# WHAT ARE THE DIRECTORS DOING TO AMHA??!!



## Mona (Jul 25, 2008)

Dear AMHA members,

I hope you have all read the minutes from the June 13-14, 2008, Board of Directors meeting posted on the amha.org website. If not, please do so. The directors present at this meeting voted to pass a POLICY to allow a 1/4 inch legal height limit for horses that have their height protested at shows.

The following is taken from the minutes:

*GR-050 Protest Rule Procedures*

The following Protest Rule Procedures are recommended by the GR-050 Protest Committee:

Introduction: In November of 2007 the AMHA Board of Directors established a committee to review and rewrite a new height protest rule to be presented to the membership at the 2008 Annual Convention. The Board of Directors, in November 2007, voted to overturn th wording of the GR-050-C Protest Concerning height, which was passed by the membership at the 2007 Annual convention. The GR-050-C Protest Committee and the Show Rules Committee presented the revised wording of the Gr-050-C to the membership, at the 2008 Convention. The Membership voted to approve and implement immediately the new wording of the height protest rule, GR-050-C, Protest Concerning Height.

The AMHA Board of Directors approved the procedures to be used for the consistent implementation of GR-050-C Protest Concerning height.

*GR-050-C Protest Concerning height:* The measurement of a horse may be protested at any time prior to the end of the show so long as the horse is present on the show grounds. The protest must be made in writing accompanied by a $100 deposit.

*Implementation Procedure:* A protest committee will be employed and follow all the procedures directed and required for protest measurements in Gr-050.

*Additional Procedures:* The GR-050-C and Show Rules Committee recognize these procedures may create a tense atmosphere during the protest measuring process effecting accurate measurement of a horse. These committees recommended to the AMHA Board of Directors a policy which allows the protest measurement to be one quarter (1/4) of an inch over height qualification for the protest measurement only. The AMHA Board of Directors unanimously approved this policy. Example Horse ‘A’ is protested as being too tall in a 30 to 32 class. It’s original measurement was 31 3/4. The horse measures 32 1/4 by a protest measuring team. It meets the allowance authorized under the protest rule. It is therefore a legal horse at that show. (The one quarter inch allowance is to be applied to all height categories.)

All points, placings, awards will be relinquished by any horse who fails to meet height requirements under protest for that show only.

If the measurement is within legal height limits for the AMHA, but out of class height constraints, only the awards pertaining to effected height classes will be relinquished. *Example:* Horse ‘B’ was exhibited in a 30 to 32 inch Senior Halter Class. Horse ‘B’ measures 32 3/4 inches. Horse ‘B’ forfeits the Grand Champion award along with the 30 to 32 inch halter class placings, but may keep any award that is not height related, such as youth halter, halter obstacle, color, etc. (The horse must forfeit the Championship Award, as a result of disqualification from the original height class.)

If the horse measures above AMHA height requirements at its respective age it then loses ALL awards, points, and placings for that show.

The Board discussed the above procedures and emphasized that these procedures are for Protest Measurements Only, not initial measurements. Clair Severson made a motion to accept. Tom Roberts seconded. *Voting Yes*: Ben Benjamin, Jim Congleton, Larry Elniff, Nancy Grizzaffi, Jody Hoch, Sid Hutchcraft. Frank Lupton, Glen Matthews, Dave Miller, Jana Nichols, Mark O’Neal, Kathy Porter, Toni Reece, Tom Roberts, Clair Severson, Mike Want, Mark Wilson. *Voting No*: Tom O’Connell, Libby Rosen, Joanne Ross. Passed

*The directors that voted to pass this policy have voted to ignore the foundation, history and the requirements that an American Miniature Horse must meet to be registered with AMHA during the last 30 years. That is, as described in the Foreword statement on the first page of the rule book, “As defined by AMHA, any horse that exceeds thirty-four (34) inches in height is NOT a Miniature Horse and is not eligible for registration.” *

The directors voted to ignore the guidelines that all horses must by judged by:

The American Miniature Horse Standard of Perfection which states:

“Size: Must not measure more than 34 inches at the base of the last hairs of the mane.”

The directors voted to ignore show rule GR0-10 A. “All AMHA Shows are open to any horses registered with AMHA whose exhibitor is able to prove valid registration.” The directors votes also violates the AMHA Articles of Incorporation, several bylaws, rules and regulations, and show rules. Most of all the honesty and integrity of the AMHA is “trashed.”

First the members must ask why the parliamentarian allow this motion to be voted on? Roberts Rules of Order does not allow any rule or policy to be entertained that is in conflict with our bylaws. Surely she knows that. Why do we pay the parliamentarian to attend our meetings and not advise the Board against such things?

*What is wrong with this policy?*

1. The directors vote to give an allowance of 1/4 inch to a measurement protest that cheats every horse and exhibitor in the show, as well as every member of AMHA. Horses can not be shown if they are not AMHA registered, and horses over 34 inches don’t meet the requirements to be AMHA registered.

2. The example given in Horse ‘B’ allows this horse to be ½ inch over the new policy approval of 1/4 inch over the required height, and 3/4 inch over the maximum height for an AMHA registered horse. This horse can compete in every class in the show except the height classes, but it cannot be registered in AMHA because it is over the height requirement.

3. Is it fair for a horse that is 34 3/4 inches to compete in Hunter and Jumper classes with honest horses that are under 34 inches?

4. AMHA has been measuring height protests for 30 years, as long as they have had shows, and just now the current directors have decided that “the procedure may create a tense atmosphere during the protest measuring process effecting accurate measurement of a horse.”

5. Show horses are supposed to be trained for the show ring. They are trained to stand still in one position for several minutes. They must be trained to be measured, and they must measure under 34 inches at the base of the last hairs of the mane or they do not meet the requirements to be AMHA registered or shown in AMHA shows. That is the way the membership wants the rule, that is the current rule, and the directors should not overturn the memberships decisions. It is the responsibility of the directors, and especially the presidents to enforce the rules. The rules are that if at anytime it is determined that a horse exceeds 34 inches in height it’s papers will be revoked.

6. The people that measure horses at the shows are supposed to be trained to measure correctly according to the rule book. That includes exact initial and protest measurements. If the protested horses are given an allowance of 1/4 to ½ inch over 34 inches this year, what will the directors vote to allow next year?

7. Is it fair to give a height allowance to the show horses and not to all horses registered in AMHA? This new policy will destroy any hope of integrity in the honest size of the AMHA horse in the future. As President Want stated in his June 11, 2008, answers to one of our questions. “Integrity? That is what started this stuff. If the darn trainers and breeders had integrity, the Association would not need to change measuring or its protest rules.” However, the minutes report that he voted Yes, for this new policy of allowing a protested horse to be1/4 inch to 1/2 over the 34 inch height that would be a disqualification and still show in shows, keep all awards won except height awards, and remain registered with AMHA.

8. In answer to our question, “Will horses that are hardshipped measuring 34 inches or less after the base of the withers bylaw is implemented be remeasured at the top of the withers should that amendment pass next year. Will their hardshipped fees be refunded, and their registration certificates be revoked, if they measure over 34 inches tall. President Want answered, “everyone could position for their money back as this is no longer the same registry they joined.” With the passing of the new policy, this is certainly NOT the same registry we all joined.

When a person becomes a member of AMHA, they must agree to abide by all the associations rules, and when a person enters their horses in an AMHA show, they must agree to abide by all the show rules. The directors have prevented this from being possible.

Please all AMHA members, read these minutes, understand what the directors have done to the integrity of our Association and the honesty of our horse shows. Please write to your directors and insist that this new policy be rescinded. Don’t stop until you get answers. AMHA’s future depends on it.

C.A.R.E.

Concerned Advocates For Rule Enforcement


----------



## mizbeth (Jul 25, 2008)

Oh..................................MY...................................God!

What next, will this ever die or be corrected?

B


----------



## Just Us N Texas (Jul 25, 2008)

I guess I had better put on my flame suit. Let me expain that though most of our horses are A & R registered, I much prefer the R's. However, I can understand the 1/4 inch measurement being allowed for protests only, and according to what I read in Mona's post, that is the only instance it is to be used. For everyone that shows either A or R, I think we can understand and even applaud it. How many times have you been to a show and had your horse measure a little differently than a previous show? A lot of your measurements are dependent upon the person with the stick! At one A show we attended, the measuring was done by a veterinarian. My under 30 inch stallion (29 1/2 ) actually, measured 30 1/2, the veterinarian was not used to measuring minis, and obviously did not care if he got accurate measurements or not! From show to show, our horses can go 1/4 inch either way. Last year at Nationals, one lady had her horse measured 5 times to get it in the under 38 category! Now I know this many measurements are not allowed, but somehow she got by with it. Measuring at shows is so very controversial, that I can see that 1/4 inch rule to stop some of the arguments or controversies, be it A or R.


----------



## RockRiverTiff (Jul 25, 2008)

I really don't see this as the scandal that everyone else seems to, and I breed for horses that are consistently the smallest in their classes. Take a look at your ruler--a horse could gain 1/4" by taking a deep breath. This isn't a huge conspiracy--it's just one more step to ensure that measuring doesn't turn into a witch hunt. They can't get into the class measuring that 1/4" over the first time, but in this way we ensure that a person isn't unneccessarily punished for a horse (or measurer) that might just be nervous. Two inches is willful deceit. 1/4" is to me just an honest mistake or a moment's difference.


----------



## minimomNC (Jul 25, 2008)

I think this answers the question about anything measuring over 34"



> If the horse measures above AMHA height requirements at its respective age it then loses ALL awards, points, and placings for that show.


----------



## maestoso (Jul 25, 2008)

I agree with RockRiver 100%

This conspiracy theory is getting completely ridiculous! Nobodys trying to measure in a horse that is 3 inches too tall. Its 1/4 of an inch for petes sake, and ONLY matters in a protest situation. It is not going to snowball. I don't believe for one second that next year it will be a half inch and the year after 3/4s of an inch...... that assumption or worry has NO logic. I'm amazed that we even have directors after all this crap.

What are the directors doing to AMHA you ask???

What do you think all of THIS is doing to AMHA?

If THIS is a scandal, a conspiracy, a big problem, I'm afraid of what people would act like in a REAL problem. Maybe these directors need to go into hiding....


----------



## bingo (Jul 25, 2008)

I beg to differ Matt. This is a big deal. First off we all know the reality is that a 34.50 to 35.00 inch horse can and do get measured into AMHA at shows. They measure in as 34.00 so now with the extra .25 in leeway that is allowing horses taller then 34.50 to easily show. The issue becomes when does it stop or when do you just admit that there is several AMHA World Champion horses that are honestly and truly nice horses and honestly and truly over 34.00 inches. Just give them their own class and call it good.


----------



## LisaF. (Jul 25, 2008)

I posted on Mary Lou's thread and to be honest Mona - I am too upset to post right not - All I can say is in my oppinion AMHA DIRECTORS. ETC IS WRONG - and is HURTING THE REPUTATION OF AMHA.

Maybe this was the answer to my long post about concerned about the price of miniature horses.

Ok..I don't want this to get deleted ...I will post when I calm down.


----------



## Boinky (Jul 25, 2008)

I can see the "zoo factor" effect being a problem..but i do see where it will snowball if it's "allowed". they do need to eliminate the "zoo factor". If there is leeway people ARE going to push it.. it never fails.happens in EVERY aspect of life. If the lines are not clearly drawn they will be pushed.

Conspiracy or not i've been to enough show's both A and R that I know measurements are pushed and sometimes by quite a large number not just 1/4 of an inch.


----------



## faithfarm (Jul 25, 2008)

The example is a senior horse that measures 32 3/4, not 34 3/4. 1/4 doesn't mean anything, and I challenge anyone to consistantly measure a horse, set it up again, and get within 1/4 on 3 measurements. If a horse moves at all it can mean a 1/2 difference; they lean, they breath, and they tense up. I say bravo to the directors.

My 5X World Champion and 2X Reserve World Grand Champion is an honest 30" and I always sweated the measurement. Luckily, he never measured over 30 and once even measured 28 3/4??? I've never been afraid of the horses that were 1/4"-1/2" over the height class, it was the 1 1/2" overs that ticked me off.

Rick


----------



## Genie (Jul 25, 2008)

Pardon my ignorance but it seems that a horse trained to show should not be overly tense and nervous with a measuring.

If 34 is the measurement then so be it!

I compare it to "being just a little bit pregnant" or being a "little bit over" or being "just a little lie"

Here's an idea, make sure your horse is a little bit under and then it won't be a little bit over


----------



## Field-of-Dreams (Jul 25, 2008)

Genie said:


> Pardon my ignorance but it seems that a horse trained to show should not be overly tense and nervous with a measuring.



I have two mares that we show that are afraid of the stick and tense up. They've never been hit with it or anything, they just don't like it! Neither one is overly keen on strangers, ether....






Lucy


----------



## MinisOutWest (Jul 25, 2008)

HUUUUUMMMMMMMMMMM........This one's deep!!!! But I do not dare say a word on this forum. sorry. My thoughts are to myself. I will just deal with it at the show, with that steward, on that day, during that time of measurement. Because it will be totally different at the next show....and we will start all over again with a new stick...... Packing now for tomorrows show.



See Ya There!!


----------



## Cathy_H (Jul 25, 2008)

> What are the directors doing to AMHA you ask??? What do you think all of THIS is doing to AMHA?


They're not fixing the problem, they keep trying to come up with temporary solutions to please the rule breakers............ It really isn't broken so don't try to fix it with changing the heights!!! RE READ the rules & stand by & FOLLOW them! Again I ask WHY is this so hard to do - I guess it is too simple !! OH! .......... It may not be a scandal but it is catering to some peoples personal agendas.


----------



## LisaF. (Jul 25, 2008)

Genia and CathyH I agree with both of your post 100%

CathyH - I think you have it exactly right!

Rick you say you challange anyone to measure a horse 3 times and get the same height - Maybe I am misreading what you are saying. Before I send in paperword I will not send in the measurement until I have had at MINIUMUM 3 of the measurements be exact.

If you don't agree how can your horse be an honest 30"?

This is just WRONG anyway you look at it. RULES ARE RULES - AMHA was built on miniature horses 34" AND UNDER - I don't care if you show or if you don't show.


----------



## Windhaven (Jul 25, 2008)

In my opinion this is wrong..





The horses get 3 chances to measure when they get to the show. They should also get 3 chances to measure to get the same height when there is a protest. Don't change the height just because it is a protest. It is up to the handler to keep the horse/s calm during measuring and they should be able to do it during a protest. Because if the horse is that close then it will be stressful no matter if it is just to get them into the show/class or if it is a protest.

I guess if they allow the !/4" over then the protester should not have to put up the $100.

It is interesting to see all the comments on here.


----------



## JWC sr. (Jul 25, 2008)

The only way I would have an opinion on this change would be if they were changed to be measured to the top of the withers like all other equine breeds.











Then I would say change any rule or regulation to make that work with the horses we currently have in the resgistry and move forward. In other words if a 34" horse will gain an average of 2" when measured at the withers then make the heigth 36", change all rules that need to be and move forward. But we all know that is not going to happen. LOL Oh Well





Past that I DO NOT CARE how they measure or where they measure to as long as it is consistent and fair across the board for everyone.





But while they are changing rules, I also think they need to install another rule stating that if a horse ever measure into a taller class at any show, it can never go back down to a smaller class. It is really sickening to see folks jockey the horses up and down to avoid competition as it suits the fancy of the owner or trainer.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 25, 2008)

Cathy_H said:


> > What are the directors doing to AMHA you ask??? What do you think all of THIS is doing to AMHA?
> 
> 
> They're not fixing the problem, they keep trying to come up with temporary solutions to please the rule breakers............ It really isn't broken so don't try to fix it with changing the heights!!! RE READ the rules & stand by & FOLLOW them! Again I ask WHY is this so hard to do - I guess it is too simple !! OH! .......... It may not be a scandal but it is catering to some peoples personal agendas.


I totally agree, AMHA is just trying to keep it all safe and not to worry about it. I have a feeling they just opened up a whole new can of worms. They didn't fix a thing.



Field-of-Dreams said:


> Genie said:
> 
> 
> > Pardon my ignorance but it seems that a horse trained to show should not be overly tense and nervous with a measuring.
> ...


I agree, even my well trained obstacle gelding who should be trained of everything gets tensed up with the stick. Its just a big object and a person they don't know has their life in the stewards hands it seems like lol.



RockRiverTiff said:


> I really don't see this as the scandal that everyone else seems to, and I breed for horses that are consistently the smallest in their classes. Take a look at your ruler--a horse could gain 1/4" by taking a deep breath. This isn't a huge conspiracy--it's just one more step to ensure that measuring doesn't turn into a witch hunt. They can't get into the class measuring that 1/4" over the first time, but in this way we ensure that a person isn't unneccessarily punished for a horse (or measurer) that might just be nervous. Two inches is willful deceit. 1/4" is to me just an honest mistake or a moment's difference.


I agree with you also a 1/4" off sometimes doesn't seem to be a big deal, but now I can see people going out there and register there 34.25" horse now that its ok at shows. I don't know I don't think this has solved everything just opened up a new problem.


----------



## gvpalominominis (Jul 25, 2008)

I think they should change the rule as to where you measure to be at the tallest hair at the tip of the ear.





That makes just about as much sense as measuring the last mane hair for height of a horse, a measuring point that can be rubbed off or accidentally clipped off and isn't a structual part of the body. If you stand two horses side by side and they are exactly the same height at... the tip of the ear, the top of the wither, behind the wither, tallest point of the rump... where ever you determine to measure them, are exactly the same.... yet one horse's mane grows longer down into it's back.... so its deemed 'shorter'... come on!!!!!!! You folks believe that's right or fair? You're right about it currently being the 'rule'.... but when they tried to rectify that by making the measurement an actual part of the horse... you shot it down! I'm not saying they shouldn't have to go through the 'proper' procedure to change any rule as designated in the by-laws..... but you should also have to go through proper procedure and due process to have it cancelled too! Isn't there a saying... two wrongs.. don't make a right?

My guess is there isn't a mini horse owner/breeder around that has horses at the upper end of the measurement, that wouldn't say go for it... make it the top of the wither for measurement and add 2"s to the standard. Surely, you all must see that they couldn't change the rule to measure at the top of the wither without an adjustment being made to the standard. They could stand to loose hundreds of registered horses if they didn't. Not to mention the law suits that would entail putting AMHA totally out of business.


----------



## Southern_Heart (Jul 25, 2008)

I find AMHA really mind boggling lately! OH! It's change this and change that and oh lets do this and lets do that and none of it is any good!!





Sad to say that if they are making changes like this now.....What is to come further on down the road.





What is going to happen to the future AMHA when our children are all grown up. Its getting so out of hand that the kids just might not want to keep showing later on in life if AMHA keep changing things for the CHEATERS!!! Its not going to be worth the work and the fuss to show..





This whole thing on changes just makes me so sad.


----------



## Vertical Limit (Jul 25, 2008)

gvpalominominis said:


> I think they should change the rule as to where you measure to be at the tallest hair at the tip of the ear.


Awwww! Come on Joanne! Then people will start breeding for shorter necks.





Really, it's becoming kind of a joke. Maybe there should not be any measuring at all and you just put the horse in the class that you want him in.



Seems like these so called rules are put into place just to appease certain agendas. Yes, the cheaters!

Again, I have no vested interest. I just find the whole thing kind of hokey and amusing. You wonder why big horse breeds don't take you all seriously? OH!


----------



## maestoso (Jul 25, 2008)

All those in favor of accusing the board of having their own agenda......

Have you ever run for a board position? Do you go to the meetings? Not every board member is part of a breeding/showing farm, they can't all be cheaters.


----------



## MinisOutWest (Jul 25, 2008)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS JUST A JOKE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!










My husband just solved the height issue- GET RID OF IT !!!!




















And start weighing them, we should introduce weight classes !!!!














then the height will never be an issue and the official scale will never lie !!!





I hate beating the poor horse with a 'measuring' stick.





Back to packing and getting ready for the show, will see what the ole measuring stick says tomorrow.


----------



## gvpalominominis (Jul 25, 2008)

Vertical Limit said:


> *
> *
> 
> 
> ...


* *

*
*_*(I had a wise crack comment back for your shorter neck comment... but too chicken to post it... may have been open to criticism to be considered politically incorrect. *



* )*_

*
You're absolutely right.... it is a joke! The whole intial rule to measure a hair strand as a height point! *_*(FYI - I added additional comments to my last post....)*_ 

* *

*
I think I understand that everyone agrees there needs to be a change as to where to measure these horses.... fine, then quit squaking... go through the proper procedure and process as designated in the by laws and change the darn rule to a structure of the horse as the measuring point! No matter WHAT that is changed to, you will ALWAYS have what you are calling "CHEATERS". No rule or regulation can guarantee against that. *

* *

*
IMPO.. at shows, the way I see it, it's not the person presenting the horse for measurement that is the cheater... its the person doing the measuring... whether its bending under the pressure of a well known owner or trainer ..... or maybe they just flat out made a human error. (*_*This is not a statement meant to be a witch hunt by any means... only an opinion.. so don't make it one) *_* The only way to stop the pasture and back yard cheaters from 'lying' about heights of horses in their possession, if you're that concerned about it... is to require that EVERY horse has to be measured by an official measurer prior to permanant registration! Think of THAT back log!*

* *

*
I'm sure this has been said time and time again.... I know its been posted over and over and over.... So! Where do we start? ... Cause I think al lot of people are tired of hearing about this measurement stuff... and all the vendettas that appear at the shows.... so with that... if no one else has started it already... I'm going to look up how to enact a new, or change a rule and get it started! I think it takes about a year or more... Top of the wither to measure ... which would requre another rule changed to "add 2"s to the standard maximum height". Oh, with that then the yearling's height limitation. Oh, with that also then the 2 yr old's requirement! Correct me if I'm wrong... since each is its own rule... each would require its own amendment... but one not to pass without the other? *

* *

*
Then, at the same time also start another proposal to "Behind the wither for measurement" which virtually would not require any other change, and present them to the membership for passing one or the other. *

* *

*
Stepping down now.. LOL But serious about the amendment initiations.*


----------



## Sun Runner Stables (Jul 25, 2008)

I agree, that measuring room is Tense and Cold! I know of lots of horses that have measured different at almost every show, but in the correct range for their class. For Pete's sake, everyone needs to calm down and stop jumping at Everything.

Their are some Nasty protest wars going on, some of it pretty fruitless, and I believe this is a safety to keep some nice horses from getting the door due to a high school brain of some. It may not be the best solution, but the last one they had that was more concrete of a measuring point got shot to bits right out the gate.

Enough said here. I would leave it as is, and that's how I'll be voting if it gets to that hysterical point again on here.


----------



## Mona (Jul 25, 2008)

I did not say ANYWHERE that I felt there was any kind of conspiracy! It seems to me the only ones that seem to be calling it a conspiracy are those against what I have posted on behalf of CARE. These are FACTS that I posted, as per the published minutes of the June Board meeting.

As for blaming the directors, THEY voted this in, so I am not sure who else to hold accountable for it?? Any ideas??

And finally, I am NOT against taller horses being reg'd into AMHA, but I AM against the ways in which it is being done. Yes, I know horses can measure differently and I agree with that, they do! And I too have measured the same horse over and under and kept the papers, but what irks me is that AMHA is going against what they were founded on.

I personally don't feel there will ever be any way to satisfy this type of thing, other than making sure your horse is not so close to the limit that it will measure over, or to totally remove any height restrictions and call it a breed, not a height breed. It is being a height breed that is causing so many problems.


----------



## minimomNC (Jul 25, 2008)

If you had been at World last year to witness the "protest" measuring, you would understand just how difficult it can be on the horses. It takes a lot of time and they are touched and moved and touched and moved several times until like Neil said, they are set accordingly and everyone is happy. Then they are measured. Its not like regular show measuring where you just walk up set your horse and the person holding the stick finds what they think is the last mane hair and puts the stick on it. A quarter of an inch isn't hard to believe as a difference, almost 2 inches, yes thats a huge difference but not a 1/4 of an inch. Do you realize how small a 1/4 inch is? Take a tape measure and measure across the surface of a penny, the middle of a penny straight across measures 3/4 of an inch. And most of you think its a plot to let in oversize horses? I dont' think so. I think its an honest attempt to give leeway to a nervous, tight horse, standing under a magnifing glass with 10 people staring. That 1/4 is only for horses that are protested and the way I read it, if the horse goes over 34.25 in a protest measurement, it will not be allowed to show and if it has shown it will have all awards forfited.

And if you think AMHA is having it rough, you should see whats showing in the 34" & under classes in AMHR. I was amazed.


----------



## shelia (Jul 25, 2008)

I think some of us need to think about the other side of this. Let's say you have a horse that is right up there at 34 and is an almost perfect miniature horse. You show this horse and it does very well. Then one day it gets protested. It measures in 1/4 inch too tall. You are disqualified and loose the papers. You have a right to appeal that. (this does happen) The appeal process takes a long time and your horse gets measured again and is measured 34 or under. You get your papers back.

The person going through this has lost time money and I am sure there is a great emotional toll. Would this person have a right to sue AMHA and maybe even the person who originally protested? This person could have lost a great deal of money if this were a breeding stallion. Can this horse be protested again putting the owner through this all over? I am not talking about someone who knows there horse is over and just pushing there luck.

I personally like the smaller horses and would not risk taking one to a show that is right at the limit, but some people do and have that right. What is fair to them? Should AMHA only allow horses well under 34 in the ring?

Is this 1/4 inch keeping AMHA from being sued down the road?


----------



## LisaF. (Jul 25, 2008)

I would like for those that think it is OK for the 1/4" to think about something for just one minute.

What is WRONG with staying with what AMHA was founded on? 34" and under?

Why has AMHA all of a sudden started trying to change the way we measure? Why allowing 1/4"?

I HONESTLY don't understand!

The only reason I can think of is for the CHEATERS at shows. ( I am NOT saying everyone at shows are cheater's - I am saying I think this is set up for SOME that want to cheat)

*How many problems WOULD BE SOLVED if we stayed with what AMHA was founded on?*


----------



## bingo (Jul 25, 2008)

minimomNC said:


> And if you think AMHA is having it rough, you should see whats showing in the 34" & under classes in AMHR. I was amazed.


When all else fails divert attention to another registry


----------



## loveminis (Jul 25, 2008)

I don't agree with this change. I think if they measure over 34" then they should not be allowed at that particular show. Measure 3 times and if it the horse is still over that's it. Maybe people should start not breeding taller to taller. If AMHA wants to be a strong and respected registry they need to stick to their own rules.


----------



## faithfarm (Jul 25, 2008)

This change only affects a protest, not the initial measuring of a horse to enter a class. If a horse measures over according to the rules it does not show, period. It has nothing to do with entering oversized horses, it only allows a 1/4" leeway for measuring at a protest. Go back and read the rule change.


----------



## McBunz (Jul 25, 2008)

Well here we go again... Changing the standard... just another way to allow those over 34 inch horses to be shown legally..





Pay more to protest as well.. What the heck is wrong with this picture... What is wrong with the people who voted to allow this to happen

once again... Read the Standard people... follow it and leave it the way is was.....


----------



## pinck43 (Jul 25, 2008)

I can see where everyone is coming from. 1/4" is not much, but can also put the horse over from the original measurement and into a different class. When you speak of cheaters, who exactly are you talking about? The exhibitor or the stewart? Personally I feel the stewart should be held responsible for correct measurements. If there is a protest and the horse doesn't measure correctly from the original measurement, then maybe the stewarts should be fined. Maybe then we would see more accuracy. dionne


----------



## Leeana (Jul 25, 2008)

Its .25 ...then its .50 ...then its 36" ..then its 36.5" ....all im saying


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 26, 2008)

faithfarm said:


> This change only affects a protest, not the initial measuring of a horse to enter a class. If a horse measures over according to the rules it does not show, period. It has nothing to do with entering oversized horses, it only allows a 1/4" leeway for measuring at a protest. Go back and read the rule change.


You know after thinking about it this might not be such a bad thing. Just like what faithfarm says you have to go in or atleast be right on 34" to even beable to show, this is just for protest that you will get allowed a 1/4" leeway. So many things happen when you do get measured, you may get taller or smaller. I still have mix feelings about it, I feel like AMHA is just covering this up with a band-aid. As long as the rules are followed thru everything will be ok.


----------



## LisaF. (Jul 26, 2008)

The problem is RULES are NOT being followed. They are being changed !


----------



## tagalong (Jul 26, 2008)

> If you had been at World last year to witness the "protest" measuring, you would understand just how difficult it can be on the horses. It takes a lot of time and they are touched and moved and touched and moved several times until like Neil said, they are set accordingly and everyone is happy. Then they are measured. Its not like regular show measuring where you just walk up set your horse and the person holding the stick finds what they think is the last mane hair and puts the stick on it. A quarter of an inch isn't hard to believe as a difference, almost 2 inches, yes thats a huge difference but not a 1/4 of an inch. Do you realize how small a 1/4 inch is? Take a tape measure and measure across the surface of a penny, the middle of a penny straight across measures 3/4 of an inch. And most of you think its a plot to let in oversize horses? I dont' think so. I think its an honest attempt to give leeway to a nervous, tight horse, standing under a magnifing glass with 10 people staring. *That 1/4 is only for horses that are protested and the way I read it, if the horse goes over 34.25 in a protest measurement, it will not be allowed to show and if it has shown it will have all awards forfited. *


Well said - and that is the way I read it as well, *minimom*. We'll have to check on that. This does not seem to be the OMG!! OUTRAGE!! LOOK WHAT THEY ARE DOING NOW!!! LETTING BIGGER HORSES IN!!! OMG!!! catastrophe that some are painting it as... is it necessary to YELL in the thread title as well? The horse must still measure in - the 1/4" is only indicated for a protest when things are a helluva lot tenser. I defy anyone here who is so outraged about this to set their horses up and have strangers approach them and position them and measure them in a charged atmosphere - and not get measurements that vary all over the place. Or at least - within that 1/4". Don't like it? Then protest - but without the hints of conspiracies and YELLING and OUTRAGE... do it calmly and clearly.



> Changing the standard... just another way to allow those over 34 inch horses to be shown legally..


None of this changed _the standard._ The horse must measure in at 34" or under. End of story. And once agan - this was only indicated for protests.



> Pay more to protest as well..


Now that ^^^ I can understand. That way foolish protests designed just to mess with people will be less likely to occur - and anyone filing a protest will do so with care and follow through with it. The old put your money where your mouth is thing...



> And if you think AMHA is having it rough, you should see whats showing in the 34" & under classes in AMHR. I was amazed


I think that if some turned the same intense scrutiny on AMHR that they consistently favour AMHA with - they would find things to be outraged about there as well - but no - they _never _do that. AMHA is not the only registry that needs "fixing" - despite what some insist. Can someone please explain to me how the same horse (permanent status) can be a winner in AMHR Under one year... and then be a winner in Over the next... I guess I must be the only one out here who goes... HUH??? _How is that possible?_ I guess it must be that old 1/4" - _or more _ - right? It seems that the measuring must be all over the place - and needs to be tightened up. I have seen just as many horses in classes where they towered over the others in AMHR as AMHA - _but AMHR seems to get a free pass on this board from some. _ It is almost like a crusade at times... get AMHA - but everything AMHR does is peachy keen and hunky-dory and we will never look at it closely. Well, that is wrong - and very onesided.

They both need fixing. Period.

Just to make things clear - the horses here are all registered AMHA/AMHR - so I am not "favouring" one registry. I just see all the indignation and outrage only going one way - when other problems are ignored.

ETA:

Okay - I went back and read this again....



> If the horse measures above AMHA height requirements at its respective age it then loses ALL awards, points, and placings for that show.


And to me it seems clear - a horse who measures over 34" at that protest - even if it measured in right on 34" at the initial measuring - will lose everything. So what AMHA was founded on - that so many of you are upset about and saying they are ignoring - still holds true. No horses taller than 34" allowed.

But feel free to drag that 34 1/2 - 36" horse into an AMHR Under class... it seems that no one will mind...


----------



## Genie (Jul 26, 2008)

I appreciate Mona and Mary Lou bringing the information to my attention, even if it had to be shouted. Thank you ladies!

I don't show at the National level and possibly never will, however I agree with the forum members who respond with 34 inches being 34 inches.

In my opinion if your horse is so close to 34 inches that " being too cold" will make it measure over, or "being tense and nervous" will make it taller, then so be it.

When the petition is drafted I will happily sign.

I believe that there will always be changes for the betterment of the registry, however there should be certain principles on which the AMHA is founded, which should always be firmly in place.

Horses in the AMHA registry are 34" and under and if your horse is so close to 34 inches that it will measure over on show day, then I guess it won't be shown.

Integrity is important to me and "wishy washy" is unprofessional. Once AMHR introduces dna testing then there will be no reason for me to worry about having AMHA horses.

I fear the AMHA will lose it's credibility with these types of allowances.


----------



## Lorraine (Jul 26, 2008)

Hello all -

This is Tom O'Connell, one of the AMHA Directors from Region #1, and I voted on this proposal. My vote has been posted on this link.

As you can tell from the comments posted, there are many people on both sides of this issue................. let me provide you with some of my thoughts as I analyzed this proposal prior to voting.

I have been an "official" measurer at AMHA approved shows and did attend(and passed) an AMHA certified measurer class given to the Directors a few years ago so I do have some experience measuring horses. I can assure you that horses heights can change within minutes - I think the posts agree with this. I do not have a problem with the 1/4 rule EXCEPT I did not and still do not support the 34 1/4 portion of the rule.............this is why I voted it down. Exhibitors bringing a tall horse to a show run the risk that the horse might "measure out" and they should understand this and accept this. I'm not saying that the horse is "over" but on any given day, a horse can easily measure a 1/4 (or more) than other times. The measure did pass as it is ONLY for protest measurements, not any other measurement.

Remember .........Measuring is an art, not a science.

Tom O'Connell


----------



## tagalong (Jul 26, 2008)

> I do not have a problem with the 1/4 rule EXCEPT I did not and still do not support the 34 1/4 portion of the rule.............this is why I voted it down.


*Tom* - according to what the rules said as posted, I interpreted it to say that a 34 1/4" measurement as a result of a protest would also not be allowed as that horse would then be over the height for its age... so you are saying that is not the case and it would be allowed to show? Now that I might not agree with. Because as you said...



> Exhibitors bringing a tall horse to a show run the risk that the horse might "measure out" and they should understand this and accept this.


Absolutely. But then that 1/4" comes and goes.

But I would still like someone to explain to me how mature horses waltzing back and forth between Over and Under in AMHR is anything other than wishy-washy.... where are those outraged threads??! *It would be refreshing to see all measuring issues addressd with the same fervor - no matter what registry is involved...* but that never seems to be the case...


----------



## crponies (Jul 26, 2008)

Tagalong, there was some discussion of AMHR measurement problems in this thread: What is your standard of perfection?


----------



## tagalong (Jul 26, 2008)

Thanks, *Jayne *- I read that thread - and thank you for providing the link to others....but that excellent thread still falls far short of the way AMHA measuring has been raged about. Not nearly as much YELLING and OUTRAGE in that thread.



The same scrutiny should hold true for both registries.

_Edited again cuz I can't type... _


----------



## Sun Runner Stables (Jul 26, 2008)

Tagalong and MinimomNC-

Thank for saying reasonably and honestly what I tried to say briefly.

For all of you who Don't show, and Don't breed for horses that do more then become wonderful companions and friends, I feel that many of you may be immune to alot of the nasty protest 'wars' going on. Not because your horses aren't nice or anything along those lines, but because you choose to not exhibit you horses. This is something I respect and understand, but then when everyone gets to pointing and shouting at those who do so, it really gets to me.

I seen and heard enough of it to make me Glad about this proposal- I would Love to see Every single one of you measure your horses in a relaxed manner, then heap everyone all Over your horse, in a tense cold room. Bet I'd get a room full of "cheating" horses.





All of you folks all hot about "The Standard The Standard"-

Goodness! I do believe you haven't throughly read though what this is geared towards doing, I think a solid read though with a calm mind might do wonders for your perspective. If it doesn't change your mind, that fine to, the beauty of life is to be different, however please do so well informed and with arguments that are not strictly emotionally based.

In a way I feel it's wonderful we all care so much, but I think it's also a shame that instead of speaking intelligently, this whole thing got off in a huge dramatic "OMG they are Killing Kittens!!" type of way. Heck had I not read though, and just taken it at face value, I'd be upset as well. Just sayin.


----------



## McBunz (Jul 26, 2008)

If this rule said to a maximum of 34 inches I would not be complaining.. but once you allow a quarter of an inch it will soon be an inch.. allow an inch and

it will be two inches..


----------



## maestoso (Jul 26, 2008)

I suggest that people start flying out to these meetings and vote! If this really is the big deal, scandal, and conspiracy that so many make it out to be, surely it is worth the trip so that you can be part of "saving" the association.


----------



## McBunz (Jul 26, 2008)

As many many people have stated before. not all of us can run off to the meeting for one reason or another.. I don't think this was a "big deal, scandal, or conspiracy... Just another poorly thought out idea that was somehow passed...


----------



## McBunz (Jul 26, 2008)

minimimNC says: "This 1/4 is only for horses that are protested and the way I read it if the horse goes over 34.25 in a protest measurement it will not be allowed to show and if it has shown it will have all awards forfeited"

tagalong says: "And it seems clear if a horse who measures over 34 at the inital measuring will lose everything. So what AMHA was founded on that so many of you are upset about and saying they are ignoring still holds true. No horses taller than 34" allowed.

The new policy says "The one quarter (1/4) inch allowance is to be applied to all height categories." It is understood that this allowance is for protest measurements only.

The minutes gives an explanation with the Example of Horse A, it is protested as being too tall in a 30 to 32 class. Its original measurement was 31 3/4. This horse measures 32 1/4 by a protest measuring team. It meets the allowance authorized under the protest rule. It is therefore a legal horse at that show. (This 1/4) inch allowance is to be applied to ALL height categories.

All points, placings , awards will be relinquished by any horse who fails to meet height requirements under protest for that show only. I understand this to mean that a horse that measures 34 1/4 in a protest will be allowed to show and retain any awards it wins.

The explanation given of Horse B, was exhibited in a 30 to 32 inch Senior Halter Class. Horse B wins Grand. It is then protested. Horse B measures 32 3/4 inches. Horse B forfeits the Grand Champion award along with the 30 to 32 inch halter class placings, but may keep any award that is not height related, such as youth halter, halter obstacle, color, etc. (The horse must forfeit the Championship Award, as a result of disqualification from the original height class.)

As I understand it Horse B has gained at least 3/4 inch in the protest measurement from the initial measurement. Horse B is 3/4 inch over the height limit for the 30 t0 32 class. I understood the allowance to be only 1/4 inch.

As another Example, Horse B is exhibited in the 32 to 34 Senior Halter class. Horse B is protested and measures 34/3/4 inches. Horse B forfeits the Grand Champion award along with the 32 to 34 inch halter class placings, but may keep any award that is not height related. So we now have a protested horse measuring 34 3/4 inches showing in an AMHA show, and keeping all awards it wins except height related awards. Because the 1/4 inch allowance is to be applied to ALL height categories.

Horse B with a protested measurement of 34 3/4 inches may win and retain all awards at the show that are not height related, but Horse B does not meet the requirements to be registered with AMHA, and no horse can be shown in an AMHA show that is not AMHA registered. This is why some of us are so upset.

Tom O'Connell says: "I did not and still do not support the 34 1/4 portion of the rule and this is why I voted it down."

This is not a rule, it is a policy. We should all be asking why a policy was entertained, voted on and passed that is in conflict with approximately 25 to 30 AMHA rules and bylaws.

This new policy needs a lot of explaining and thought which should have been done before it was passed. Simply following the rules would have prevented the problems. We have to hold the directors responsible for this, because it is their responsibility to enforce all rules.


----------



## ruffian (Jul 26, 2008)

I'm confused - where did the 34 3/4" example come from? I read it that horse B was 32 3/4 and looses his halter places (30 - 32), but keeps his ie jumper class as that class if 34 and under.

As a show manager for 15 years, I can absolutely confirm that a horse can change height at least 1/4 with every measurement, even if you do three in a row. All it takes is for a mare in heat to walk by a stallion, or a stallion to whistle to a mare, or a car door to slam by a nervous gelding.

Since so many are up in arms about this, where is the by-law change to make the measurement at the withers? Yes, every class would have to be changed. So be it. If this is what everybody wants, make it happen.


----------



## conders (Jul 26, 2008)

Okay, I have read all the posts, listened to all the opinions from alot of people who probably have never undergone to terrible ordeal of being measured or protest measured at the AMHA World show. Well, it is not fun, it makes you sweat, it makes you feel like you've done a terrible crime that might be punishible by death if you get caught. Last year at the World show I had to get remeasured with someones nose, so close to my horses "bottom mane hair" that my horse felt her breathing and he grew 2" with each of the protesters breaths!

Alot of you that are whining about what AMHA is doing, don't even show AMHA. Some of us have no choice, they don't allow amatuers who have trainers in their family to show amatuer at the R shows, so we have no there else to be.

AMHA is trying to help people like me, who get so nervous measuring with a crowd watching, get their legitimate horses shown.

If you think this is funny, or dumb, TRY IT. Go to the World and get protested by someone who just wants to torture you because you beat them, and get called for a protest, if you do, you won't complain about AMHA giving 1/4 of a lousy inch to ease the tension that gets your horse too big!!!!! We don't want to show horses that are measured at the wither, these are not quarter horses that we want to make bigger, these are minis. Besides, the top of the wither is no more of a distinct spot to measure from than the bottom of the wither.

Just humor all of us who have been on the spot, and if you have never had to sweat your way thru a protest measure, don't push to change things, AMHA is doing all they can to support the members who are out there showing, let them help.


----------



## Candice (Jul 26, 2008)

Amen. I would like to know how many of the people who are so outraged about this actually do show their horses. ??????


----------



## McBunz (Jul 27, 2008)

No I don't show.. but you would be outraged when your 35" mini is beaten out by someones 36.5 in an AMHA show.... Not saying you have a 35" mini to show

but by the sounds of this this is not to far from what goes on at the shows..



When this happens someone who is showing a horse 34" and under

doesn't dare protest because they are called trouble makers.. From what I hear from people who do show this starts right from the local shows all the way

up to the Nationals.. It is your butt we are trying to protect along with the others who follow the rules..


----------



## Sun Runner Stables (Jul 27, 2008)

McBunz said:


> No I don't show.. but you would be outraged when your 35" mini is beaten out by someones 36.5 in an AMHA show.... Not saying you have a 35" mini to showbut by the sounds of this this is not to far from what goes on at the shows..
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Thank you, I am satisfied with my current hindquarters protection, I believe your services are not currently needed-

For those of you who don't show, how in God's good little green earth do you know what "is not to far from what goes on at the shows"???

I've watched a pack of people get rabid on here, and for the majority of the group (pardon the exceptions, no offense intended), none show or put Their horses on the line at all.

If I am out there showing, and someone's horse is 35", you bet your muffins I'd be protesting! Would I do it to be spiteful and cause trouble- No mam'-I don't find it productive to do this to people. But there Are some, and here's a hint, it's Not going to be some poor innocent bystander in the class that has the single Honest horse-



No it's often another in the class who is concerned they may be 'out classed' -

That's what this rule is trying to Stop. It happens, and it's crappy and silly and downright wasteful and stressful-

As Conder said- unless you have Been there in those shoes, you have no idea what those horses/owners go through. At the end of the day, I would be just fine with spotting my fellow miniature horse lover a 1/4 inch under those circumstances quite frankly.


----------



## Neil (Jul 27, 2008)

conders said:


> Okay, I have read all the posts, listened to all the opinions from alot of people who probably have never undergone to terrible ordeal of being measured or protest measured at the AMHA World show. Well, it is not fun, it makes you sweat, it makes you feel like you've done a terrible crime that might be punishible by death if you get caught. Last year at the World show I had to get remeasured with someones nose, so close to my horses "bottom mane hair" that my horse felt her breathing and he grew 2" with each of the protesters breaths!Alot of you that are whining about what AMHA is doing, don't even show AMHA. Some of us have no choice, they don't allow amatuers who have trainers in their family to show amatuer at the R shows, so we have no there else to be.
> 
> AMHA is trying to help people like me, who get so nervous measuring with a crowd watching, get their legitimate horses shown.
> 
> ...


I was standing in the measuring area behind Conder's horse during the protest remeasure and I can agree with everything said here. I can tell you there is no way I would want to have been holding the protested horse and this traveled right down the lead to the horse.


----------



## tagalong (Jul 27, 2008)

> No I don't show.. but you would be outraged when your 35" mini is beaten out by someones 36.5 in an AMHA show.... Not saying you have a 35" mini to showbut by the sounds of this this is not to far from what goes on at the shows..


You do not show - and have thus never measured a horse in - and yet seem to know exactly what goes on? Phrases like _by the sounds of it... from what I hear ... someone said... _ often do not lend anything more to a discussion than hearsay, pot-stirring and the endless telephone game...



> It is your butt we are trying to protect along with the others who follow the rules..


Wow - could you _be_ more condescending?

*McBunz* - I think that those who have actually_ been there and done that _are far more qualified to do any necessary butt-saving - especially their own - than someone sitting at their keyboard smugly telling them that they are wrong wrong wrong.

Please take a couple of your horses to some active arena or barn they have never been at before. Have a set of strangers hover over your horses and measure several times while you are anxious and worried. There is no way that horse will be the same measurement everytime. I could do the same thing here - knowing the exact official measurement of the resident senior stallion... and I guarantee that there would be a range up and down that miserable 1/4". If that leeway is only given for protests which have often been used simply to take a swipe at someone - and the horse must measure in at 34" or under to show in that show anyway... then I confess that I am having trouble seeing this as a complete outrage.

Open for discussion and examination, yes. Exaggerations and condescension and AMHA IS BLOWTORCHING PUPPIES -OMG!! threads? Not so much.

JMO. YMMV.


----------



## LisaF. (Jul 27, 2008)

*I am going to be VERY BLUNT - This is where the measurement changes lately are going.*

I have a *well known farm *that tried to sell me a miniature horse *with AMHA/AMHR *papers that measures 37". The person that bought this horse backed out ( I wonder why). It was advertised at a smaller height. I had wanted this horse when I thought it measured smaller. So, when the people bought her and figured out her TRUE HEIGHT they backed out. So, the person contacted me wondering if I was still interested. I told them - YES

When they e-mailed me 37" I thought it was a typo - So, I e-mailed them back - and NO it was not a typo.

It is from a well known farm - it was not advertised on ( that I am aware of) the LB website.

It did sell on a well known on-line auction. - It did NOT sell on LB Last Chance Auction

I will be contacting some people over this.

So, you see??? This is where the measuring issue is going with AMHA in my eye's.

I will not post there names on the forum - but, I will be happy to share. If you send a Private message or e-mail - AFTER - I contact AMHA and The ON-LINE Auction.


----------



## minimomNC (Jul 27, 2008)

I have news for you, there have been 37" mares in breeders pastures alot longer than this "measuring" issues has been debated on LB. Don't try to push that on recent happening. I bet that horse wasn't born in Feb which was when the first "unpopular" vote was made. So how can you even begin to say that this 37" horse is caused by the measuring changes lately?

The measuring change is only for horses that go to the show ring, not your horses staying at home and never having anyone else put a stick on them. And the change is ONLY for PROTESTED horses. Not every horse at the show.


----------



## Charley (Jul 27, 2008)

It appears to be a change not made for the good of the association but for a person or persons who have had this protest made against them and lost the protest.



They were caught and now want a grey area. JMHO


----------



## McBunz (Jul 27, 2008)

tagalong said:


> > No I don't show.. but you would be outraged when your 35" mini is beaten out by someones 36.5 in an AMHA show.... Not saying you have a 35" mini to showbut by the sounds of this this is not to far from what goes on at the shows..
> 
> 
> You do not show - and have thus never measured a horse in - and yet seem to know exactly what goes on? Phrases like _by the sounds of it... from what I hear ... someone said... _ often do not lend anything more to a discussion than hearsay, pot-stirring and the endless telephone game...
> ...


Do you think we just come up with this stuff to tick some of you off... We have talked to a great number of people who signed the original polls to know

exactly what goes on at the shows..and if the problem were this quarter of and inch and remained a quarter of an inch who would really care that

much.. Saying it is *alright* to be a 1/4 inch over is just asking to increase the size of horses trying to pass under the 34 inch limit that are already

over sized.. A great deal of the people who signed these polls do show and are offended when they stand their 33 inch horse next to a horse

that is obviously 3 inches or more taller than theirs outside the show ring.. The only answer to this is to enforce the existing rules.. and nobody

seems to be doing this..


----------



## Viki (Jul 27, 2008)

One more time, this .25" allowance is ONLY for the PROTEST measurement. Has nothing to do with letting larger horses IN AMHA or anything else. It's purely an allowance for stress on the horses and handlers during the PROTEST measurement.

Viki


----------



## Minimor (Jul 27, 2008)

To me this rule isn't saying it is all right for a horse to be 1/4" over...after all, the horse is going to lose all its show awards if it is protested and measures 1/4" over the height limit for its division. The horse is getting to keep it's awards for classes that it fits into, even with it's "extra" 1/4 inch...if the horse is 32 1/4" it will lose its awards for the 32" and under class, but can keep its awards for the 34" and under obstacle or jumping class...as it should since it is still under 34".

I guess my question to you is...what do you call an accurate measurement? The measurement you get when the horse is standing quiet & relaxed, in a non-stress environment, or is it the measurement you get when the horse is tense and up on his toes in a high stress situation, such as a protest measurement? For myself I say the real measurement is the former. I have one mare that measures--with me measuring her at home--at 34". If I take her to a show she will most probably measure smaller than that by a half inch or so (just because I always seem to measure them taller than what the stewards get at the shows) but if she were to get protested I really can't say that I'd be 100% sure that she wouldn't measure a slight bit over the 34"--because yes, I'd be a little tense myself about then and she might just pick up on that. Add to that, my horses aren't generally used to having strangers around--I can walk them up & have them measured normally at a show & they're okay with that, but if it were to be a protest measure with people getting in that much closer they would almost certainly get a little anxious & would probably swell up with tension. Because my mare might measure 1/4" over 34" one time out of 10 or maybe one time out of 15....does that mean that her true size is 34 1/4"??? I really don't think so.

Let me say that I am totally opposed to having some of the overly tall horses being shown. I think it's appalling that there are so many people cheating by measuring horses into classes that have height limits 1 or 2 inches lower than the horse's true size. If a horse measures even 1/2" over the height limit then I don't believe he should be allowed to show in that division. BUT, if a horse measures into a division--I mean HONESTLY measures into the division, with no stretching, pushing down on his back, standing him spraddle legged, drugging him...--and then on a protest measurement that horse measures 1/4" over the height limit, I don't believe that horse should lose his papers when that protest measurement puts him at 34 1/4". Chances are when you take that horse back to the barn & he relaxes he is going to measure in again at 34" or less. In my books that makes him a 34" horse.


----------



## pinck43 (Jul 27, 2008)

If someone is showing a 35" horse and is getting beaten by a 36" horse, who's fault is that?(They shouldn't be in a 34" in class to begin with). It's the exhibitor's responsiblity for knowing the heighths of their horses and the stewart is responsible for correctly measuring. Like I said before, maybe someone needs to hold the stewarts responsible for their measurements. I have seem alot of tall horses in classes they shouldn't be in. I also have seen people get their horses measured before certain shows that have strict stewarts so they don't get measured over. This issue is a hard one to solve because of the technique of measuring. Be patient. dionne


----------



## Cathy_H (Jul 27, 2008)

> Go to the World and get protested by someone............ and get called for a protest, if you do, you won't complain about AMHA giving 1/4 of a lousy inch to ease the tension that gets your horse too big!!!!! ........................ Just humor all of us who have been on the spot, and if you have never had to sweat your way thru a protest measure, don't push to change things, AMHA is doing all they can to support the members who are out there showing, let them help.


OK would the best solution to this then have MORE assigned people witness the FIRST measuring in at the show. As in let two people measure the horse & two more assigned people witness the measuring. If the two people measuring do not get the same height split the difference or let the third assigned person measure then split the difference...................... Yes it will cost more money to have more people at the original measuring but having two people measure would get a MORE accurate height than one person thus cutting down on the number of protested horses thus saving time & money........ I feel that IF the exhibitors know this process is in place & FOLLOWED through with then they will TRUST the measuring process more & go with the determined height................... From all that I have read it IS BEST to determine the horses true height at the FIRST measuring so that is where the changes in the process should be made....(for the record we have shown AMHA from 1986 until about 2002)........... This suggestion is mainly for the regionals, world show etc. Those people getting innacurate measurements at local shows will have to eventually come clean if they go to the BIG shows. Perhaps the local shows could have a minimum of two people measuring???


----------



## minimomNC (Jul 27, 2008)

IMO the best solution is make everyone stand their horses up properly the first time around. Don't mash down on a horse to get a smaller height and get someone with a backbone and morals to stand up to the measurments they take. Its time to stop letting the person holding the horse manipulate the stick. If they are measured correctly the first time, then there is no need for a protest.

I just saw a horse show that looked big to me for its class. But since I had never seen the horse, I wasn't sure how tall it really was. Another spectator (had no horses there either) told me she watched this horse measured and that the person holding the horse AND the person measuring were pushing down on the stick to get a certain height. So when I got home, I called a friend that knew this horse, who was not at this show, didn't know this horse was even showing much less what class and asked them how tall the horse was. I was told a height of almost 2 inches taller than the class it was shown in. This is happening every where, in every registry. Its not AMHA only nor is it AMHR only, its both. It doesn't matter what changes are made to what rules, unless the person at the show holding the stick is going to measure honest, then nothing anyone else does matters.

For those of you that think we want changes to measuring so we can get tall horses in, thats not even close to true. Most of us on the board don't have the clout to get our horses measured smaller than they truly are, we sweat out measuring because we know we have to do it by the rules. I measure at home almost on a daily basis coming up to a show, I need to know that there is no room for doubt, and if I have a horse that is close, you can bet I am going to be sweating it out when that person at the show is putting a stick on my horse. And unless my horse is protested, that 1/4" won't help me a bit.


----------



## LisaF. (Jul 27, 2008)

minimom - then I guess I am just too honest. Because I can't even imagine trying to sell a horse that measures 37" with it's AMHA papers.

I think CathyH has a great idea and maybe even add a camera at the first measuring.

I think if we start allowing 34.1/4" and I don't care if it is ONLY for a horse that has been protested. What will we be doing next year allowing 34 1/2" for protest?

How many people do you really think will not keep their horses AMHA papers thinking - well if it is OK at a show to measure OVER 34" why turn my papers in because MY horse only measures a little over 34"?

*I see this as a meltdown of the "AMHA standard of perfection"*

I still don't understand why the rules cannot be followed...wouldn't that make things so much easier?

Here is another question I would like to see answered - How many years has AMHA shows been going on? Why now within the last year is AMHA trying so hard to let the larger horses in? Trying to change where we measure our horses? I have not seen an answer to that anywhere and I would love too.

The ' AMHA Standard of Perfection" was good enough for years - where did all of this change start ? and why?


----------



## Minimor (Jul 27, 2008)

> How many people do you really think will not keep their horses AMHA papers thinking - well if it is OK at a show to measure OVER 34" why turn my papers in because MY horse only measures a little over 34"?


As I see it this 1/4" protest rule will make absolutely no difference at all. Do you know how many people already keep their AMHA papers on horses that are a little over? They've been doing it long before this 1/4" rule came in and they'd be doing it tomorrow and next year even if the 1/4" rule wasn't implemented.
You should focus your energy on getting horses measured properly the first time around. If people had faith in the measuring system as it now stands there wouldn't be much for protesting because people would trust that the horses were all measured accurately prior to going into the ring. Minimom got it exactly right in her last post.

Mary Lou, I'd point out that any horse that measures 34.25 in a protest will surely lose all awards from that show, because every class has a top limit of 34". A 32 1/4" horse gets to keep any awards won in the 34" & under class, but a horse that measures 34.25 loses all awards...it just gets to keep its registration papers.


----------



## Genie (Jul 27, 2008)

If to be a true AMHA registered horse it must measure no more than 34 inches, then "so be it".

Playing around with one of the foundations on which the AMHA is set is not acceptable, in my opinion.

I have turned in AMHA papers on one of my horses who has gone over and may yet have to, on another.

I did not like having to do so but the horse was "over" , and in my opinion "that is that."

If my horse is measured and is over the prescribed measurement for the class then the horse does not belong in the class.

If people who wish to show at shows which require their horse to be a certain height, then be prepared to be excluded from the show if your horse "grows" while being measured, for whatever reason.

People who wish to show should be prepared to follow the rules and if for some reason their horse is disqualified they should be capable of understanding that "rules are rules".

People who show their horses at the highest levels would be the first people that I would have expected to protest the fact that horses will be given "leeway" when so much is at stake for those people who want an honest judging of their animal in every aspect of the class.


----------



## Cathy_H (Jul 27, 2008)

> IMO the best solution is make everyone stand their horses up properly the first time around. Don't mash down on a horse to get a smaller height and get someone with a backbone and morals to stand up to the measurments they take. Its time to stop letting the person holding the horse manipulate the stick. If they are measured correctly the first time, then there is no need for a protest.


........... I took this for granted when I made my above suggestion - that the four assigned people witnessing the measuring WOULD see that this is not done AND the horse is posed as required.



> If they are measured correctly the first time, then there is no need for a protest.


That is what I stated above - Measure right the FIRST time & there will be fewer protests......... If the rules are followed & done correctly the first time & the exhibitors feel there is NO favortism toward certain exhibitors, in time they may trust that the AMHA officials ARE trustworthy in this matter and go with their decision................................... Given the history of several events that have caused members to distrust AMHA, they have to earn this trust again and it can start with this measuring fiasco!................................

Below is my statement posted above

...........



> OK would the best solution to this then have MORE assigned people witness the FIRST measuring in at the show. As in let two people measure the horse & two more assigned people witness the measuring. If the two people measuring do not get the same height split the difference or let the third assigned person measure then split the difference...................... Yes it will cost more money to have more people at the original measuring but having two people measure would get a MORE accurate height than one person thus cutting down on the number of protested horses thus saving time & money........ I feel that IF the exhibitors know this process is in place & FOLLOWED through with then they will TRUST the measuring process more & go with the determined height................... From all that I have read it IS BEST to determine the horses true height at the FIRST measuring so that is where the changes in the process should be made....(for the record we have shown AMHA from 1986 until about 2002)........... This suggestion is mainly for the regionals, world show etc. Those people getting innacurate measurements at local shows will have to eventually come clean if they go to the BIG shows. Perhaps the local shows could have a minimum of two people measuring???


----------



## tagalong (Jul 27, 2008)

> Here is another question I would like to see answered - How many years has AMHA shows been going on? Why now within the last year is AMHA trying so hard to let the larger horses in? Trying to change where we measure our horses? I have not seen an answer to that anywhere and I would love too.


I do not see AMHA "trying so hard" (as you maintain) to get the larger horses in. This thread was about allowing a meager 1/4" in the stressful protest situation that many have complained about over the years - so no, this is not just a new thing pulled out of the hat as some would have you believe. Prior to that the horse _should _have been measured in to fit that standard you declare is melting down. Have one hovering over 34"? As one exhibitor told me last year at an AMHR show - she showed her horse R Under because she knew he would measure in there as opposed to A. Go figure.

As many of us have explained - the ruling posted above notes that that 1/4" extra will cost a horse all awards etc. for a designated height division if the protest is valid. And as there is no 1/4" allowance designated for the initial measuring - there is no sneaky attempt here to "let larger horses in".

*Lisa* - we *do* need to change where we measure our horses. Both registries need to measure from the top of the withers as is done in all other breeds. Will that happen? Not likely - but IMO that is a far more important issue to focus on than this 1/4" protest thing.

Try the experiment that I suggested to *McBunz* - measuring your horses in a strange location with strangers hovering over them - and see what you get. You'll be lucky if there is* only *a 1/4" variation in all the measurements taken.



> You should focus your energy on getting horses measured properly the first time around. If people had faith in the measuring system as it now stands there wouldn't be much for protesting because people would trust that the horses were all measured accurately prior to going into the ring. Minimom got it exactly right in her last post.


Exactly right. If everyone had faith in the initial measuring in, then protests wold be few and far between - and none of this 1/4" stress allowance would be an issue. And trainers known for their ability to magically get horses in at 34" (or whatever height is necessary) that were anything _but_ would be forced to toe the line - _in both registries. _



> Do you think we just come up with this stuff to tick some of you off... We have talked to a great number of people who signed the original polls to knowexactly what goes on at the shows..and if the problem were this quarter of and inch and remained a quarter of an inch who would really care that
> 
> much


Oh - I have no doubt that some would care about that 1/4" _very _much.

*McBunz* - the way some of these threads go - the sneering and the condescension that goes on - I wonder sometimes if it is all about the rules being enforced... or for a few, a bit of pot-stirring for fun as well...



> .. Saying it is alright to be a 1/4 inch over is just asking to increase the size of horses trying to pass under the 34 inch limit that are alreadyover sized..


No one said it was "alright" to be 1/4" over... there is just a discussion about the stress of the protest scenario that I wonder if you have ever seen or been involved in. _*shrug*_



> A great deal of the people who signed these polls do show and are offended when they stand their 33 inch horse next to a horsethat is obviously 3 inches or more taller than theirs outside the show ring.. The only answer to this is to enforce the existing rules.. and nobody
> 
> seems to be doing this..


Well, the vast majority of us want to have the rules enforced - contrary to what you seem to imply. And the measuring practices in both registries need to be addressed. For those who are pointing fingers and do not show - and thus rarely have cause to measure the horses getting fat and sassy out in the pasture - how tall are they? Have you checked lately? You might be in for a surprise... and your measurements might vary with those taken by someone else on the same horse.

It bothered me to see an AMHA horse that left here as it went over 34" (and not by a mere 1/4" either) showing and doing well in the over 32 to 34 class.... and to hear that he was "an honest 34" " from the trainer who is not known to be the "squeeze 'em under" type...






I guess when 36" AMHR Over horses can be seen in AMHR Under classes at times... that must be fine as AMHA had nothing to do with it - right? You see - too narrow of a focus does not help solve _anything. *All* measurement issues need to be addressed. _

But such are the joys of being involved in a height breed. Unless we can come up with some hi-tech laser measuring device, measuring will always be more of an art than a science - as someone wise noted upthread.

Anyway - discussions like this are a healthy and vital part of the process... with all opinions/thoughts/concerns being aired and considered...





[SIZE=8pt]_edited for typos due to poor typing skills_[/SIZE]


----------



## LisaF. (Jul 28, 2008)

Tagalong - My horses are not trained to be in a crowd. I would think trained horses that go to all these shows would be so used to the crowds and the strangers that measure them it would not bother them to be measured.

We do not need to change where we measure our miniature horses. This is another part of what AMHA was founded on.

Do you know what I see and this is what is sad?

People like Genie and Mary Lou and I am sure others ( I am thankful I have not had to do it, but I would if I needed to) have turned in their AMHA papers on horses that went over.

I see HONEST people paying for the dishonestly of others.

Can someone explain to me if this 1/4" went by the rules in getting passed?...I may be mistaken, but I don't think it was.

Why is it so hard to follow the rules? Call me think headed, but I honestly don't get it.

Rules are made for a reason - and they are not to be broken. That is my oppinion!

For the ones that think all of this is ok - PLease explain WHY it is ok to break rules?


----------



## tagalong (Jul 28, 2008)

> Tagalong - My horses are not trained to be in a crowd. I would think trained horses that go to all these shows would be so used to the crowds and the strangers that measure them it would not bother them to be measured.


Well. you might be surprized then



... I have seen very experienced show horses get frazzled when the humans around them were tense and/or frazzled themselves. Even a placid horse can get all WOOHOO!! and EEEEHAAAAW! in the exciting and charged atmosphere of a show. We all know that excitement/tension/fear can travel down the reins or lead shank to a horse - and some of them can - and will - react to that. They're horses - not robots.







> We do not need to change where we measure our miniature horses. This is another part of what AMHA was founded on.


Many find measuring at the last hair of the mane to be inaccurate and open to debate. All other breeds measure from the top of the withers.... who knows, in time both AMHA and AMHR may go that route. It would make more sense in the long run - IMO.



> People like Genie and Mary Lou and I am sure others ( I am thankful I have not had to do it, but I would if I needed to) have turned in their AMHA papers on horses that went over.


Many have done so - including farms I have worked for/on - and it is so noted in the studbook. It is not just a select few that do so.



> For the ones that think all of this is ok - PLease explain WHY it is ok to break rules?


*Lisa* - I think many of us have outlined our thoughts about this already in this thread. I will not bore anyone with repeating myself again. But the 34" rule/standard would still hold true as I understood it. And that 1/4" leeway for the protest measurements seems worthy of examination/discussion to me - with the fallout of losing prizes, placings and ribbons attached if said horse does not measure in even with that allowance. But everything is open to discussion and can be rescinded - as we know.


----------



## Irish Hills Farm (Jul 28, 2008)

Tagalong,

At this point, you're just wasting your breath. You are NOT telling them what they want to hear, they will never understand what you are saying because they simply don't want to. Your effort to spell it out simply and clearly...is a total waste of time at this point. They have never been in the situation this allowance is setup for, probably never will, why bother?


----------



## Genie (Jul 28, 2008)

Most of us have strong opinions on both sides of this issue and I guess you all know that I am on the "34 inches is 34 inches" side of it.

I know we are beating this to death and agree that we are all wasting our breath. I just wish I could stop coming back and reading this thread.

I have strong feelings about my integrity and have been involved in many sporting activities over more than 60 years where I followed the rules and expected all involved to do the same.

If the activity is "a fun thing" and I consider local fairs more of a "fun thing" then I would not be bent out of shape with the people who need to win so badly, trying to "squeeze a horse in" to an "A" show.

I also do understand what the people who are for the 1/4 inch are saying when their horse can be over just because of a bit of hoof or tense or nervous, but that's the price you pay for being so close to 34 inches with your horse, when you are trying to exhibit them at the highest levels..

I asked my husband "hypothetically" "what do you think about showing your horse in a 34 and under class and having the show stewards allow 1/4 inch leeway to horses being measured?"

He said "it's not right" ..............."in boxing for instance, the weight class guideline is strictly followed and if your weight exceeds the guideline..too bad".

In all competition there are guidelines and for the boxer who weighed over by an ounce, he should have left the last cheezie in the bag.

In AMHA showing the height may not be able to be measured as accurately as the weight in boxing, however until there is an accurate way to do so, we should be required to be guided by the person entrusted with the measuring duties.

Is the AMHA wishing to be a professional organization, or is it not?


----------



## Charley (Jul 28, 2008)

> Most of us have strong opinions on both sides of this issue and I guess you all know that I am on the "34 inches is 34 inches" side of it.
> I know we are beating this to death and agree that we are all wasting our breath. I just wish I could stop coming back and reading this thread.
> 
> I have strong feelings about my integrity and have been involved in many sporting activities over more than 60 years where I followed the rules and expected all involved to do the same.
> ...


Excellent post!!!


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 28, 2008)

At first I was totally against it. But now after reading some comments and setteling down and actually reading it, its not that bad of a rule. They aren't changing the standard, your horse still must measure 34" to beable to show, everything is ok. As long as we follow the rules of measuring.

Measuring in horses can be a tense time. The steward is rushing, a steward your horse doesnt even know and has a huge measuring stick in their hands, other people and other horses waiting in line, and I know some people think that these show horses should be well behaved and just stand there but honestly Im sure your horses that stay at home can do a better job. Some of these horses are just plain psycos.

I think AMHA has done a good thing, not sure if they went thru it correctly, or atleast get the people to vote in on it. But as long as the rules are followed, and its no more then a 1/4" I am not against this rule. They are still keeping to the standard, your horse still must measure in 34" or under.


----------



## HGFarm (Jul 28, 2008)

Utterly ridiculous and here we go again....


----------



## loveminis (Jul 28, 2008)

I agree with what Mary Lou said.


----------



## Mona (Jul 28, 2008)

Mary Lou - LB said:


> JMS.. I also do not see it as bad with the 1/4 inch grace BUT I do have a problem with 1/4 inch over 34" as Tom O'Connell also pointed out... Perhaps ALL of us have a different take on this NEW POLICY.. I read it as "horses 34" has this 1/4" grace also".. WHICH is against the Standard of AMHA in the rulebook for registering and showing and Standard Of Perfection.. They have to change EVERYTHING in the Rulebook making an exception "AMHA horses can measure 34 1/4" when protested at shows".



My sentiments EXACTLY Mary Lou!!!!


----------



## maestoso (Jul 28, 2008)

If the horse measures 34" during measuring, then gets protested, and when measured during the protest measures at 34 and 1/4"... how is this any different then a horse who measures 32 and 1/4 during a protest???? The point is that a horse can be tense during the situation and therefor creating a margin of error during measuring. It makes no difference weather theyb are trying to get into the 30-32 or the 32-34.

If a horse initially measures 34 and 1/4" they can't show. It is ONLY during a protest.

It makes NO sense to allow it in every division except the top, because you are basically saying that a 32" horse could measure slightly over in a protest and that is OK, let them show in that division, but if a 34" horse measures over, then it has nothing to do with the stress, it is just too tall. That makes NO sense at all!

Has anyone actually looked at how much 1/4 of an inch is lately?


----------



## McBunz (Jul 28, 2008)

Posted by the C.A.R.E Group

Just a note concerning the directors vote to allow a 1/4 inch protest measurement for all height divisions at the shows. Refer back to the bylaw Article V, Section 3 (A) which states, "The Board of Directors shall have the power and authority to make, amend, repeal, and enforce such rules and regulations, NOT CONTRARY TO LAW, THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR THESE BYLAWS" There are several bylaws that state that the AMHA Miniature Horse must measure 34 inches and under at the base of the last hairs of the mane to meet the requirements to be registered with the Association. The 1/4 inch protest measurement is in conflict with all these bylaws.

This is another reason for the concern the CARE group has for the directors not enforcing the rules.


----------



## Sun Runner Stables (Jul 28, 2008)

McBunz-

Goodness- I don't know if you managed to not check your bonnet before you put it on with that bee in it- But from some one who doesn't show, has just a few horses, and from what I can see has never cared about this reg (AMHA) asides to sell your horses- You are sure a little rabble rouser on here by what I can find and search up on all your past postings. It's not very appealing to say the least.

I can see the point that Mary Lou and Mona are making very easily, and had it not been outlined the way it has, I would be upset as well!

However, I most respectfully disagree. And I do mean respectfully, I really admire and respect Both of these women a great deal-

The rule is not stating that 34 1/4 is Okay at all times, just under *duress* in a protest.

As I said before, I have been in that room, and while not ever in the hot seat, I would be glad to spot that 1/4 in to a True 34 inch horse who's cold and blown up from the tension.

With all the Huge freaking horses being shown, I'd Love to see a simple 1/4 over all the time as the norm. Have any of you as yet measured your Own animals, or seen what a 1/4 inch Really looks like?

I totally agree that measuring needs to change, I was even okay with bottom of the wither, as you could Feel that notch, (Least I could) I would be fine with Top of the wither, (and making some sort of grandfather agreement with the new now 'Over' stock.) - But I have big horses, and that's the norm to me.

Also, my total life does not relay on my minis money wise.

They are a very enjoyable sport for me, and honestly relaxing after our Big horse politics. (I train/show pony hunters- it doesn't get much more annoying or who's who, and we Still do well, despite being no-bodys-




)

This is a Small pond of people folks, and eventually we'll figure out that we have to get along or lose out. I firmly believe that this is a reg of good people who love these horses and love to show them off as well. (I enjoy Both reg's btw, just have more A horses then R's, so that's what I show.) I may come off a bit odd, but it's only as I tend to not get So hot and bothered by the issues, but rather by the way people react and behave-

Respectfully and with much humor and humility-

Whitney


----------



## McBunz (Jul 28, 2008)

If you read all of my posts you would know that I am not a rabble rouser.. I don't even post that much for the length of time I have been a member..

I come here to learn just like the majority do.. I do stand up and bark when need be.. If you want to be a sheep and follow blindly, that is your right.

You really should order a rule book... *they are free.. * By the way I do have more than a few...


----------



## R3 (Jul 28, 2008)

I am on the fence about whether it is appropriate to allow the 1/4" leeway for the different height divisions. I can see both sides of that issue.

*But, I am adamently opposed to allowing a horse to be 34 1/4" tall, even for a height protest.*

There is a difference between a horse that measures out of its 30-32" grouping, by being 32 1/4" and a horse that EXCEEDS THE BREED STANDARD at 34 1/4".

To me, the 34" standard is 'sacred', it can not be allowed to be changed, even for a protest measurement. I do not believe the Directors had the authority to allow a horse to 'officially' measure over 34 inches without penalty. The powers of the Board's powers are limited:

Section 3, Powers of the Board of Directors

(A) Enumeration

The Board of Directors shall have the power and authority

to make, amend, repeal, and enforce such rules and

regulations, not contrary to law, the Articles of

Incorporation or these Bylaws, ...

The 34" maximum is firmly in our rule book, from one end to the other. Here are examples:

*FORWARD*:

As defined by AMHA, any horse that exceeds thirty-four (34)

inches in height is NOT a Miniature Horse and is not eligible

for registration.

*ARTICLE XI - REGISTRY AND STUD BOOK*

*Section 2, Closed Registry*

… with the exception that any Miniature Horse (over sixty (60) months

of age) which is thirty-four (34) inches or less in height with

one or more unknown or unregistered parents shall be permanently

registered upon payment of a non-refundable inspection

fee

*Section 4, Permanent Registration*

Permanent certificates of registration shall be issued to qualified

Miniature Horses who have attained the actual age of five

(5) years, and measures thirty-four (34) inches or less in

height,

*Section 6, Breed Name and Size*

Horses registered by The American Miniature Horse

Association, Inc., shall be a breed of horses known as the

American Miniature Horse. The American Miniature Horse

shall not exceed thirty-four (34) inches in height when measured

according to Article XI, Sec. 4 of these Bylaws. The registration

of any horse exceeding thirty-four (34) inches shall be

void and such horse shall not be considered or designated as

an American Miniature Horse.

*184 REGISTRATION PROCEDURE*

184E Term of Temporary Registration

Temporary certificates shall contain the following phrase

on the front of the certificate:

This certificate is valid until five (5) years of age (sixty

months) unless horse exceeds thirty-four (34) inches in

height.

*184F Reinstatement*

Revoked registration papers may be reinstated, provided

the horse is thirty-four (34) inches or less in height

*184G Foals of Temporary Registered Parents*

4. If the height of the temporary registered sire or dam

exceeds thirty-four (34) inches no further foals from

such parentage will be eligible for registration.

*184H Foals of Permanent Registered Parents*

If the height of the permanent registered sire or dam

exceeds thirty-four (34) inches the registration will

be VOID with AMHA and no further foals from such

parentage will be eligible for registration.

*GR-020 HEIGHT VERIFICATION*

A. No Miniature Horse shall exceed 34 inches in

height.

Weanlings must not exceed 30 inches.

Yearlings must not exceed 32 inches.

Two-year-olds must not exceed 33 inches.

*CL-005 SHOW DISQUALIFICATIONS*

C. Height

1. No horse shall exceed 34 inches in height.

2. Weanlings must not exceed 30 inches in height.

3. Yearlings must not exceed 32 inches in height.

4. Two-year-olds must not exceed 33 inches in height.

And, even on the registration papers themselves: (best I could read from the file on the AMHA website, I don’t have any papers here to look at.)

*If at any time it is determined that the horse has exceeded 34 in height, this certificate will be voided…*

I don't know how much clearer it needs to be. The maximum height is part of the Articles of Incorporation. The Directors can not change the maximum height, even during a protest measurement, to where the horse is allowed to exceed 34 inches. I was at the June meeting, and this fact was brought up before the Board, but many of the Directors chose to vote to allow this anyway.

I do not know if the issue has been brought up to the AMHA Legal Counsel to get a ruling, but I think it should be.


----------



## Sun Runner Stables (Jul 28, 2008)

Nope not a sheep here-I'd be awfully hot here in FL, but I am one that does more then armchair horse showing. 

(Pardon, that was a bit much- but sheep and experience are different critters and it worked to get a rise out of me- *sigh*

In fact sheep are a Pain! Whom ever started that, yeah, fail, the silly are pretty single minded the times I was trying to lead/herd them.)

I have a rule book, thank you kindly- however if you are feeling so generous and have such a collection- I wouldn't mind another- Heck I figure if it'll make me understand them so much better I should get a whole herd of them! *Sorry sorry- sigh-Again* I am by nature a sarcastic person, but this is just silly-

To imply that my understanding of said rules is lessened as I don't have copies sitting at my feet- ? I may have misunderstood, if so, my apologies.

I have read the rules- I still stand by what I said, happily and with out any grumpiness. Truly.

Until you have Been there and Done it, I strongly feel that it's a pretty moot point. This was done to Protect the people who are out there setting the highest standards and reaching for the highest star. The problem lies in the way we measure Period. Not in the lee way given to Honest horses who have been Unfairly protested. If the horse in a protest measures over 34 1/4- they are Out. Period. That's fair to me. I hope that'll stop the 35 inch game, really really. But do I think it will? Not totally until they change the way we measure our animals.

But taking a honest 34 inch horse and kicking them for getting tensed under re-measurement is a nasty game, and one I'd have all sympathy for those involved.

Now that I have soundly proved I need a break and a snack-

Whitney

*Whew after all that just saw R3's- Now That is a beautifully written and well stated opinion. Thank you for a well said post that states everything so nicely- Laid out like that makes it understandable for those who are fine with the 1/4 rule. *


----------



## McBunz (Jul 28, 2008)

It was more than a few horses, not more than a few rule books.. I do have AMHR horses as well. If AMHR was changing their standard I am sure

we would be fighting just as hard. This is not and never was bashing the AMHA . I is all about following rules..

I did show dogs probably longer than you have lived.. I do understand animals get nervous..


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Jul 29, 2008)

I have watched this thread with interest.....

Ignoring to total idiocy of the base of the withers the last hair of the mane etc etc, for the moment, this is what I do not understand...

WHY is it considered that the horse will be more nervous/tense etc at the protest than at the initial measuring??(please do not try to flim flam with all the "people in your face" bit etc as this is obviously just something that should not be happening- tell them to get out of your face, stand back where they should be etc-)

It is not as if all this were not laid out in the rule book...both the measuring and the protest measuring are governed by rules already in place.

There is NO need to allow quarter of an inch, just enforce the rules that are already there, for goodness sake!!

Get a grip people, it is not the quarter of an inch, it is the PRINCIPLE of the thing.

No-one is being a "rabble rouser"..why does everyone have to resort to personal attacks when they do not like the way things are going??

It is the right of EVERY member to question EVERY action of the BOD (Yes I have been on Committees and BODs I KNOW what goes on, believe me!!) it is STILL the members right to question and to have everything explained, over and over until they understand.

Basically, this ruling breaks every _principle_ of the AMHA (I should insert "yet again" here, but I shall be accused of...well, something, I am sure!!) and it should be removed immediately, and then openly discussed, not just "slid in".

It is far too important an issue for that.


----------



## Charley (Jul 29, 2008)

> Get a grip people, it is not the quarter of an inch, it is the PRINCIPLE of the thing.No-one is being a "rabble rouser"..why does everyone have to resort to personal attacks when they do not like the way things are going??
> 
> It is the right of EVERY member to question EVERY action of the BOD (Yes I have been on Committees and BODs I KNOW what goes on, believe me!!) it is STILL the members right to question and to have everything explained, over and over until they understand.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 29, 2008)

Mary Lou - LB said:


> JMS.. I also do not see it as bad with the 1/4 inch grace BUT I do have a problem with 1/4 inch over 34" as Tom O'Connell also pointed out... Perhaps ALL of us have a different take on this NEW POLICY.. I read it as "horses 34" has this 1/4" grace also".. WHICH is against the Standard of AMHA in the rulebook for registering and showing and Standard Of Perfection.. They have to change EVERYTHING in the Rulebook making an exception "AMHA horses can measure 34 1/4" when protested at shows".


I do agree with you Mary Lou the over 34" thing is what bothers me about this rule change. However if you give the 1/4" to everyone else thats not good either. Like I said eariler and I still feel like AMHA just put a band-aid over this measuring issue. I have a feeling its not going to be pernament.


----------



## tagalong (Jul 29, 2008)

McBunz said:


> It was more than a few horses, not more than a few rule books.. I do have AMHR horses as well. *If AMHR was changing their standard I am sure*we would be fighting just as hard. This is not and never was bashing the AMHA . I is all about following rules..
> 
> I did show dogs probably longer than you have lived.. I do understand animals get nervous..


Bolding mine. *McBunz *- I wish I could be sure about that - but I am not - just based on the way such threads have run their course. Any kind of measuring indiscrepancies are messing with the standard. And if you are going to tell all of us that every AMHR horse measures true every single time and all is perfect and there are never any controversies or grievances there.... well, you can't. I am also sure that if you poured over the AMHR rules and procedures with the same microscopic intensity that you devote to AMHA that you would find instances where the board made a decision without consulting every single member - or some procedures were short cut for some reason.

Now - when anyone has pondered that^^^ in the past in these threads and raised those concerns.... they have haughtily and arrogantly been dismissed with a comment like -_ oh yes, pointing fingers at the other registry to deflect attention from the wrongdoings of this one.... _which is rubbish. And shows complete disdain for the opinions of others, as well. There was/is no "deflection" involved. Some of us just see the Big Picture and wish to address that as well. Both registries are intertwined enough with all the double registered horses (like all horses here) that all the measuring issues should be addressed - as how best to uphold that standard we are so concerned about.

Comments like this - in response to the concerns that have been expressed about the way some of you have gone about addressing valid issues - but in a sensational, dramatic way....



> If you want to be a sheep and follow blindly, that is your right.


...are simply rude and dismissive. So unless we agree with every word you say in the exact way you say it, we are sheep.

Unless we do not ask you questions or seek clarification of the procedures involved, we are sheep.

When we ask for links to back up figures you toss around - like only 5% of all AMHA members show - we are sheep.

Sheep... would not say _anything._



> WHY is it considered that the horse will be more nervous/tense etc at the protest than at the initial measuring??(


They can be tense at the initial measuring as well... but* rabbitfizz* - if you think the tension does not go up at a protest measuring for both horses and people - and can not appreciate that some horses react strongly to that - even experienced show horses... then it is obvious that you have never seen one. I can understand the reasoniing for the 1/4" leeway... but I am also wondering how it is to be dealt with at the 34" height. 1/4" is nothing... and yet it means a lot when the 34" level is pushed.

I once started a thread to express my concerns about how inadequate AMHR registration was a while back. And it was not titled OMG!! WHAT THE H*LL IS AMHR DOING!! OUTRAGEOUS!! OMG!! Nor did I yell in any way.

Itty-bitty markings diagrams that you needed a magnifying glass to be exact on... no photos, nothing. And all this when AMHA was doing DNA and photos... which in my mind was/is the way to go - for_ every _breed registry. Some were furious with me for suggesting that photos or DNA were needed. That anything could possibly be wrong with AMHR in any way. And that nothing should change. EVER.

Well, time has passed - and we have photos required for registration now. And DNA soon to follow. That is one of the best ways to uphold any standard... _document it._ In detail.

Change is good. Now, we just need to invent a hi-tech measuring device that takes all the human error/input out of the process...


----------



## McBunz (Jul 29, 2008)

Tagalong...

"...are simply rude and dismissive. So unless we agree with every word you say in the exact way you say it, we are sheep.

Unless we do not ask you questions or seek clarification of the procedures involved, we are sheep.

When we ask for links to back up figures you toss around - like only 5% of all AMHA members show - we are sheep.

Sheep... would not say anything."

You know as well as I do that the 5% comment was a a guesstimate.to make a point... and probably on the generous side.

When the AMHR break obvious rules they will get the same treatment from me as the AMHA. Like changing

the standard it was founded on.. And I was not the one that started the rude thing.. if you can not take what

you hand out that is to darn bad.. I do not expect people to agree with everything I say... I have more respect

for people than that.. Do You.. and yes the sheep comment was meant for you... If you can not see that serious mistakes

were made and just want to let them ride... yes a sheep...


----------



## tagalong (Jul 29, 2008)

> You know as well as I do that the 5% comment was a a guesstimate.to make a point... and probably on the generous side.


You do not know that 5% is on the generous side at all - _and yet you more or less presented it as fact._ So yes - I asked for a link to verify. No link, no fact. You would expect such _ facts_ from AMHA - and rightly so. Yet as part of your argument - you can simply pull things out of thin air? How does that work?



> if you can not take whatyou hand out that is to darn bad.. I do not expect people to agree with everything I say... I have more respect
> 
> for people than that.. Do You.. and yes the sheep comment was meant for you...


Oh - I can take what I hand out, as you say. This board is very tame compared to what goes on elsewhere. But I have not sneered at others and called them sheep. I have not accused them of saying things they have not said - or suggested they were ignorant, stupid or lying - which has been the case in these threads when some of us have asked questions or sought clarification.

I have respect for well-thought out arguments and discussions - as many have posted here. I share all those concerns.

But as others have also noted, it is not the subject of the argument or discussions but the way some of you have gone about it at times that concerns us.



> If you can not see that serious mistakeswere made and just want to let them ride... yes a sheep...


And if you can say that - then you have demonstrated that you only read the posts you want to read and only hear what you want to hear - as nowhere have I ever said - not in all the years I have been on this board or its previous incarnations - that such mistakes should be ignored or let go... I have not even said that in these threads. Not once.

Stick to facts... and your actions will have more meaning. JMO. YMMV.


----------



## faithfarm (Jul 29, 2008)

Before this thing gets way out of hand, let's go back to the initial rule change. It gives a 1/4" allowance for a protested horse. The major concern seems to be that the horse measures 34 1/4" at the protest and should be tossed out. But, you should remember that the horse has already been measured and found to be 34" or less. Again, I have no problem spotting a horse 1/4" for the purpose of a protest. It's not the horses that are 1/4" too tall for a class that cause concerns, it's the horses that are 1"-2" above the height requirement for the class. This only addresses show horses being measured at a protest, it is not changing the standard as some profess.

If we have a problem with those who measure for the shows, that is another issue and definitely should be addressed. I would go for a fine of the measurer if a horse is protested and found to be over. Although, I would allow a !/4" difference in measurements. We all know that measurements are not an exact science.


----------



## Margo_C-T (Jul 29, 2008)

I have taken all this time to 'breathe deeply' before commenting on this thread.

I am a member of the C.A.R.E. group; letters sent included my name. I can assure you that I would NOT be involved if this were a group of overreacting hotheads, as some of you who KEEP hammering away in your multiple posts on this thread would love to suggest. This is a group of genuinely concerned AMHA members who stepped up to the plate to TRY to not only point out LEGITIMATE concerns, but to make an honest effort,via specified procedures, to convince an organization(in this case, AMHA)to adhere to its OWN standards. If mistakes in approach have been made(though I really haven't seen any, and I am more critical than most)-- they were honest mistakes--yet some of you are delighting in using NASTINESS, RUDE sarcasm, patronizing attitudes, and inflammatory 'buzzwords' of invalid comparison in your determination to belittle this honest effort.

A couple of you are very young, and hopefully,your ill-natured words are mostly a lack of the judgement that 'should come' of greater maturity; one of you, presumably older, seems determined to convince us all that YOU are THE 'voice of reason',yet you use inflammatory comparisons that should be beneath your dignity--and you seem absolutely DETERMINED to 'have the last word'-to what end? It is my hope and belief that the response of thoughtful readers here will be recognition that in the main, your posts really do NOT offer much of anything constructive on this subject.

These discussions are NOT some sort of 'contest', where those who show are somehow considered to be 'more important' or have 'more valid opinions, as members, than those who don't! I have been on BOTH sides of the bar as far as showing goes--I have shown horses since the mid-70s in breed rings--and was a competitor in other horse venues much before that... and now, I seldom if ever will again breed show...does that make my thoughts invalid? (If you think so, then scroll on past...because here they are!)

I have competed in 6 AMHA National shows(about as often as I cared to go)--successfully. Beginning in 1991, I witnessed first-hand an 'evolution' of measurment there(as well as at local shows)--from very precise, at least for us 'nobodies'(rumor had it, even back then, that a 'favored few' may have gotten a BIT of a 'break'--but I never saw anything I was SURE was as 'big'as any number I've seen since! Then it became a fairly blatant 'break' for the 'big names'; then it went on to 'about everyone but the clear newbies/naive/nobodies' got a 'break'.....and the 'break' seems to have gotten more extreme over several years. You know, as a observer at the measuring at local shows, I remember watching a couple of local horses whose handlers not only s-t-r-e-a-c-h-e-d them, but then, quite literally placed the horse's chin on their shoulder and pointed its nose to the sky, in order to 'measure in'--This, the year BEFORE the 'must stand square, head in normal position, handler can't be touching'(I am paraphrasing the actual rule, but if you are familiar w/ the Rule Book, you recognize it...) went into effect--and thinking how GREAT it would be when THAT 'loophole' was closed(as it was by the afore-referenced rule.) It was; the existing Rulebook requirements are fully adequate to ensure an accurate measurment, IF THEY ARE STRICTLY ADHERED TO!!!!!

I believe, as has been well-stated by others, that if you have a horse that is overheight, you should expect to be disqualified. I happen to have shown three horses over the years that were at or just under 34"; I have NEVER been concerned, because I am a STICKLER for proper measurement, practice it regularly(on a proven LEVEL surface; correct measurement is a sad joke w/o this PRIME requirement),and under different circumstances(horse wet and chilly, hot and tired, etc.); I invested in an official Stick, and make sure it remains accurate--I KNOW how tall my horses TRULY are--and I expect an 'official' measurer to do their job correctly and honestly. Can a horse occasionally vary by a quarter inch? Yes, I'd say it can, but the three measurement average in the Rulebook already allows for that--and I think anyone who has been around and tried to measure accurately would acknowledge that the problems lie in 'much' greater overages than that!

On the subject of the decision to allow this ''quarter inch at protest'...which was NOT a unanimous "Yes"(to acknowledge the BOD members IN ATTENDANCE at the June meeting who, presumably remembering the Bylaws, and their own sense of ethics, voted AGAINST this travesty)...Rabbitsfizz was right. It is really NOT so much the 'quarter inch at protest'. IT IS THE FACT THAT ACCURACY IN MEASURING HAS BECOME SUCH A FARCE THAT PROTEST HAS BECOME WIDESPREAD!! (Yes, I MEANT to 'shout'!) How many of AMHA's members would agree that IF THE MEASURING WAS DONE STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXISTING RULES AND SPECIFIED PROCEDURES to begin with, MOST of the protests would not even be occuring??? (again, for emphasis--all caps!) DO IT PROPERLY,according to the published rules, THE FIRST time--there would then be little rationalization for this shilly-shallying!

I believe that it is VERY unlikely that a properly trained and handled horse will 'swell up' to become measurably taller at a properly run measurement. It is the JOB of the organization to ensure that ANY official measurment does NOT turn into a 'zoo' --I can hardly believe that such would be ALLOWED to happen at any properly-run show! Conversely, it is the JOB of the handler/trainer to instill proper manners in their horses. If you don't, that is YOUR problem, not everyone else's!!

Protest should NOT be 'used' to 'get at' someone else--but I have to say, as this situation has evolved within the miniature breed registries, I am NOT surprised that there may be those who are 'using' it that way. How many ways does it need to be said....FOLLOW THE RULES STRICTLY AS WRITTEN! Use truly qualified personnel, who HAVE A CLEAR DIRECTIVE FROM THE ORGANIZATION ITSELF that the rules ARE to be followed; that they are NOT expected nor 'rewarded' for 'giving in' to pressure to allow cheating, and allow them to know that they WILL be supported by the organization in the proper performance of their duties!

This would for awhile NOT be easy; once you have let some people believe that the rules really DON'T apply to them, those kind of people can and will be very 'difficult', to put it kindly. But you know what? It can and will work, IF and WHEN there is the DETERMINATION/"GRIT" on the part of the organization to make it so!

These attempts by those 'in charge' at AMHA to 'sidestep' the REAL issue of improper/incorrect/'cheating' measurement, by blatant VIOLATION/ALTERATION of their own Bylaws,Rules, and Breed Standards (examples: the 'base of the wither' notion, this most recent 'quarter inch at protest' 'Policy', NOT removing papers from horses when they are found to be overheight[ASK AMHA how many horses' papers they have pulled for being over 34" lately--and more to the point, ask WHY they have not been doing so? ]-- for instance)--will, I believe, sound a death knell for AMHA as we have known it. To break the faith (contract, if you will) with your own supporters (members, who pay the organization for this 'privilege', with which come rights ) seems to me to be REALLY unwise; does it to others, as members? And, what about the LEGALITY of some of these actions, according to our Rulebook; it seems unbelievable to me that this seems to have been ignored!!

I am definitely an advocate of reading and knowing the Rules; my current copy stays on my desk at all times. I have a copy of EVERY set of rules printed or published since 1984, and they are easily at hand. If you DO read them, take note of how many places the MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE height of an AMHA miniature horse is clearly spelled out--along with what is "SUPPOSED" to happen when a horse "is determined" to be over that height.

I've had my say. I am a longstanding Lifetime AMHA member, and I am not 'resigning', because I intend to have a vote. I believe that an honest accomodation of ALL qualified members to vote on important issues will be the only way to rebuild confidence in and support of AMHA(and I'd say the same should apply to AMHR.)

Margaret (Margo) Cox-Townsend


----------



## McBunz (Jul 29, 2008)

"Oh - I can take what I hand out, as you say. This board is very tame compared to what goes on elsewhere. But I have not sneered at others and called them sheep. I have not accused them of saying things they have not said - or suggested they were ignorant, stupid or lying - which has been the case in these threads when some of us have asked questions or sought clarification."

I never once said you are anyone else was ignorant, stupid or lying... Far as I know I only called one person a sheep..

*This is my last post on this subject..*

..If you think my 5% is so far out of line check with the AMHA. People to raise one or two foals a year join just

to register these foals..

The estimate of 5 percent of the members of AMHA that show their horses was done 4 or 5 years ago in a survey AMHA did, however, AMHA did not advertise the issue because the response to the survey was very low. That percentage was taken when entries were much larger at all local, Championship and World Shows than they are today.

Just to do a quick analysis of how many AMHA members show their horses today, we take 5 percent of the number of members AMHA advertises they have. 12,000 on their website. That 5 percent would be 600 members.

I understand the largest local show held so far this year in AMHA was the Julip Cup in Kentucky which was 199 horses. The entries were way down from last year. The Estes Park Colorado show was only 42 horses this year. The minutes of the June 2008, Board meeting states in the treasurers report that show revenue is down from projected budget revenue.

The AMHA Finance statement of March 31, 2008, shows the revenue for drug testing at the 2006 World Show was $5,242 and the revenue for drug testing for the 2007 World Show was $9,720. We know the rules that every horse entered in the World Show is required to pay a $10 drug testing fee. If you divide 10 into $5,242 you find that only 524 horses were shown in 2006, and for 2007 the number of horses would be 970.

These are horses not individual exhibitors. Very few exhibitors come to the World Show with only one horse entered, so it would be safe to say that less than 5 percent of the members show horses at the World Show. You will also find that the majority of the members that show at the World Show also show at the Championship Shows and the Local Shows. They have to qualify the horses as well as amateurs and youth at some AMHA show. So it would be safe to say again that 5 percent or less of the members show their horses.

Remember in 2006 and before, a person could show at the Championship Show and World shows without becoming an AMHA member, but in 2007 every exhibitor has to be a member.

"If at any time it is determined that this horse has exceeded 34 inches in height, this certificate will be voided on the records of the Registry, without refund of fee."

How many AMHA members think the rules, all of them, should be followed? I for one believe this. Should we enforce the statements in our Articles of Incorporation that AMHA promised to uphold, that was the basis for the Secretary of the State of Texas allowing the Association to have a not for profit status.

These Articles that AMHA agreed to are for the purpose to, "Aid and encourage the breeding, exhibiting, use and pepetuation of the Miniature Horses: Promoting and coordinating Miniature Horse show activities, promote and encourage exhibition of Miniature Horses in open classes; etc." The forward statement of AMHA defines that any horse that exceeds 34 inches in height is NOT a Miniature Horse and is not eligible for registration.

Therefore it is very easy to understand that a 1/4 inch allowance for any horse during protest or for any reason that would cause the official measurement to exceed 34 inches in height at the base of the last hairs of the mane is in conflict with the registration statement on the certificate, the Articles of Incorporation, the Standard of Perfection and several other bylaws and rules.

Another way to look at this issue is that AMHA has a contract with each and every member. Members when signing the membership application agree to, Article IV of the bylaws, "Membership shall be open to all persons who subscribe to the objects of the American Miniature Horse Association, agree to abide by its rules and regulations, and who apply for membership.

The association prints an Official Rule Book that is given to the member each year informing them of the rules and regulations they have agreed to follow. This rule book also informs members of disciplinary procedures that can be used to reprimand, find, suspend or expel in accordance with such rules and regulations as the membership may from time to time adopt.

When I joined AMHA, I like the statement in the Standard of Perfection that the breed objective was the smallest possible perfect horse, and that preference in judging shall be given the smaller horses when other characteristics were approximately equal. This statement and the rules and regulations, especially the guarantee that no AMHA horse would exceed 34 inches in height and be allowed to be registered with the Association was exactly the reason I gave AMHA my money for membership dues, registering my foals, and bringing my horses to permanent registration status. I sold my horses to new people and encouraged them to become members of AMHA because of the promises AMHA made to me when I became a member. I can no longer do this because the directors decision to pass a protest measurement policy allowing a horse to officailly measure 34 1/4 inches tall and still maintain it's AMHA registration violates their contract with me as a member. All AMHA statements in the Rule Book on the website and anywhere else that states that an AMHA Miniature Horse must not exceed 34 inches in height is a fraud and false advertising.


----------



## Genie (Jul 29, 2008)

I appreciate all the "homework" McBunz has done on the subject, and I especially agree 100% with the last post by McBunz.

As I said earlier, I wish I could stop looking at this thread but when I am looking at at horse measuring 34 1/4 inches and AMHA officials saying "okay, that's fine"...............................It's not fine, and if that's the way it is going to be then they can send back the papers I turned in on one of my horses.

I too am a life time member of AMHA and want them to be the best registry for Miniature Horses with the highest profile and reputation for doing things right.

It boggles my mind that "show people" who are showing at the highest levels feel that there should be "leeway" that takes an "A" horse over the prescribed height of 34 inches at certain times.

If a horse is required to be 34 inches for this registry then that should be the end of the discussion instead of saying that these show horses can't stand properly for measuring or making excuses about the competence of the people who do the measuring.

If the leeway is allowed so horses can be over 34 inches in certain instances, then we should just forget about handing papers back when a horse goes over the 34 inch requirement.

Apparantly it doesn't matter, and if my horse is over and for some reason I am challenged, I will just say that " most days when the sun is shining, and people aren't too close, and the horse isn't tense, and the horse isn't cold, it's 34 inches. Just today, it's not!!!"


----------



## tagalong (Jul 29, 2008)

_ *sorry to postho, everyone - but sometimes that is just thw way the conversation flows - combined with when you are online* _





That ^^ post of yours above is fair and informative, *McBunz*... and much more in keeping with the subject at hand. I may not agree 100% with all your points - but they were well stated. Thank you.

Something I can add show-wise is that horse show attendance is down for many breeds. The very popular "big" horse show that a club I belong to puts on each July only had half the entries this year - gas prices being the major consideration.





Anyhoo...



> This is a group of genuinely concerned AMHA members who stepped up to the plate to TRY to not only point out LEGITIMATE concerns, but to make an honest effort,via specified procedures, to convince an organization(in this case, AMHA)to adhere to its OWN standards. If mistakes in approach have been made(though I really haven't seen any, and I am more critical than most)-- they were honest mistakes--yet some of you are delighting in using NASTINESS, RUDE sarcasm, patronizing attitudes, and inflammatory 'buzzwords' of invalid comparison in your determination to belittle this honest effort.


*Margot* - you do not have to be a member of C.A.R.E. to care - as I said earlier. Most of us are _very_ concerned and have said so. Patronizing attitudes, rudeness, sarcasm and such have been in evidence all over this thread - yes, even from C.A.R.E. members. I realize that we should not respond in kind - but I am only human and tend to respond to what I see/feel. As we all tend to do.

_Where has anyone belittled this effort?_ Nowhere. Round and round we go.



_Asking questions is not belittling. Having a slightly different view on things or sharing a different concern is not belittling. _It is part of the discussion and having disdain or outright contempt at times for the concerns of fellow AMHA members as a few C.A.R.E. members have is counter-productive. Your opinion is that there has been no drama and nothing Over The Top in these threads. Some of us disagree. So be it.



> ; one of you, presumably older, seems determined to convince us all that YOU are THE 'voice of reason',yet you use inflammatory comparisons that should be beneath your dignity--and you seem absolutely DETERMINED to 'have the last word'-to what end? *It is my hope and belief that the response of thoughtful readers here will be recognition that in the main, your posts really do NOT offer much of anything constructive on this subject.*


I do not want the last word, *Margot *- by any means - just taking part in the discussion. I am not The Voice Of Reason _*snort*_ and never claimed to be... just another concerned AMHA member. Contrary to what you say - all posts are a part of the discussion. All input should be valuable from all members - and yet again - with those ^^^ comments you seem to be dismissive of the concerns of others.... and somewhat insulting as well. What exactly are the inflammatory conparisons that should be beneath my dignity? _*confused*_



> These discussions are NOT some sort of 'contest', where those who show are somehow considered to be 'more important' or have 'more valid opinions, as members, than those who don't! I have been on BOTH sides of the bar as far as showing goes--I have shown horses since the mid-70s in breed rings--and was a competitor in other horse venues much before that... and now, I seldom if ever will again breed show...does that make my thoughts invalid?


Where did I ever say that those who show were more important? I never have. I did question that 5% figure - as it appeared to be merely another poster's opinion/guess. I have disagreed with comments from some who do not show who have stated that all horses should be trained and be calm during stressful measuring situations such as the protests in question. They said it with such conviction - and yet not having been in that situation, can they really appreciate that atmosphere/tension? It was a fair point of discussion. Or so one would think...



> I can hardly believe that such would be ALLOWED to happen at any properly-run show!


Sadly - one year our stalls were just down the way from where some protest measurements were done at Nationals (not Worlds then) ... and yes, it was a zoo. Trainers crowding around, officials, owners... and the horses suffered for it.



> This would for awhile NOT be easy; once you have let some people believe that the rules really DON'T apply to them, those kind of people can and will be very 'difficult', to put it kindly. But you know what? It can and will work, IF and WHEN there is the DETERMINATION/"GRIT" on the part of the organization to make it so!


Agreed. All too often some exhibitors have used the protests to get back at someone... often in response to a legit protest where said trainer was caught out. That kind of crap needs to get hammered on.



> Can a horse occasionally vary by a quarter inch? Yes, I'd say it can, but the three measurement average in the Rulebook already allows for that--and I think anyone who has been around and tried to measure accurately would acknowledge that the problems lie in 'much' greater overages than that!


Again we are in agreement. As I said upthread - I can understand the reasoning behind the 1/4" protest allowance... and yet such things should be set in cement at the first measuring and then there would be no need of any protests. No wiggle room. No way to get that 35" (or bigger) horse measured in - no matter what trainer tricks are used.



> I believe that an honest accomodation of ALL qualified members to vote on important issues will be the only way to rebuild confidence in and support of AMHA(and I'd say the same should apply to AMHR.)


Exactly right. I have never said otherwise...


----------



## Tango (Jul 29, 2008)

Back to the original topic - ANYTIME a measurement over 34 inches is allowed in conjuction with AMHA for ANY reason is a violation of the Standard that AMHA was founded on, PERIOD! Legal action could be taken against AMHA by ANY member (and should be) if this decision is ratified. And according to AMHA's own Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, AMHA would not win.

Nikki


----------



## maestoso (Jul 29, 2008)

Well that's the answer then isn't it. Legal action. So which of you will begin the process? I will keep my eyes and ears open for the updates.


----------



## Tango (Jul 29, 2008)

Well Matt, no. Legal action isn't the answer and shouldn't have to be. The answer is to follow established procedure to begin with and enforce it, not sidestep around it. By changing the maximum protest height to 34 1/4 inches, a precedent is set. In a few years time, others will want to up it to 34 1/2 inches and up we go. I am sure that people thought when 34 inches was established as the maximum height thirty years ago that they would never see the day when it would be acceptable for it to be over 34 inches. Well here we are.

Nikki


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Jul 31, 2008)

Lisa, the horses are _not_ nor have they ever been, 34" and under.

They have always been up to 36" and under, that is the whole reason for the measuring to the last hair of the mane thing that people go on about every now and again!! (



)

So this hoo-haa is really because, on top of the "base of the withers" (so now we have horse up to possibly 37") the quarter inch is the last straw!!

If we want a "B" division (up to 38") there is the AMHR (where you can get a 40" Shetland under 38", apparently!!)

The facts have been laid out, the BOD is in breach of the original contract...this is not legal...who is going to point this out to them (I have no problem doing it personally but am also happy to add my signature to a carefully thought out letter to the effect)


----------



## shelia (Jul 31, 2008)

rabbitsfizz said:


> Lisa, the horses are _not_ nor have they ever been, 34" and under.They have always been up to 36" and under, that is the whole reason for the measuring to the last hair of the mane thing that people go on about every now and again!! (
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What??? Forgive me for not understanding what you are saying, but........What?


----------



## hhpminis (Jul 31, 2008)

I have held off on this thread as I dont like to get involved in some of these heated threads, but I do have one comment to make about this decision.

I watched some of the protest measuring last year at Worlds. The air could have been cut with a knife in that room. Not only there but all around the grounds. It made me feel sick to my stomach and I wanted a pair of ruby slippers that I could click together and go home. Yes those horses as well as people were tense, horses feel the tension too.

Now saying that, yes I understand how a horse could add _at least_ a 1/4 inch to its height in this situation, but is it right? Lets face it, if we would stop pushing the envelope this would not be such an issue.

I have to disagree in the respects that a 32 1/4 inch horse is OK but not a 34 1/4 inch. The principle is the same. A horse has been shown in a division it does not belong in. A horse that is actually over 32 inches shows in the 30-32 division. In that division are legal 30 inch horses that have stood square and had an honest measure, not squeeked in at 29 7/8. They now are competing against 32 1/4 inch horses and that is OK?

I too think this is a bandaid for a known problem that has gotten way out of hand. If you want to have oversize horses than we either need an over division and stop lying about the fact that we all have them, or take those horses to AMHR shows, and yes the measuring is a problem there as well no favoritism of registries in this matter.

My husband had an idea for measuring. A laser...if the beam is broken the horse is too tall, plain and simple. No pushing on the back with the level. We still have the placement and the stance to deal with but it would remove some of the favoritism and intimidation that happens at the measure.


----------



## maestoso (Jul 31, 2008)

Rabbitsfizz, I'd like to see a horse that was 34" at the last mane hair but 37" at the top of the withers.... 3" is substantial..... That's one heck of a wither, and one very ugly horse.


----------



## Genie (Jul 31, 2008)

hhpminis said:


> If you want to have oversize horses then we either need an over division and stop lying about the fact that we all have them, or take those horses to AMHR shows, and yes the measuring is a problem there as well no favoritism of registries in this matter.My husband had an idea for measuring. A laser...if the beam is broken the horse is too tall, plain and simple. No pushing on the back with the level. We still have the placement and the stance to deal with but it would remove some of the favoritism and intimidation that happens at the measure.


I agree with these comments.

Someone mentioned the laser earlier and it sounds too simple


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 31, 2008)

I have to agree with the 1/4" rule here. If it is legal to show a 34" horse and we all know that horses will measure differently so often, then why is showing a 34" horse pushing the envelope....it is a legal height. So basically unless we have a 33.5" or under horse we are pushing the envelope? I have seen and been involved in measuring horses that are close on height although never a protest measurement. Here is our scenario..we had a horse that was 32" as a yearling and 33" as a 2yr old and finished at 33.75". Now at each show when we measured him we were always on edge and nervous to measure (even though he was at legal height), and he could feel it and took on that nervousness (don't care if anyone does not believe me, I saw it with my own eyes). One particular measurement my mom had him stood up to measure and he was "1/4" over the legal measurement and a friend of ours that knew the horse and knew he was right on the legal height, took the lead from my mom and never moved the horse and the stick dropped visibly with one heavy sigh from the horse to under the legal measurement, because she was not a bit nervous about his height. So I am a firm believer that tension and stress do hinder measuring ALOT. If we allow 34" horses to show, then let them show, don't say they are pushing the envelope...they are legal horses. If a horse is a true 34.5" and by cheating, measures in at the original measurement, then it will likely not pass a protest measurement anyhow because if anything the height would INCREASE due to the tension of the situation. Therefore the rule seems fair enough to me, and our horses are double registered and the tallest is 33.75.

I guarantee all of you behave and perform differently in stressful situations and with nerves and tension...so do the horses and handlers!!

PS-Tagalong, spottedponygirl, conder, and Matt, (sorry if I missed anyone), I applaud you for the continued defense of us that do show and know what the pressure is like when horses are close but legal!!


----------



## tagalong (Jul 31, 2008)

> I too think this is a bandaid for a known problem that has gotten way out of hand. If you want to have oversize horses than we either need an over division and stop lying about the fact that we all have them, or take those horses to AMHR shows, and yes the measuring is a problem there as well no favoritism of registries in this matter.


The band-aid comparison is a good way to put it. I understand the _reasoning _behind that 1/4" leeway as those protest measurements are _intense_ - to put it mildly. But is it a viable solution - especially when it comes to the 34" level? I was originally thinking that if the horse measured in at 34" to start with in order to show that the protest at 34 1/4" would be reasonable... now I am not so sure.



> My husband had an idea for measuring. A laser...if the beam is broken the horse is too tall, plain and simple. No pushing on the back with the level. We still have the placement and the stance to deal with but it would remove some of the favoritism and intimidation that happens at the measure.


YES! As some of us have wished - some kind of a laser measuring device... that would eliminate the human element in that part of the process...

If we can use it to measure exact starts and passes at the line in flyball (dog sports), surely someone can adapt it to measuring minis... _any geniuses/entrepreneurs out there? _


----------

