28, 2009)

> I'm not trying to be snippy, but let me correct the math. If it is genetic as all this thread is assuming, and only one parent is a carrier, there is a 50% chance of the foal being a carrier (like the parent) not 25%. If both parents are carriers, there is a 25% chance of the foal being a dwarf and 50% of being a carrier, and 25% of being a non carrier.


Snip away...I am no mathmatician, and cannot pretend to be...but you just made my point even more important. Instead of a 25% chance of the foal being a carrier...it is up to 50%...which is a he77 of a lot scarier, when we know there are people breeding known carriers now, with no test for the horses they are breeding them to. Is there any WONDER we have a problem with dwarfism?


----------



## JWC sr. (Oct 29, 2009)

This is one of the reasons, I have been in favor of having a spot on the registration papers that the breeder could mark as *not for breeding*. The horse would retain its papers, be able to show etc etc. But not be used for breeding. It has worked well for AKC and I think would be a great deal for our industry also. We can geld colts, but the problem with the fillies is there is no ecomomical way to remove them from the breeding pool.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 29, 2009)

Thats what I have been wanting to do with AMHR is to have non-breeding papers, you can still show, just not in the halter classes. I had a filly that was competely normal from the outside but she has a really bad off bite. Still to this day have no clue where it came from. But that bad of a bite she would not beable to breed. But she could make a wonderful show mare, unfortuantlly I didn't have the money to spay her so I treated her like one of the geldings. Also people felt it the same way as the studs, some people just can't afford to geld them. I had good responses and emailed and had asked my director about having non-breeding stamp on papers but never got a response





Unfortuantly you can never stop the breeding. BUT if your horse has a fault that should not be passed down but you still want him/her to have the papers you can atleast put a stop to it with registered stock. I think you have to have a reason and the vet must sign for it why this animal should not be used for breeding and request they should have a non-breeding stamp. This horse could still show but not in halter. Once the stamp is on the papers, its on their for life.


----------



## wpsellwood (Nov 2, 2009)

Im posting for Ed Sisk ~

My Thoughts on Dwarfism,

It would be interesting to take a poll of all of the amha members and see how many farms have produced dwarf foals on a yearly basis. I have talked to many big breeders along with smaller farms about this subject. It is amazing that in the large number of foals born every year, a very small number are dwarfs. I have been breeding amha horses for 20+ years and have produced 20-25 foals a year and have had 1 dwarf. In fact a lot of people would not have defined it as a dwarf but it had a few characteristics that in my mind qualified it for the AAD (almost a dwarf) division.

One fact that people are leaving out is that there are breeders out there that are what they say is line breeding. There is a fine line between line breeding and inbreeding. If it works, it is line breeding, when it doesn't, it is inbreeding. When we look at a set of papers and the pedigree goes back to the same stallion 3 or 4 times, you are looking for trouble. When you breed a 26" mare to a 26" stallion, you are taking the chance of having a problem. Not saying that every time you do this that you are going to produce a dwarf, but you have increased the odds that you will.

In my opinion, I do not believe that dwarfism is a major problem in the amha. I do think that there are those out there that either have or like the bigger type horse. You have options available, either register them with amhr or start a new registry of your own. The amha was founded on 34" and under and it was designed to set it apart from other registries that allowed miniatures to be recognized up to 38". That is what is so nice about having the amha and amhr. It gives people options to do what ever they want to do. Why do we have to change the whole thing to satisfy those that want bigger horses when you have a place to go and fulfill your needs. In a perfect world, I would vote for every amha horse to be measured and only the true 34" and under horses be allowed to keep their papers. It is a fact that the market price of all breeds of horses is dictated by supply and demand. When the supply over runs the demand, the price goes down, and then throw in a bad economy and we are all in trouble.

I believe that we are trying to use this dwarfism topic to justify bringing in bigger horses in the amha. I believe that the pool is large enough, we just need to be smarter about breeding what we have. If you have a stallion or a mare that is producing dwarfs, geld it and stop breeding them and we can eliminate the problem from within. Think with our heads and not our pocketbooks. Its always greed and selfishness that brings down even the mighty.

Thank you

Ed Sisk


----------



## Annabellarose (Nov 2, 2009)

> When we look at a set of papers and the pedigree goes back to the same stallion 3 or 4 times, you are looking for trouble. When you breed a 26" mare to a 26" stallion, you are taking the chance of having a problem. Not saying that every time you do this that you are going to produce a dwarf, but you have increased the odds that you will.


Just because a horse has "the same stallion 3 or 4 times" in a pedigree that does not mean that raises the chance of it producing a dwarf, unless that same stallion is found to be a carrier, then, yes, it probably does. Also, they may prove a link between the 26" and under horse and dwarfism, but, correct me if I am wrong, they haven't yet (at least nothing that I have read up to this point has suggested this even as a theory). I would venture a guess that a Miniature Horse's height is not a valid link to it being a carrier or not.


----------



## targetsmom (Nov 2, 2009)

Responding to Ed Sisk's comments:

I know it wasn't very scientific, but about 2 years ago I conducted an anonymous poll on this forum asking how many breeders had had a dwarf foal or fetus produced on their farms. As I recall, the percentage was about 40% of the over 100 that replied. As a new breeder I was quite surprised at the result, but several members commented that they were not surprised at all. I have also offered to help AMHA conduct a scientific poll/survey, which is an area where I have some experience. I do think that responses - even if anonymous - might be an issue among AMHA members. I got no response from the registry.


----------



## Arion Mgmt (Nov 2, 2009)

I am in the lab doing tests for two of the dwarf mutations on my population samples today, but I thought I needed to reply to some blatant incorrect and flawed information.

"It would be interesting to take a poll of all of the amha members and see how many farms have produced dwarf foals on a yearly basis. I have talked to many big breeders along with smaller farms about this subject. It is amazing that in the large number of foals born every year, a very small number are dwarfs."

The only poll taken of any large number of people by anyone, or any entity, was by this forum online...... and it was an anonymous poll. Which obviously is scientifically flawed in numerous ways but needless to say was somewhat informative and interesting.

How many people are really going to tell a well known trainer about how many dwarfs they have produced??

And how many dwarfs are aborted early in gestation and no one knows those numbers?

"One fact that people are leaving out is that there are breeders out there that are what they say is line breeding. There is a fine line between line breeding and inbreeding. If it works, it is line breeding, when it doesn't, it is inbreeding."

Definition of line breeding -- form of inbreeding: the deliberate mating of closely related individuals in order to retain characteristics of a common ancestor. OR--- The producing of desired characteristics in animals by inbreeding through several successive generations. also -- Selective inbreeding to perpetuate certain desired qualities or characteristics in a strain of livestock

Definition inbreeding -- breeding within small group: the mating of closely related members of a species, especially over many generations. It may be used to enhance desired traits in animals or plants but is avoided in humans as it increases the risk of unwanted inherited characteristics. -- OR --- the mating of closely related individuals, as cousins, sire-daughter, brother-sister, or self-fertilized plants, which tends to increase the number of individuals that are homozygous for a trait and therefore increases the appearance of recessive traits.

In one way shape or form a breed of animal IS FROM INBREEDING. Therefore IF you all want to call yourself a true breed, you have to breed true to a common type over successive generations. So all of us are inbreeding good, bad or ugly one way or another..

"When you breed a 26" mare to a 26" stallion, you are taking the chance of having a problem. Not saying that every time you do this that you are going to produce a dwarf, but you have increased the odds that you will."

This comment alone tells me you think larger horses bring to our gene pool a decrease in chance of dwarfism and is better for the breed.

Irregardless, your comment is unfounded, some of my samples that are "clean" for types 3 and 4 are UNDER 28". Only when a large portion of the whole breed is tested for any of the dwarfisms will the numbers be able to show if any of the mutations are more common in smaller minis than larger ones (ie that a mutation would have expressivity over the dominant normal gene), that I am not doing yet. I dont know all of the causes yet of all the types.

"In my opinion, I do not believe that dwarfism is a major problem in the amha."

HMMM well as far as I am concerned ANY genetic abnormality that is inherited whether rare or common IS A PROBLEM with any breed or registry of animals. Especially when it is being perpetuated by our own hands whether knowingly or unknowingly.

In Feb at the AMHA National convention I will show you the percentage of carriers of the 2 RARE types of dwarfism (3 and 4) in the population -- I can safely say right now its over 20% of the entire population has these two mutations. This doesnt consider the two MORE common types 1 and 2. That scientific fact alone might way heavy on your opinion.

I will also give you calculations to show how -- due to breeding and/or reporting (non-reporting) practices the "known numbers of dwarfs" is not what you should base how severe a problem is, it is the numbers with the mutation of cause that tells you how severe it is in the population.

Most Respectfully,

John Eberth


----------



## Robin (Nov 2, 2009)

You go John! I was waiting to hear your "expert" opinion on this topic. Closing the registry would be a disgrace to the breeders and to the future of the breed- if you want to call it one.

The fact that opening the registry so that the taller horses can come in - is not the plan. The taller horses won't necessarily help with the dwarf gene problem- because even those horses could carry the dwarf gene. It is that it gives options to breeding programs that have been bred tightly to increase the type or probability of certain attributes because characteristically there may not be anything that appeals or creates a better type already in the breed or registry for that breeder. This applies to people who breed for driving horses, arab type, appaloosas, athletic jumpers, etc

What many of you still do not understand is that today's miniatures were founded from the "throw away shetlands". The poor conformed, dwarf type shetlands that were sent to the circus, given to the kids to play with. This is what horse breeders thought of them at the time.... pets, cast aways etc. Then they became an "exotic". Now- considering the miniature horse started off so poor - it is amazing thru selective breeding that they have become what they are today. However- that is also why today- so many small sheltands are coming into the showring and beating the minis. They are selective good shetlands bred down in size and not poor quality ones bred up. That is why those who do not line breed or inbreed and specialize in a certain type get such a variety in their foal crops each year.

I guess for those that are happy with the quality of horses and level of competition there is in the show ring today then closing the registry is a good thing for you. But for those who like competition, want to try to create the next best thing, breed the next level of athletic miniature, or improve a certain type/trait, then I would suggest you vote to keep it open and encourage more genetic research. Then again- this is coming from someone who sees 150 mares get bred each year and over 100 foals born in our barn each year. There is no perfect horse.

Robin-LKF


----------



## JWC sr. (Nov 2, 2009)

John,

I was glad to see you respond to this thread as you are one of the few people that can actually base your opinions on more than just "I thinks" if you will.






The numbers/percentages you reflect in your post do not surprise me at all on the rare types 3 & 4 and when it comes to the more common forms of dwarfism(1 & 2), it will not surprise me to see those numbers increase dramatically.





To me as a breeder that wants to produce the best horses I can, I personally will be glad when your genomes and testing are ready for public usage. As even one dwarf foal I can prevent is too many for me to produce.





Further Cindy and I are committed to when the testing is ready to test any and all of our herd and remove those that are carriers from our breeding pool by gelding stallions, pulling papers on mares and selling them into pet homes etc.





Drastic yes, but again I think it will be worth it in the long run.





Again thanks for your work and devotion to this inherent problem, we all must face and deal with in our own way in the Miniature horse industry.





Ed I appreciate your comments and wish I could agree with them as I respect your opinion, but in this case I think you are heading in the wrong direction.





While I agree with your assessment of the market as a whole, addition of new bloodlines etc. will only strengthen the registry and not hurt in any way that I can think of. We like you have been in this industry for many years and have seen the good times along with the current bad. But like you believe that more good times for this breed are just around the corner and for the entire industry in the coming years. Let hope we are correct in this assumption.


----------



## minimomNC (Nov 2, 2009)

Of the people that do hardship horses, how many of you find horses with bloodlines that are not already in the miniature horse stud books? Is it common to find a totally different bloodline that no one else has? If it is, then are you sure this "new" bloodline will improve the miniature horse of today? I keep reading and keep reading about closing the studbook will limit the gene pool yet no one has yet said where the new gene pool is coming from and how do you know its a new gene pool and not one already in existance today. If keeping the books open means just adding more shetland bloodlines then why not just say that, or adding hackney bloodlines, then just say that. With breeders that have been raising and selling horses for decades, wouldn't you think that every type of miniature horse gene would already be in the stud books? What exactly are you looking for that is new? And where would you start looking to find it? I am just curious since it keeps coming up.


----------



## Robin (Nov 2, 2009)

minimomNC said:


> Of the people that do hardship horses, how many of you find horses with bloodlines that are not already in the miniature horse stud books? Is it common to find a totally different bloodline that no one else has? If it is, then are you sure this "new" bloodline will improve the miniature horse of today? I keep reading and keep reading about closing the studbook will limit the gene pool yet no one has yet said where the new gene pool is coming from and how do you know its a new gene pool and not one already in existance today. If keeping the books open means just adding more shetland bloodlines then why not just say that, or adding hackney bloodlines, then just say that. With breeders that have been raising and selling horses for decades, wouldn't you think that every type of miniature horse gene would already be in the stud books? What exactly are you looking for that is new? And where would you start looking to find it? I am just curious since it keeps coming up.


We have hardshipped several- mostly mares - and they have come from some bloodlines that are already in the gene pool, but some that have not. It isn't necessarily finding a totally new horse, but one that has the attributes and strengths we are looking for to correct, change or solidify ones we already have and like. I really do not care what outside breed/bloodline it is as long as I can see what I want consistently behind it. We have an outcross stallion that goes back to shetland and miniature that may have some lines that are already in the gene pool, but the combination of genes phenotypically is different than others. So far- the cross is working for us as we tweak and see what consistently is reproduced and what isn't. We have another Shetland/miniature that has Hackney in the background (as most performance shetlands do) that has motion, proportion and refinement that we would like to see added into our herd. We are trying to refine our herd to something that we are striving to produce. Not everyone wants the same "type" horse that we would like to produce but at this point Buckeroo is 31 years old- he has done all there is to do himself except add more titles to his get and grandget. It is time we try to take his great attributes and add them to something new (and honestly there isn't much in the current breed that we haven't tried already).

Again- imagine the gene pool without Buckeroo. There was never a full sibling to him- several half silblings, but none of them ever reached the same level as he has. the one horse, one cross has made a significnat difference to the industry. So-was it the genetic cross that made him different- the way the genes matched up and how dominant they are to other crosses? Yes - the owner and choice of mares has a lot to do with it, but although I believe my Mom can do just about anything- I don't think she has mastered the gene combination when the sperm hits the egg--- at least not yet

Like I said- the open registry is not necessarily to bring in a completely different breed into the registry, but it is having the option of bringing in something different, maybe just hardshipping that one horse found in the backyard of someone that was never registered, or maybe just something new that gives spark to an old flame????








Robin-LKF


----------



## targetsmom (Nov 2, 2009)

Or maybe, just maybe, once we can test for dwarf genes, keeping the registry open will allow people to bring in individuals of whatever bloodlines they have, who don't carry genes for dwarfism....


----------



## JWC sr. (Nov 2, 2009)

Like Robin we have hard shipped in several horses over the years.





Our Sr. Stallion Rio De Oro as an example. He is unique in that his bloodlines are not in AMHA with the exception about 6 or 7 generations back if I remember right as best we can tell.





We also have hard shipped in several of his daughters that were Sr. mares when we did so of course. Their backgrounds were different than what we currently have in the registries also to my knowledge. One of the mares I can't for sure say that as she was out of a grade mare we had no background on. That particular mare is a world reserve champion herself and has also produced several world champions also. As has Rio De Oro.





So while some Shetland/hackney blood may come in as a result of hard shipping, I do not have a problem with that. To me the expense of hard shipping is pretty steep all things considered and hopefully only really nice individuals would be hard shipped in wherever they came from as far as heritage, which hopefully those horses would reproduce those attributes that made them special enough to go to the expense of hard shipping in the first place.





As far as being sure that any additions would better the breed as we know it, there is no way to know for sure without continuously trying to expand our horizons so to speak.





The improvement of the AMHA horses in the past 10 years or so is to me unbelievable from a conformation standpoint and also from a usage standpoint. Hopefully that will continue to be the case. Some of that change for the better has come from dedicated breeders hard shipping special horses into the registry.





Anything that we as custodians of the horses in our care we can do to improve the conformation and capabilities of the horses we breed is a good thing in my eyes.





Bottom line we can use the money and we can also use the genetics for a variety of reasons in our registry in my opinion.


----------



## HGFarm (Nov 2, 2009)

I will put in my 2 cents on a couple of issues that caught my eye here... It sounds like MAYBE only 50% of the Miniatures out there should be bred then, if the results are that high in carrying the dwarf genes. Weeding these out will certainly reduce the gene pool again by a LOT. I agree that I think folks would be surprized to see what horses would test positive, regardless of size- over or under 34".........

I dont think having oversized foundation horses was encouraging people to breed more oversized horses. Their backgrounds were under 34", and if you want something that is sellable and small, why would you breed that horse to another big Mini for big babies? You would breed to something probably a bit smaller than usual, to TRY to ensure that the foal stayed under the size limit required for showing, etc...... I know someone who had one of these oversized mares, and she never had ONE foal that went over 34". Most of them were not even close.

I have known folks who bred two 30" get an offspring that matured at 36" and I have seen larger Minis have foals that matured very small. It's a crap shoot, and you get what you get.... it's not that anyone TRIES to breed for bigger Minis and has most of their foals go oversize. I have a mare that continually produces smaller than she is (31.75") and personally her foals are too small for my taste, though I have bred her to a larger stallion in hopes of getting that 'happy medium'.

'Inbreeding' and 'line breeding'---- the Arabian horse breed has done it for years......... I have not heard of dwarfs as a result of that. I do see that there is a difference between the two (line or in breeding), albeit a fine line as was stated in a previous post. I am NOT sure that either one of those simply 'results in a dwarf' except when the horses lines being concentrated, was a dwarf carrier already, that just concentrated the gene to make one.

I see many Miniatures advertised as double bred such and such or triple bred such and such- own a few myself- and they do not exhibit dwarf characteristics, nor have mine (with limited breeding on a small farm) produced one to date... so I am not so sure that close breeding and dwarfism are tied together just based on those two individual things. However line or inbreeding of horses WITH a dwarf gene would probably result in dwarf offspring. Some are always quick to blame the line breeding as the reason for the dwarf... they dont note the millions of successful line bred or even in bred horses out there..........

Well, I am probably getting redundant here.... just some rambling thoughts of my own.


----------



## minimomNC (Nov 2, 2009)

Thank you finally ! ! ! Thats what I have been wanting to see on here. I think to many people just follow in saying that closing the books will close the addition of other gene pools without knowing exactly what they are looking for or talking about. Now maybe more will understand exactly what the gene pool is all about and what breeders are looking for, and why so many want to keep it open.

Oh and I have a coming yearling gelding that we will be showing that is a grandson of a hardshipped Rio De Oro daughter.


----------



## JWC sr. (Nov 3, 2009)

Keep in touch Minimom, we always are interested as to how get and grand get of Rio's are doing!!!





Just for information's sake Rio de Oro is a size reducer in most cases we have found over the years. He normally produces babies that go under by a long shot. they will scare you to death in the first year, where they shoot up quickly, but them stop completely. He is an honest 33 3/4" and the majority of his offspring have been in the 30 - 32" range with a lot of movement. But alas he is getting older and so far is still covering his mares, but we worry about him every year. One of these days he is going to just stop on us, but hopefully not for a while. He is going to leave a big hole when he finally does pass or stops producing.





As far as double bred horses are concerned, our second leading stallion is a product of Baccara being bred to a Double Destiny daughter. His name is Luxor. I bought him from Marianne at the world sale several years ago and he has proved to be a perfect fit when bred to the Rio De Oro daughters we have, producing several World Champion get for us. So being double bred is not a bad thing when it is handled right.





The resultant babies can sure intensify the positive attributes of the forefathers and mothers. In this case we could not be happier with Luxor.


----------



## Capall Beag IRL (Nov 3, 2009)

I have been watching this thread with great interest.

Here in Ireland we are just starting to see the problems with dwarf minis. To date i know of 3 dwarf minis bred in Ireland, 2 from an AMHA stallion and 1 from a part bred AMHA stallion (who only bred once & the foal was a dwarf & was gelded asap) and i believe firmly that this is only the start because people just dont know the history of these horses because AMHA horses are so fashionable at the moment.

In the last 18 months 99% of all mini horses imported into Ireland are AMHA and now we also have the problem of over height horses and this is causing great problems because here in Ireland ALL horses are measured to the WHITHERS but yet the owners of these over height show horses kick up such a stink at the ringside that they are putting people off showing, so now they been reduced to only showing their AMHA minis in classes that are up to 38" or 42" because people have called for all horses to be measured at Championship shows. I myself have been in a final line up with my 4yr old mare @ 33" (to the whithers) and an AMHA yearling is taller than my mare.

I think that the AMHA should take a more responsible role in the AMHA horses in Europe.

I dont think that closing the registry is the answer but i do believe that when a commerically available test for dwarfism is available that ALL mares & stallions that are bred in a year are tested (until every breeding horse is tested) and the results sent directly to AMHA, if you dont test clear then you dont get issued full AMHA papers for the foal. Also by law EVERY equine in Europe now has to be microchipped, to help eliminate misidentification among other things.

In Europe we are unable to hardship ANY minis into AMHA which i think is unfair to the gene pool. My own stallion is a Multi Supreme Champion beating all AMHA show horses last year and this year, yet he hasnt 1 AMHA horse in his pedigree.

We have just started a new Irish Stud Book so we are way back at the beginning but hopefully we will learn from the mistakes of others and ALL Irish miniatures *are measured to the whithers.*

Just my thoughts and observations from across the water

Capall Beag Miniatures


----------



## Robin (Nov 3, 2009)

Capall Beag IRL said:


> In Europe we are unable to hardship ANY minis into AMHA which i think is unfair to the gene pool. My own stallion is a Multi Supreme Champion beating all AMHA show horses last year and this year, yet he hasnt 1 AMHA horse in his pedigree.
> We have just started a new Irish Stud Book so we are way back at the beginning but hopefully we will learn from the mistakes of others and ALL Irish miniatures *are measured to the whithers.*
> 
> Just my thoughts and observations from across the water
> ...


Hi- You are at such an advantage over the American miniatures because it is fresh and new and you can make the rules that fit your country.

My feeling is that if the international community is going to have AMHA/AMHR horses, shows, etc then they should have to play by the same rules- all of them. Judges/sterwards should have to go thru the same testing criteria, owners should be able to register, hardship etc the same as Americans can, shows should be ran the same way, points, etc and measuring should be the same way. I disagree with how the AMHA measures the minis- Again- they had to be different and re-invent the wheel. All horses should be measured by the withers if it was up to me. It is Universal. Just my opinion there!

I like the microchip idea. I like the DNA testing idea. You can do that- because the American miniatures into your country are so new and there are so few- however we are way past that here. If you were to take out all the dwarf gene carriers- you would lose over 50% of the minis. There would not be a breeding program left (IMO). I just don't think people can really get their arms around this entire problem/concept. It will come to a point and there will be a way to go forward, but I simply feel it is no different than the HYPP in Quarter horses. Or maybe to make this more easy to understand- in humans- imagine blue eyed humans all the sudden had a shorten life span- then would that mean- no 2 blue eyed people would be allowed to have kids????

Again- I just feel closing the AMHA at this stage of infantcy is premature. *What is the reason for closing it anyway?* Too many horses? Not going to stop that with peolpe breeding the already registered ones? Don't want any competition coming into the association from an outside bloodline or type? Now that sounds petty and insecure. Oh or maybe it is beacuse AMHA is so rich with money they can afford to cut off anymore hardshipping and income from such? Last time I looked they only had $11,000 in the bank.....Or maybe they are trying to increase the value of the horses registered? I think someone put that well in another post--- a horse is only worth what someone is willing to ask for it and what another person is willing to pay for it.

Again- I think the International communities just getting started with American minis has a great advantage over us here in the USA.

Robin-LKF


----------



## targetsmom (Nov 3, 2009)

"If you were to take out all the dwarf gene carriers- you would lose over 50% of the minis. There would not be a breeding program left (IMO). I just don't think people can really get their arms around this entire problem/concept. It will come to a point and there will be a way to go forward, but I simply feel it is no different than the HYPP in Quarter horses. Or maybe to make this more easy to understand- in humans- imagine blue eyed humans all the sudden had a shorten life span- then would that mean- no 2 blue eyed people would be allowed to have kids???? "

Thank you Robin!!! I was hoping that I was not the only one who thought like this. You relate it to HYPP and I relate it to LWO. As long as being a CARRIER causes no adverse effects, then why not just test everyone and breed carriers only to non-carriers? This won't eliminate the carriers but should eliminate the dwarfs/lethal white foals, etc. Based on these estimates there must be a lot of breeders who KNOW they have dwarf carriers and I am sure they would like to see a strategy for dealing with dwarfism that didn't involve eliminating large numbers of horses from their breeding stock (and the gene pool). And maybe some of their BEST horses too...


----------



## kaykay (Nov 4, 2009)

> What is the reason for closing it anyway? Too many horses? Not going to stop that with peolpe breeding the already registered ones? Don't want any competition coming into the association from an outside bloodline or type?


Lets just call it what it is. Many people do not want any more horses with Shetland blood hardshipped into the AMHA. Many dont like them in AMHR either. But as I have said all along if you dont want Shetland blood in your herd (well if you dont want to RE introduce Shetland blood) then dont.


----------



## HGFarm (Nov 4, 2009)

I dont understand what the big problem with Shetland blood is.... HOW MANY of the foundation sires and dams for that matter, for the AMHA horses as we know it have Shetland breeding.... some of the folks that oppose it would probably faint if they knew.... And that is where a LOT of them originated from!! At least many of those lines can be traced so you know what you have.... but the ones hardshipped that were registered as something else (Shetland, imports, etc...) got stuck with 'unknown' on the pedigree. It certainly doesnt mean they dont have Shetland also!! They should go back and really study their bloodlines and see what is back there. Hey, a little Shetland never hurt anybody, LOL

I dont know why folks would be so adamant about closing them out when that is where so much of the breed originated from.


----------



## JWC sr. (Nov 4, 2009)

The problem I have with the way AMHA does the hardshipping is that no matter if the bloodlines are known or not they are listed as Unknown. I am not sure what AMHR's policy is.





No matter if it is shetland, AMHR or whatever it still says unknown.





Which is silly as so many of our AMHA horses do go back to the shetland side of things. Names such as Gold Melody Boy, Rowdy etc. etc.


----------



## PrestigeMiniHorses (Nov 4, 2009)

I don't know really what to say other than that its a bad idea to close the registry... I am strongly against it


----------



## Field-of-Dreams (Nov 5, 2009)

JWC sr. said:


> The problem I have with the way AMHA does the hardshipping is that no matter if the bloodlines are known or not they are listed as Unknown. I am not sure what AMHR's policy is.


AMHR DOES put the sire and dam's name on the papers and then "AMHA" under it. They do it for the Shetlands hardshipped, too.

Lucy


----------



## JWC sr. (Nov 5, 2009)

That makes a whole lot more sense to me anyway. Thanks Lucy. I wasn't sure how they handled it.


----------

