# Measuring Proposal



## Jacki Loomis (Sep 17, 2010)

With AMHR Nationals going on and the discussions there about measuring, I'm wondering if any of you changed your opinions about the measuring change proposal that we discussed here on the forum recently? Do you feel that measuring would benefit from some adjustments/changes or are you satisfied with how it is now?

Jacki

[email protected]


----------



## Minimor (Sep 17, 2010)

Well, from what I've heard, one change that needs to be made is to teach all witnesses the difference between a horse standing stretched, square and UNDER itself.






A witness making a horse stand under itself (and a steward going along with that!) for measuring is every bit as wrong as the measurement officials allowing a handler to stand the horse stretched for measuring.

If the measurement crew can't figure out the difference between standing stretched, standing square and standing under then I would have to say that I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference WHERE the measurement point is. If they cannot figure out stance then last mane hair or top of the withers makes no difference at all. Why bother to change the rules & have to re-write the measurement-related portions of the rulebook??? Leave it as it is.

And I know that I'm not the only one that thinks having a witness who also has horses entered in the show where he/she is acting as witness is a conflict of interest. A HUGE conflict of interest. And yet it was apparently allowed to happen at both Nationals and Congress this year? Surely to goodness at both shows some witnesses that don't have horses entered in the show could be found??

Ooops, there was my outdoor voice again.


----------



## minifreishorsefarm (Sep 18, 2010)

I dont know anything about showing. But have been watching the nationals and there are some REALLY big horses on there! Wspecially yesterday afternoon and last night. They all looked like they are shetland ponies or their handlers were all pretty short, lol. Beautiful horses though no matter the size!

Marsha


----------



## Belinda (Sep 18, 2010)

All I can say about the witness that were here at Nationals , Lea Dill had NO horses entered or was she showing.. The other witness that was there part time is a apprentice steward and was not their self showing in any class !!! And just about every show I go to the witness is someone that is there showing ,





And 90% of the time the main witness for Everyone was the 3rd steward . NO one that was just standing there said one word to the steward about how the horses were standing .. and measuring is open to anyone at the show to watch. And I was up there lots, and there were times folks standing in line voiced their opinon as to how they felt about how a horse was setup , good or bad.. Can not control the gallery !!






And if anything after this week I am not so sure that the last hair of the mane is the answer .. Guess what we found ,,,,, mane hair that had been glued in that had fallen out and one big clump was in the arena !!!






Also some was found around the measuring area . one thing about it you CAN NOT GLUE IN A WITHER a!!!!!!








Not sure what the answer is !!??????


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Sep 18, 2010)

Belinda said:


> And if anything after this week I am not so sure that the last hair of the mane is the answer .. Guess what we found ,,,,, mane hair that had been glued in that had fallen out and one big clump was in the arena !!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...











Ok I am not sure if that is shocking- or funny I guess a combo of both.


----------



## MindyLee (Sep 18, 2010)

OMG!!!!!!

*Someone actually glued in hair!* What the ****!!! Are you kiding me; that is so stupid and such ********!!!

That's going way low when it comes to cheating!!!

I say if you dont like the horses actual height, STOP CHEATING! and get a new horse!

WOW! is all I have to say in the end to that one.


----------



## Minimor (Sep 18, 2010)

Given the number of people who I heard have complained about the stance being requested by that apprentice steward...an apprentice steward should know what a horse standing "square" looks like. And IMO it doesn't matter if the person is taking his horses into the ring himself or if a trainer is doing it for him--owning a horse that is entered in the show makes it a conflict of interest to act as witness to the measuring. Here our witness is never someone who is showing.

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised that some were gluing in mane hair--we've been told other years that is being done. Seriously, when a horse gets measured at the lowest point of its back because that is where the mane ends, you know there is something fishy going on there. In 40+ years of horse ownership, of all the horses I've seen, which is a lot of different breeds at a lot of different shows and farms, there hasn't been a one of them that had mane all the way down to the lowest point of its back!

Measure to the top of the withers then, but only if heights aren't reduced. If it's moved to the top of the withers then change the maximum height to 39" or 40" to keep horses the same size they are now. I do NOT want to see it changed to 38" at the top of the withers. I said that before & I say the same thing now.

And, if measuring at the top of the withers, make sure the stewards knows the top of the withers is the highest point on the withers--it is NOT the dip just in front of the withers, which is where I've heard some people, including at least a couple of stewards, think that it is.


----------



## Relic (Sep 18, 2010)

at least glueing [sp] isn't as bad as some people who actually go to the trouble of having each mane strand sewn in...poor minis.


----------



## susanne (Sep 18, 2010)

Relic said:


> at least glueing [sp] isn't as bad as some people who actually go to the trouble of having each mane strand sewn in...poor minis.


Hair Club for Minis ??


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Sep 18, 2010)

I think we should video the entire measuring process in otherwords no horse gets measured in without being video taped. If there is a protest then not only is the horse remeasured but the video of original measurement will be watched to see how the steward allowed the horse to stand to measure the first time.

If a steward consistently measures horses splayed out and allows large horses in the show ring then they must have consequences.

I was not there so alot of here say and by now the rumors have spread wild about measuring. I cant comment on it as I do not know what actually happened or what was said by or to officals but I do think everyone would be a bit more accurate if voices and actions were video taped


----------



## susanne (Sep 18, 2010)

~Lisa~ said:


> I do think everyone would be a bit more accurate if voices and actions were video taped


I agree, Lisa.

It would also stop or expose those who intimidate the steward in order to get their horse measured in.


----------



## Jacki Loomis (Sep 18, 2010)

Belinda said:


> All I can say about the witness that were here at Nationals , Lea Dill had NO horses entered or was she showing.. The other witness that was there part time is a apprentice steward and was not their self showing in any class !!! And just about every show I go to the witness is someone that is there showing ,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The discussions I had with various people about their opinions on measuring did change my mind, I was not in favor of changing the measuring prior to hearing the well thought out opinions of some of my fellow exhibitors. I'm unsure still on if the current wither measuring proposal that includes a grandfathering clause is the answer though so I'll just hope the BOD and membership at convention agree on a proposal that works for the majority.

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]


----------



## susanne (Sep 18, 2010)

As I see it, changing the height limit to 39 or 40 inches is a necessary part of changing the point of measurement to the top of the withers -- not merely grandfathering existing horses, but keeping the REAL height as it is now.

Those who feel that's letting in "larger" horses -- or those who are horrified their 28 inch horse now measures 29 or 30 inches -- need a reality check.

The size horse stays the same, it's just a matter of semantics. To think otherwise is to be guilty of believing one's own publicity


----------



## Mominis (Sep 18, 2010)

susanne said:


> As I see it, changing the height limit to 39 or 40 inches is a necessary part of changing the point of measurement to the top of the withers -- not merely grandfathering existing horses, but keeping the REAL height as it is now.
> 
> Those who feel that's letting in "larger" horses -- or those who are horrified their 28 inch horse now measures 29 or 30 inches -- need a reality check.
> 
> The size horse stays the same, it's just a matter of semantics. To think otherwise is to be guilty of believing one's own publicity


----------



## Barbie (Sep 18, 2010)

I was not at Nationals, but do have a couple of friends whose horses measured way taller than ever before. Exhibitors shouldn't receive a big surprise when measured at Nationals. It was obvious as I watched their classes that both horses who measured taller were very definitely the smallest horses in the class.

Measuring is always a problem. It will be interesting to see how it goes at Worlds. The same person who measured all the Regional shows will be measuring at Worlds and it will be video taped.

I don't know what the answer is, but do know the measuring changes from show to show and somehow that doesn't see right.

Barbie


----------



## Belinda (Sep 18, 2010)

Actually the person that witness for the stewards is suppose to let the steward know if the horse is standing correct ..





Below is how the horse is suppose to stand according to the rule book.



.

Part 6 – Position of Animal

The animal must be standing squarely on all four feet and

should not be permitted to “stretch”. The front legs should

be on a vertical line directly under the shoulder. The back

of the hocks should be in a vertical line with the animal’s

buttocks. The horse/pony’s head must be held low enough

to reveal the highest point of the withers and no lower. The

103

animal must be free of blanket, hood, neck wrap and tail

set to verify the description on the registration paper to the

animal being measured. The handler must not interfere

with the animal in any way that will prevent it from

standing in this position.


----------



## Margo_C-T (Sep 18, 2010)

I would dearly love to see measurement 'cleaned up'. I have LONG supported measurement at the highest point of the withers.It makes sense in a myriad of ways!

As to what Minimor commented...I can't BELIEVE that anyone holding ANY card to judge horses could be so ignorant of conformation as to think that the 'dip'that can be visible on some horses, in front of the withers, could in ANY way be construed as the 'highest point of the withers'! Now THAT is scary!





Hand in hand with top-of-the-wither measurement, I would support raising the maximum height by an inch or at most, two(though I strongly believe that one and one-half would be adequate, even in R 'over' horses), in either or both major registries, in order to maintain the heights as they already are. Susanne said it right...the horses WON'T BE, in actuality,ANY taller!!

Margo


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Sep 18, 2010)

Yes we need to fix measuring no doubt about it but every year everyone complains on these forums about the big horses showing.. the reality is if you are not willing to put up your 100 bucks and file a protest then deal with the big horses.

It is not fair that a person filing is deemed a poor sport and I do think anyone that is a member should be able to make a protest even if not in the class but that doesnt change the fact IMO that if you were in a class with a huge horse and were not willing to put up your money (even though there is a stigma that goes with it) then you should not come to the forums to complain as that will do no good


----------



## maestoso (Sep 18, 2010)

Personally the change I would like to see is for only one person to be measuring and only one witnessing. I understand that this would require a huge time commitment and would mean measuring would take a lot longer, but any subjectivity that is involved with measuring(what is square, what is the last mane hair, etc) is going to be magnified if several different people are making that decision. If it were only one set of people measuring, at least everyone would be facing the same thing. If it's a really strict measurer, it will be a really strict measurer for everyone. I know nobody likes to compare R's with A's, but I think A's had it right this year when the same measurer and witness worked for all three regionals and it will be the same people at worlds. That brings a certain amount of consistency to it, and consistency is what we need.

It is pretty obvious that measuring is much more relaxed at local shows. I suppose most of us know this, but that doesn't stop anyone from getting frustrated about working hard all year long and getting in all year long and then measuring at at nationals, where it really counts.

I don't think it would solve all the problems, but at least then we wouldn't be hearing people strategize over what steward they want to measure under etc. That itself suggests inconsistency, which in my opinion, is what causes most problems.


----------



## Minimor (Sep 19, 2010)

> Actually the person that witness for the stewards is suppose to let the steward know if the horse is standing correct ..


I never said differently, and nor did anyone else that I've noticed--not on this thread anyway!
My point was that the witness needs to know what constitutes "square" so that he/she doesn't instruct anyone to stand a horse UNDER rather than SQUARE...that was a common complaint this year, from what I've heard--some horses were being measured while standing under themselves with their front legs!


----------



## The Simple Life Farm (Sep 19, 2010)

~Lisa~ said:


> I think we should video the entire measuring process in otherwords no horse gets measured in without being video taped. If there is a protest then not only is the horse remeasured but the video of original measurement will be watched to see how the steward allowed the horse to stand to measure the first time.
> 
> If a steward consistently measures horses splayed out and allows large horses in the show ring then they must have consequences.
> 
> I was not there so alot of here say and by now the rumors have spread wild about measuring. I cant comment on it as I do not know what actually happened or what was said by or to officals but I do think everyone would be a bit more accurate if voices and actions were video taped


I totally agree.

I am sure you heard the same thing I did (by 3 different people that don't know eachother).


----------



## barnbum (Sep 19, 2010)

As an ower of minis, and not one who shows, this topic--this determining height trouble is embarrassing. Why does it have to be such a difficult subjective issue?? Folks who are passionate about these animals forever argue about how tall they are at shows and how best to determine it. It's *always* a problem, and it's never been fixed! Gluing on hairs! Sewing in hairs! Good grief. Pick an objective method, gee--how all other horse people measure height seems like a good place to start--and make it law. Sigh....


----------



## kaykay (Sep 19, 2010)

> I'm not sure why anyone is surprised that some were gluing in mane hair--we've been told other years that is being done.


See that was my thought too! This gluing on of hair has been going on ever since I started years ago. No surprise there. I would think it would be easy to spot of you are measuring them but apparently its not since its still going on?

Lisa I have seen what happens to people that protest especially at a National show. Its not pretty and this is why people rarely protest anymore. Not worth the stigma and the threats. Its VERY ugly how these people are treated.


----------



## HGFarm (Sep 19, 2010)

I have heard of people adding hair before, so am not surprized that some goofballs are still doing it. Those people are the 'win at any cost' type people who dont care if they have to cheat to win. I personally think that for those caught doing that- they should be suspended from showing ANYWHERE for a year or any horses they own, etc...! And if they get caught again? They need to go find another breed to 'play with'. I think there needs to be some type of harsh punishment for this and maybe people will wake up.

It would not matter whether the horses were measured at the top of the withers or the last mane hairs if we didnt have those folks that continue to try to cheat (and obviously got by with it if the mane hair was found IN the arena) And it appears that there is no punishment for doing things like this, other than not being allowed to show that horse if caught.???

I am sure if the rules are changed, they will find another way to cheat..........


----------



## Marty (Sep 19, 2010)

There are lots of beautiful hard working people out there showing honestly who would never resort to any artificial or abusive means. These are the true horsemen who have my respect. They do the best they can and let the chips fall where they may and at the end of the day, they can sleep at night and their horse is happy.

The cheating is an insult and slap in the face to them. The ones that cheat in any way should be heavily fined and banned forever and names be made public.


----------



## The Simple Life Farm (Sep 19, 2010)

Marty said:


> The cheating is an insult and slap in the face to them. The ones that cheat in any way should be heavily fined and banned forever and names be made public.



You just might be shocked at the names on that list!!!!


----------



## bevann (Sep 19, 2010)

The Simple Life Farm said:


> You just might be shocked at the names on that list!!!!


I was not at the show so I can't say what went on but measuring at the national shows has been an issue as long as I can remember and I'm over 20 years in Minis.IMO a solution would be to have an outside company do the measuring.No one would know who it is until the day the measuring starts.Kinda secret like academy awards.Have our registries train these people in the proper procedure and go from there.It can't be any worse than what it is now.


----------



## Jacki Loomis (Sep 19, 2010)

As a show person I tend to focus on the show aspect more than the breeding aspect of the horses but my perspective on measuring was broadened by my conversations with others while at Nationals.

In the opinion of some, the short term problem is taller horses showing. The long term problem and what I now see as a very important reason to come up with a solution is that new buyers will gravitate towards the horses who win in the show ring. They will purchase these horses and take them to shows next year expecting them to measure in, under different circumstances and with different handlers they may not measure in. They will also breed these horses and I worry if they will produce horses that will measure under 38". Are we setting these new owners up to fail?

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]


----------



## midnight star stables (Sep 19, 2010)

I'm not surprised to hear about the glued manes either. I've heard that before too.

It amazes me the number of "cheaters" there are, but the way I see it, is that it the responsibility of the *Steward* to make sure that my horse isn't being towered over by another in the ring! I shouldn't have to protest in fear if our Stewards didn't allow them there in the first place. I think Stewards need more TRAINING and more POWER! I think they should have the ability to strip showing rights or set finds or something. I also feel that measuring being videoed, is a good idea. It may always be an issue, BUT our horses key identity is their height... I think we should hold more importance on how well they are measured!






And I feel that if we do change where we measure, we will have to change our height! Period.

JMHO


----------



## Mominis (Sep 19, 2010)

Jacki Loomis said:


> As a show person I tend to focus on the show aspect more than the breeding aspect of the horses but my perspective on measuring was broadened by my conversations with others while at Nationals.
> 
> In the opinion of some, the short term problem is taller horses showing. The long term problem and what I now see as a very important reason to come up with a solution is that new buyers will gravitate towards the horses who win in the show ring. They will purchase these horses and take them to shows next year expecting them to measure in, under different circumstances and with different handlers they may not measure in. They will also breed these horses and I worry if they will produce horses that will measure under 38". Are we setting these new owners up to fail?
> 
> ...



Yes, Jacki. That is exactly how I feel. Being a newcomer to the AMHR horses, it is just dumb luck that I will be okay under the proposed new rules. My gelding measured 36.5", even under the strict measuring at Nationals. I am relieved to know that we'll be okay, but I know if I had not gotten quite so lucky with the height of both of my horses, I would be very discouraged. This is exactly the reason that I support the idea of allowing horses that currently measure in to go an inch to two inches over the 38" should we go to the new system. I feel that this should be done to protect people who may not have gotten as lucky as I have, just entering the world of the AMHR horse and may end up being pinched out, height-wise, before they really get started.


----------



## OhHorsePee (Sep 19, 2010)

The minis have had cheater strips and gluing for as long as I have been showing. I have had it pointed out to me before. There is no way in blue blazes that anyone could not tell on the cheater strips! The cheater strips are just where they clip the horses with a long line of the coat to the lowest area.

It was so evident this year from the live feeds! I was on the phone with someone and it was quite evident by both of us.

Changing this rule will only help a few select people. All of the ones cheating will still be the ones cheating. The rules are not enforced now so why would it be any different?



> Jacki Loomis, on 19 September 2010 - 12:25 PM, said:As a show person I tend to focus on the show aspect more than the breeding aspect of the horses but my perspective on measuring was broadened by my conversations with others while at Nationals.
> 
> In the opinion of some, the short term problem is taller horses showing. The long term problem and what I now see as a very important reason to come up with a solution is that new buyers will gravitate towards the horses who win in the show ring. They will purchase these horses and take them to shows next year expecting them to measure in, under different circumstances and with different handlers they may not measure in. They will also breed these horses and I worry if they will produce horses that will measure under 38". Are we setting these new owners up to fail?
> 
> ...


I so agree!


----------



## AshleyNicole (Sep 19, 2010)

Jacki Loomis said:


> As a show person I tend to focus on the show aspect more than the breeding aspect of the horses but my perspective on measuring was broadened by my conversations with others while at Nationals.
> 
> In the opinion of some, the short term problem is taller horses showing. The long term problem and what I now see as a very important reason to come up with a solution is that new buyers will gravitate towards the horses who win in the show ring. They will purchase these horses and take them to shows next year expecting them to measure in, under different circumstances and with different handlers they may not measure in. They will also breed these horses and I worry if they will produce horses that will measure under 38". Are we setting these new owners up to fail?
> 
> ...


I agree, We have had minis for a few years and recently bought some horses to show for next year, one is on the borderline(did go to Nationals and measure in so not over) and I know I would be frustrated if the horse I bought to show now suddenly couldn't and any offspring he had would run the risk of not being able to show as well, I also think dishonest people always find a way to cheat and I agree that having harsher punishments for those that are caught is the only way we are going to discourage it.

If measuring at the withers really helps stewards get a more accurate measurement than maybe that should be changed but not without adjusting the heights accordingly.


----------



## Norlea (Sep 19, 2010)

Minimor said:


> I never said differently, and nor did anyone else that I've noticed--not on this thread anyway!
> 
> My point was that the witness needs to know what constitutes "square" so that he/she doesn't instruct anyone to stand a horse UNDER rather than SQUARE...that was a common complaint this year, from what I've heard--some horses were being measured while standing under themselves with their front legs!


I pretty much thought I knew what square is!! But maybe the problem is, my being one of the witnesses, I did my best not to allow the horses to stretch nor splay the front legs out, nor crank their heads up in the air, nor touch or poke the horses back, nor lean on the horse, nor try to pull the horse forward or push the horse back as the stick was on the horse, nor dictate to the steward where the mane last hair was and WHAT CLASS THE HORSE HAD TO BE IN as many (Not ALL) tried to do and that is where the confusion started with them being told to stand square and keep their hands off the horse and allow the horse to hang its head naturel !!!! Maybe if the exhibitors/handlers/owners of these horses would be honest about the height of their horses, you would not be complaining about the stewards and the witnesses.

With the way the buzz was at the nationals, I am shocked we did not hear that complaint as we heard all the others. I personally would have welcome anyone coming to me and telling me their concerns.. I must admit I was not at the table for all the witnessing as I was a volunteer and did not have set hours to work... I came as a member/director to volunteer where I was needed.

I agree with the taping of the measuring, also no requesting a steward, I offer this suggestion for next year... red ball, blue ball, yellow ball in the box, you pick a ball (you can’t see what color your picking out of the box) whatever color you get is the steward who is that color for that day (steward picks a ball before starting to measure and will be that color for the day) and measures your one horse. You pick a color for every horse and I don't care if you have 10 horses, it would be pick of the draw as far as the steward who measures your horse... There were some who only wanted to go to one steward. The perception of that is way wrong while the other stewards sit and doing nothing. All this drama about the measuring, under themselves, stretched, way big and not one protest????????? Why is that?? Scared of the repercussions, not sure but sad to think one would be afraid to protest but again if we brought honest horses to be measured in. Would we have all the drama...

Also, do we really need to wait until the class is over???? I say post the height as the horses are being measured. You disagree with it, protest it, if it is your horse that measured out, under or over and you don’t agree with it, protest the measurement and get it re-measured by another steward. I say once you accept your measurement, you can be protested, none of this you have to go in the class crap or even be entered in the same class... One reason is, those who are eligible for championships have to complete with horses that were not in their original class. I say that is not fair that I cannot protest the height of a horse that I have to complete with in a grand class if you feel he is oversized for his age or class he entered to begin with. Let any owner or handler who has a horse entered in the nationals show be able to protest another horse that is entered in the national show... Boy would that clean up all these complaints that no one does anything about?

***My other idea that would really clean up the complaints is.. Of course start with horse standing square, everyone involved, steward, spotter, person bringing horse to be measured agree to last mane hair with no clue, thread or staples and horse is square.

The stick used to measure has no measurements on it... BLANK STICK.... Put stick to square horse.... witness that bubble is center, LOCK stick... Take BLANK stick to table where there is a stick that has MEASURMENTS ON IT. Lineup BLANK LOCKED stick next to stick with measurements on it. Now you have your measurement... Mechanically it could be designed to lay flush, even and precise. Now wouldn't that be playing Russian Roulette but I am sure people would bring honest horses to that blank stick to begin with?

We have used volunteer witnesses in the past, why this year such a big stink??? Out of all the people that exhibited, not one person came to complain about this with the exception of one person who did not think the one trainer & trainer/director should be there, they were not spotting the horses, they were just recording the measurements, after the one the complaint, they did not help out as it was no big deal to either person, they just thought they were helping out(as they did last year)as we had a big line of horses and all three stewards were measuring. THOUGH I feel anyone can watch the measurements. I am thinking we need a place to measure where we can sell admission passes for front row seating and donate the proceeds to the youth programs.

Seriously, I do believe we need to change the system somehow to make everyone all on the same playing field as many think it is not. We need to come to the convention at the general membership meeting this year, air these complaints and propose a new system to manage the measuring at nationals and congress. As a director/member who did not show but was at both the Congress and Nationals, I feel changes need to be made so that everyone can enjoy the shows and no drama.

Oh one more thing, I was confused at some of the minis showing parked out? What is that about? Where does it say mini's can park out? This is like a run away train with the parking out and no one seems to mind? If exceptable then change the rule below.

Page 250 B. The Miniature Horse is to be shown to its best

advantage. It is preferred that the horse stand square.

The Judge at his or her discretion may ask to have the

horse stand square, which means all four feet are flat

on the ground and at least one front and one rear

cannon bone perpendicular to the ground.


----------



## fastrack (Sep 19, 2010)

We went to our first National show 3 years ago as a spectator. What I saw then almost turned me completely away from showing. There was a huge horse in a 38" & Under class. My husband usually doesn't say much, but it was even obvious to him. His comment was the horse had to have been stretched from one end of the stall to the other to have gotten in at 38". He was a gorgeous horse...but didn't belong in a miniature show.

I think this year's measuring was fair. I didn't mind having others look on to make sure the horse wasn't stretched and was standing properly. We were rushing to the measurement area thinking we were going to be late, still had blankets and hoods on. Those in charge even cautioned us not to make the horses nervous, that they would 'grow' if they were nervous and afraid. Were told to take our time, they would measure when we were ready.

I do feel bad for those that were eliminated from competing. But, was it really a surprise? Surely there were at least some 'close' measurements in qualifying shows?

As far as measuring at the withers, I think that would cause more confusion in the long run. I'm sure the cheaters could come up with a method of cheating wither heights too.


----------



## gvpalominominis (Sep 19, 2010)

To answer the original question, it doesn't change my mind one bit. The measuring location needs to be a "structure" point of the horse. Be it the top of the wither or behind the wither... whichever. When 2 horses can be the exact same height at the top of the wither, standing exactly the same way... yet one horse's "mane hair" grows to behind the wither and the other one stops at the top of the wither, thus making the longer haired horse a mini and the other out of luck, that is unjust.

I think that makes it a "hair" registry... certainly not even a true "height" registry.

Last year before having my little under 32" stallion measured, (he wasn't clipped yet) I asked the measuring steward where she thought the last mane hair was.... she was off by about an inch and a half from the actual last hair... now that's from point A to point B... not height measuring difference, but would have determined he'd have to go into the taller class had I gone ahead with a measurement. I took him back to the stalls clipped him and returned to a different steward and had no problem measuring him in at 31.75" standing dead square from the last mane hair.

While standing in line (also last year), I witnessed several longer bodied horses being made to stand with their hind legs under themselves making the hocks sickle hocked looking.... but the owners/handlers were made to stand the horse's back legs even with their rump. You could see that the horses were visibly uncomfortable to stand that way. Of course they measured taller than they really were. So this issue is not just from this year.

All so called "cheating" aspects aside - the areas needed for education are:

Being able to determine where the last mane hair is. (Not all mane hair is necessarily "long" its a different texture)

What is standing square and is it determined by the horses body or

hock and or leg position?


----------



## horsefeather (Sep 19, 2010)

OK, as a steward, I can see that I have made at least one drastic mistake. While I will not let a horse stretch, I have let handlers set their front feet apart. I HONESTLY did not know that was illegal! Anyone reading this that go to shows I'll be stewarding at next year, take notice. I won't let anyone do that again. And, I apologize for allowing it. As for measuring the last hair of the mane, I don't think I know anyone (except perhaps the owner) that can get the 'exact' same measurement 3 times in a row (especially when the horse is moving around). (note to exhibitors, if your horse will stand still, it's MUCH easier to get a fair measurement). Now, I'm not talking about an inch, but it's not hard to be 1/2 in. different. Also, there are some driving horses that DO rub some mane out. I take that into consideration. Perhaps I shouldn't, but you can plainly see where the hair is missing and I will measure accordingly. It's usually not over 1/4 of an inch, but sometimes it does change the class the horse will go in. I drive a lot and realize this happens. Personally, I don't know how to stop it.

Also, at the shows where I steward, I put the pictures up on the wall or on the table of how the horse is to stand. It's the same for everybody. I have had people that are showing a shetland that's under 38" tell me they just can't stand that way. If they are showing that horse as a mini, that horse MUST stand like all the others, square. I try to be carefull about the front legs being under the horse and have told quite a few when I notice it that they need to bring their legs forward. Now, I really like being a steward. Most folks are friendly and I like helping anyone with questions or whatever, but let me tell youall something, I certainly don't do it for the money!! If you took what I make a day and divide it into the hours I spend at the show and after, doing paperwork, well, most people wouldn't work for that amount. 





My biggest problem is that stewards do not measure the same. It's not fair for the exhibitors! I wish that the minis had started measuring at the withers, but again, as someone mentioned, I have had horses where their mane ended on top of the withers which really makes it taller than it is. I measured a horse once that I would have bet $100 it wouldn't measure in. Well, I would have lost my $100. Because of the conformation, this much taller horse actually measured in under 38" and since we ARE a height measurement registry, I had no choice but to let this horse show. 

I know there are problems with mesuring, but I just don't know how to fix them. I DO however, like the idea of video taping all measuring at ALL shows! Personally, I think that would help some. OK, sorry I went on and on, but I kinda wanted to let you guys know that most of us stewards do try hard to be honest.





Pam


----------



## Minimor (Sep 19, 2010)

> Where does it say mini's can park out? This is like a run away train with the parking out and no one seems to mind? If exceptable then change the rule below.
> Page 250 B. The Miniature Horse is to be shown to its best
> 
> advantage. It is preferred that the horse stand square.
> ...


Well, actually it doesn't say they can't be parked out. It says "preferred" that the horse stand square but then it also says the horse is to be shown to its best advantage. If the owner feels the horse looks nicest when parked out and the judge doesn't ask for anything different, it's not against the rule at all to stand the horse parked out.

IMO the stance described in the rule book isn't quite correct when saying that the hocks are to be in line with the back edge of the buttocks...that works for a horse that is perfectly correct in conformation. A horse that is camped out will be standing seriously under himself in order to achieve that stance. IMO the horse should be positioned so that the cannons of the hind legs are vertical. It would be a lot easier for the camped out horse to stand that way--and he would still technically be standing square. Stretched would mean that is cannons are angled forward from bottom to top. But, I suspect that the majority of people cannot recongnize camped out conformation when they see it and will never be able to see the difference between camped out conformation and stretched position.


----------



## disneyhorse (Sep 19, 2010)

Norlea...

I LOVE your idea about the "BLANK measuring stick."

At work, we have draft horses and when I measure them I always put the number side away from me so I can't see it and be biased about where I have the stick on their withers (since draft horses you always hope are TALLER than they might be).

I then always ask my coworkers to guess how tall the horse is! We then spin the stick around and get to see where the level landed!

I think it's a great idea.

Andrea


----------



## Norlea (Sep 19, 2010)

That would work, turn the stick around facing the person holding the horse.... You will be able to tell by the look on their face






what the measurement is!!!!


----------



## disneyhorse (Sep 19, 2010)

I also want to add that I think getting worked up about measuring is not something I find important. I don't know why, but I don't see a big deal with tall horses, or horses measuring differently at different times.

They are living creatures, and just the fact that they have hooves which can be trimmed short, or with more heel, or left longer, can greatly affect the horses which are measured as accurately as 1/4 of an inch.

This year at Nationals, I see that two horses I previously owned and showed as mature driving horses were there. Both measured under or at 34" tall.

One rarely measured under 35" when I had him, and the other I got in a local club hoopla because he measured over 34" and then under 34" in the same year and I switched divisions (he is very borderline and can go either way depending on how you trim 1/4" of his foot). So both these horses have been shown plenty as Overs, and now are shown as Unders. No, they didn't "shrink" and I highly doubt some "shady measuring" was going on.

They are living animals. They move. They are not a piece of furniture with exact measurements.

No matter what solutions people come up with, no one will always be happy with the results.

Andrea


----------



## Norlea (Sep 19, 2010)

Minimor said:


> Well, actually it doesn't say they can't be parked out. It says "preferred" that the horse stand square but then it also says the horse is to be shown to its best advantage. If the owner feels the horse looks nicest when parked out and the judge doesn't ask for anything different, it's not against the rule at all to stand the horse parked out.
> 
> IMO the stance described in the rule book isn't quite correct when saying that the hocks are to be in line with the back edge of the buttocks...that works for a horse that is perfectly correct in conformation. A horse that is camped out will be standing seriously under himself in order to achieve that stance. IMO the horse should be positioned so that the cannons of the hind legs are vertical. It would be a lot easier for the camped out horse to stand that way--and he would still technically be standing square. Stretched would mean that is cannons are angled forward from bottom to top. But, I suspect that the majority of people cannot recongnize camped out conformation when they see it and will never be able to see the difference between camped out conformation and stretched position.



I see what you saying....


----------



## Norlea (Sep 19, 2010)

disneyhorse said:


> I also want to add that I think getting worked up about measuring is not something I find important. I don't know why, but I don't see a big deal with tall horses, or horses measuring differently at different times.
> 
> They are living creatures, and just the fact that they have hooves which can be trimmed short, or with more heel, or left longer, can greatly affect the horses which are measured as accurately as 1/4 of an inch.
> 
> ...


Not an exact science that is for sure......


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Sep 19, 2010)

I still would like to see it measure to the withers BUT I am against raising our heights. So if that happens I will vote it down if I attend Convention. We need to fix the way we measure period.


----------



## gvpalominominis (Sep 20, 2010)

I need help understanding how it can be logical that since horses typically are taller (Shetlands and Minis alike) at the top of the wither if their mane hair grows past that point, that if they change the measuring location to that higher point that they wouldn't also need to adjust the standard respectively?

What a recordkeeping nightmare that could be creating grandfathering records for currently registered horses. How many 36-38" horses are currently registerd?

What about peoples' breeding stock and programs, if the measuring location changes, and the offspring of those grandfathered registered horses are now an inch or more too tall to be registered at all based on this new location! Possibly years worth of planning, purchasing, breeding, showing those horse etc. lost? I think this could become a BIG issue and great thought should be considered about breeder's loss revenues in the future!

Sure current AMHR horses that are grandfathered in at 37-38" at the last mane hair but are now 39" or more at the top of the wither would be safe... but what about their babies? So, their babies end up over the NEW limits are no longer registerable or showable. Not good...



Or are all their offspring going to be grandfathered as well?


----------



## OhHorsePee (Sep 20, 2010)

Norlea said:


> I pretty much thought I knew what square is!! But maybe the problem is, my being one of the witnesses, I did my best not to allow the horses to stretch nor splay the front legs out, nor crank their heads up in the air, nor touch or poke the horses back, nor lean on the horse, nor try to pull the horse forward or push the horse back as the stick was on the horse, nor dictate to the steward where the mane last hair was and WHAT CLASS THE HORSE HAD TO BE IN as many (Not ALL) tried to do and that is where the confusion started with them being told to stand square and keep their hands off the horse and allow the horse to hang its head naturel !!!! Maybe if the exhibitors/handlers/owners of these horses would be honest about the height of their horses, you would not be complaining about the stewards and the witnesses.
> 
> With the way the buzz was at the nationals, I am shocked we did not hear that complaint as we heard all the others. I personally would have welcome anyone coming to me and telling me their concerns.. I must admit I was not at the table for all the witnessing as I was a volunteer and did not have set hours to work... I came as a member/director to volunteer where I was needed.
> 
> ...


Lea, it was already proven that if protested the person does not have to agree to do anything and nothing would happen to that person who was protested. So why would people bother? And as far as "trainer & trainer/director" documenting measurements that is so wrong in many ways!!!


----------



## alphahorses (Sep 20, 2010)

Norlea said:


> I offer this suggestion for next year... red ball, blue ball, yellow ball in the box, you pick a ball (you cant see what color your picking out of the box) whatever color you get is the steward who is that color for that day (steward picks a ball before starting to measure and will be that color for the day) and measures your one horse. You pick a color for every horse and I don't care if you have 10 horses, it would be pick of the draw as far as the steward who measures your horse...





Norlea said:


> The stick used to measure has no measurements on it... BLANK STICK.... Put stick to square horse.... witness that bubble is center, LOCK stick...


2 Excellent ideas!!








Might also think about having horses measured by multiple stewards. Or have them re-measured before they go in the championship classes.


----------



## Norlea (Sep 20, 2010)

OhHorsePee said:


> Lea, it was already proven that if protested the person does not have to agree to do anything and nothing would happen to that person who was protested. So why would people bother? And as far as "trainer & trainer/director" documenting measurements that is so wrong in many ways!!!



Good Morning Fran,

Didn't say it was wrong or right, just stated they have helped in the past and left when a complaint was made! All they were doing was recording the height on a list... But my opinion is if it bothered people then hire neutral witnesses that are not participating in the show. As far as a protest of height goes, I am not sure where a person did not have to do anything as I have witnessed over the years as a steward to protested heights and yes the horse had to be remeasured! As far as a protest where we need to clean up the rules where there is no way to police it if the person charged refuses to particpate, then I agree with you and I would go one step futher and say that person charged cannot particpate in the show with any of his/her horses..


----------



## Shortpig (Sep 20, 2010)

Relic said:


> at least glueing [sp] isn't as bad as some people who actually go to the trouble of having each mane strand sewn in...poor minis.


Ok that just made me sick to my stomach. Please tell me you haven't seen that done. I can't even stand to watch when my horses get their shots.

People disgust me!


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Sep 20, 2010)

OhHorsePee said:


> Lea, it was already proven that if protested the person does not have to agree to do anything and nothing would happen to that person who was protested. So why would people bother? And as far as "trainer & trainer/director" documenting measurements that is so wrong in many ways!!!


I am guessing this is going back to something that happened at Congress and let me say the rumors going around about what happened are not exactly accurate.

That said Lea I think those are wonderful ideas that could really help things out. Love the fact that rather then just complain you are being very pro active and trying to come up with solutions to help bring some type of consistency and fairness.


----------



## Mominis (Sep 20, 2010)

What happens if a horse sizes out, should they go with the new measurement procedures? I assume they'd pull the papers and that would be that, am I right? If so, what happens to those poor horses that would then be unregistered? It scares me that so many horses could end up with no 'worth' to their show homes and what the fate of those horses may be.


----------



## muffntuf (Sep 20, 2010)

There was a suggestion when this all came up over the summer of doing a random sample or just measuring twice, once with the standard now and once at the withers, so that we could see how many potential horses would measure out if the heights were not raised.

I take it this did not happen, per the discussion.

I think before anyone gets a wrinkle in their pants - we need to step back and look at what the potential damage is if the proposed height rules were to go into effect, regardless of grandfathering, without raising the heights. Its the same horse.

Will we loose 25%, 30%, 40% of the registered miniatures and their potential offspring, because there possibly could be that many that measure out?

At Nationals, if it is true 50 measured out and there were really 1500 head of miniatures, that is 3% that measured out and then you would extrapolate to the miniatures already born to the parents who are not registered or showing now, plus the weanlings, yearlings and bred mares for 2011, and then any three year olds that were used for breeding this year of the same parentage, etc.

And the question remains, if they do measure out, what happens to their papers?

How many members will we loose over this?


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Sep 20, 2010)

Honestly we just need to fix our current problem and not worry about measuring at different place. There has to be a better way with how we currently measure.

I don't think this will get past, its happening to quick.


----------



## horsefeather (Sep 20, 2010)

Just to let folks know, I have ALWAYS turned the stick AWAY from me. Lots of times the owner or a friend of theirs sees the measurement before I do. There is a problem with the stick that no one has mentioned. It will lean. Again, I try to keep it straight and thought I did until Curt was a witness one time and he said the stick was leaning. This will certainly change a measurement. He 'fixed' my stick by putting something on top so I could tell if it was standing straight. The bubble on the stick as it is now will not let you know if the stick is leaning. The only problem with that is I had to take it off to measure shetlands



Now for those who are going to say, 'the witness should tell you if the stick is leaning' sounds very logical. However, more than 1/2 of the horses I usually measure will not stand still, so we are trying to get the horse to stand and the witness is helping by telling me if the horse is standing square, plus doing some paperwork (something I have to have to send in to AMHR, I'll explain later if anyone cares)so you can see that the witness can only do so much. I still like the video idea. I wish the AMHR would put something on the bottom of the stick so it can't tilt or make them a little longer and put a level on top.

I have no magic ideas on how to 'fix' this measuring situation that always goes on and on, except one. Well two, really. Train your horse to stand still and stop cheating and be honest. If your horse is too tall, change it to the next class. Oh yes, one more. Stop showing horses that are so, so close that if they are cold, or nervous, etc. they won't measure where YOU want them to. We wanted to purchase a really nice show horse once, but she was too close to 38" so we didn't take the chance.

Pam


----------



## gvpalominominis (Sep 20, 2010)

muffntuf said:


> There was a suggestion when this all came up over the summer of doing a random sample or just measuring twice, once with the standard now and once at the withers, so that we could see how many potential horses would measure out if the heights were not raised.
> 
> I take it this did not happen, per the discussion.
> 
> ...



That's what I'm talking about = ) Loss revenues to all... including AMHR. Both HOW and WHERE does need to be clarified and adhered to... but there will always be variables.

I posted once before that a few years back they did do the thing regarding measuring twice... only it was an AMHA shows. I ran across the data from one of our shows a while back... I'll see if I can find it again. But measure your own. Some its only a minimal difference but those with high withers can make a big difference.


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Sep 20, 2010)

Re the blank stick...if you were to use an ultra violet written stick you could view the actual height, on the stick used, by using a simple light, thus eradicating the need to transfer the height from one stick to another, which could be either misused or unintentionally incorrectly transferred.

With reference to the horses not standing still...well, either they do or they do not get measured. That is not rocket science. If they cannot be measured they cannot show. End of story.

They would very quickly teach their horses to stand, methinks.


----------



## OhHorsePee (Sep 20, 2010)

~Lisa~ said:


> I am guessing this is going back to something that happened at Congress and let me say the rumors going around about what happened are not exactly accurate.
> 
> That said Lea I think those are wonderful ideas that could really help things out. Love the fact that rather then just complain you are being very pro active and trying to come up with solutions to help bring some type of consistency and fairness.


Lisa, Lea said no one protested. That is why I said that it may have to do with there not being a follow through. Neither of us were at Congress so neither of us know what really happened. You spoke with whomever you did and think it did not. I spoke to whom I did and believe it did.



Norlea said:


> hey just thought they were helping out(as they did last year)as we had a big line of horses and all three stewards were measuring.


Lea, after reading the above in your post one can only believe you are talking about this year.


----------



## Devon (Sep 20, 2010)

Personally I find it somewhat wrong to change the measuring spot that drastically. Say goodbye to etleast 25% of our registry horse wise, as anything thats is 36" and up will have a really good chance at measuring out... / What do we do with them? I'm surely not breeding them if I can't sell or show them



If you think this isnt going to effect you negatively then you must breed mostly A sized horses and feel that way too many push 38". I just don't get it??? Why withers? there will still be issues horses will still be tall people will still argue the spot your measuring on people will still stretch their horses ; you'll just be eliminating our currently tall horses and making new "tall" horses .. Really let's just find a way to fix it the way it is the standard we bred our horses to be measured under.


----------



## Marty (Sep 20, 2010)

In our line of business we sometimes use a laser measureing tool. I've used it a couple of times to get a measurement on a couple of my horses. You pretty much aim and shoot and it locks in the measurement a split second. There are some that have very tiny microchips in them where they take a picture at the same time. This is not it exactly, but would give you some idea of other tools to measure with.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lpt/yardstick.htm


----------



## JWC sr. (Sep 21, 2010)

If you think that the glued on hair is extreme, think about having hair inserted into the mane from the tail hair, follicles and all. Further it will grow so it is a one time deal. LOL It happens, people that are going to cheat will go to extremes to achieve the ends they are looking for. The technology is out there and is used in other animals on a fairly regular basis. Not really funny, but pretty durn stupid if you ask me. They take this showing stuff a lot more serious than I do anyway!





As far as the number of horses that measured out, i was told that there were 15 that did not make the cut. Further I watched quite a bit of the measuring for personal information's sale and did not see anything really out of the ordinary.





With that said, I still think a proposal to measure to the highest point of the the withers would help a lot, but it will not completely correct all the problems that are inherent to having people do measuring. They are after all just human and mistakes do and will happen.


----------



## Norlea (Sep 21, 2010)

horsefeather said:


> OK, as a steward, I can see that I have made at least one drastic mistake. While I will not let a horse stretch, I have let handlers set their front feet apart. I HONESTLY did not know that was illegal! Anyone reading this that go to shows I'll be stewarding at next year, take notice. I won't let anyone do that again. And, I apologize for allowing it. As for measuring the last hair of the mane, I don't think I know anyone (except perhaps the owner) that can get the 'exact' same measurement 3 times in a row (especially when the horse is moving around). (note to exhibitors, if your horse will stand still, it's MUCH easier to get a fair measurement). Now, I'm not talking about an inch, but it's not hard to be 1/2 in. different. Also, there are some driving horses that DO rub some mane out. I take that into consideration. Perhaps I shouldn't, but you can plainly see where the hair is missing and I will measure accordingly. It's usually not over 1/4 of an inch, but sometimes it does change the class the horse will go in. I drive a lot and realize this happens. Personally, I don't know how to stop it.
> 
> Also, at the shows where I steward, I put the pictures up on the wall or on the table of how the horse is to stand. It's the same for everybody. I have had people that are showing a shetland that's under 38" tell me they just can't stand that way.  If they are showing that horse as a mini, that horse MUST stand like all the others, square. I try to be carefull about the front legs being under the horse and have told quite a few when I notice it that they need to bring their legs forward. Now, I really like being a steward. Most folks are friendly and I like helping anyone with questions or whatever, but let me tell youall something, I certainly don't do it for the money!! If you took what I make a day and divide it into the hours I spend at the show and after, doing paperwork, well, most people wouldn't work for that amount.
> 
> ...



I find that interesting Pam, that some pony people feel that thier pony can not stand square, I do not dispute what your saying as many times I have witness ponies out behind themselfs and being measured. I decided to look up in the rule book what it states for measuring ponies. Miniature or Shetland all are to stand square while being measured!!!

Part 6 – Position of Animal

The animal must be standing squarely on all four feet and

should not be permitted to “stretch”. The front legs should

be on a vertical line directly under the shoulder. The back

of the hocks should be in a vertical line with the animal’s

buttocks. The horse/pony’s head must be held low enough

to reveal the highest point of the withers and no lower. The

animal must be free of blanket, hood, neck wrap and tail

set to verify the description on the registration paper to the

animal being measured. The handler must not interfere

with the animal in any way that will prevent it from

standing in this position.

Part 7 – Method of Measurement

A. Pony

With the animal in the aforementioned position,

measure the vertical distance from the highest point of

the withers to the measuring surface. The cross-piece,

arm or bar of the measuring device must be placed

over the highest point of the withers and no

measurement taken at any other part of the animal’s

body will count. The crosspiece, arm or bar must have

firm contact with the animal but no additional pressure

must be applied. Heel measurements are required on

all Shetlands and American Show Ponies. Height and

Heel measurements are to be recorded to the nearest ¼

inch, unless over the required measurement for the

division.

B. American Show Pony

With the animal in the aforementioned position,

measure the vertical distance from the highest point of

the withers to the measuring surface. The cross-piece,

arm or bar of the measuring device must be placed

over the highest point of the withers and no

measurement taken at any other part of the animal’s

body will count. The crosspiece, arm or bar must have

firm contact with the animal but no additional pressure

must be applied. Any pony entering into ASPR classes

must meet the dual height requirements of a maximum

overall exhibition height at the high point of the

withers to be 48” or less and the height at the highest

point of the withers to the hairline of the coronary

band shall not exceed 46”; i.e., 47” or less overall

height with a one inch heel or 48” overall height with

a 2” heel.

C. Miniature Horse

In measuring a miniature horse, position as above, the

head is to be in a normal position. Measure the vertical

distance from the base of the last hair on the mane to

the measuring surface.

C. Hunter Pony Measurement

1. Animals in competition in any Hunter Pony class

are subject to measurement. Measurements must be

performed by a steward with the official competition

veterinarian in attendance, both of whom shall sign the

measurement form.

2. An approved measurement stick is a straight, stiff,

unbendable stick that is equipped with a plumb bob or

spirit level to make sure the standard is perpendicular

to the ground and that the cross-piece or arm is

parallel with the ground surface, and must be shod

with metal.

3. The measurement surface must be level and under

no circumstances should animals be measured on dirt

or gravel. A level concrete slab or other paved surface

is required.

4. All Regular Competitions having Hunter Pony

classes are responsible for providing an approved

Measurement stick and a suitable surface for

measurement

5. The animal must stand squarely on all four feet in

such a position that the front legs are vertical to the

ground and the back of the hocks are in a vertical line

with the point of the animal’s quarters. The poll must

be in the same horizontal plane as the withers and no

lower and the head should be in a normal position. A

maximum of two handlers may present the animal for

measurement and they must not interfere with the

animal in any way that will prevent it from standing in

this position nor may they have any direct physical

contact with the animal that could influence the

measurement, except that a handler may cover the

animal’s eyes.


----------



## Jacki Loomis (Sep 21, 2010)

I am on the verge of changing my mind about the current measuring proposal that will be considered at convention, I was very opposed to it but now I'm seeing value in it. I do want to say that these discussions have been very helpful to me, we don't all agree but I do think that the majority of us really just want what's best for our miniature horses.

I believe the current measuring process/system is under stress from ever taller horses being presented for competition at AMHR shows. I can so remember when we won National Grand Champion Halter Gelding and Pleasure Driving with Sagittars Little Joe back around 2002, he was huge compared to most horses being shown and I was always worried about measuring him at each show, he measures around 37 1/2". I no longer own him but he is still showing and at this past National show he looked small in his over 36" to 38" classes.

The stress I believe we have in the measuring process/system will not go away on its own. We have heard stories on this forum of hair being glued and implanted, drugs being used, etc. to get taller horses measured in. That will keep happening unless a drastic change is made which leads me to think Belinda's proposal to change to top of the wither measuring may be the "correction" we need. I now think I could support that proposal with no addition to the maximum of 38" but some sort of allowance to allow current show horses to keep showing. This change will be significant enough to change show and breeding habits which I think is critical to preserving the Miniature Horse. It will be painful in the short term but the benefit to preserving the uniqueness of the Miniature Horse will be worth it in my opinion.

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Sep 21, 2010)

Jacki I could not have said it any better myself


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Sep 21, 2010)

Jacki I agree with you as well. The only thing I could add to that is not make it a extradionary rule for 2011 but have it for the 2012 season. If the next years foals are to be measured at the withers what happens to those who will go over when this rule was not taken into affect when they decided to breed their mares.


----------



## drivinghoss (Sep 21, 2010)

The current measuring system is fine the way it is. When this registry was established the measuring system was put in place so as to be fair to all horses. 20 years ago at the AMHR Nationals there was just as much complaining about the big horses as there was this year. Some people who lose will blame anything for that loss. A bigger horse will never beat a horse that is more correct conformationally.

The AMHR registry and shows have been growing because there has been a good set of rules in place. Our stewards do a great job of enforcing the rules. Our stewards do a great job of measuring horses also.

Frankly those people who want to change the measuring have ulterior motives.

Oh and I had a horse that measured out this year at nationals..I had a 2 year old that measured 37.25.


----------



## muffntuf (Sep 21, 2010)

Jacki,

I can't support this still, although I recognize we need to look at this. Until we know how this will effect the registry's bottom line - and I believe that is where we will see how much revenue dollars and how many miniature horses will suddenly become worthless and possibly fill kill lots because people might consider them worthless - its just not supportable.

Make allowances - but remember how many foals might be expected this next year, etc.

We need to study this first.


----------



## Jacki Loomis (Sep 21, 2010)

JMS Miniatures said:


> Jacki I agree with you as well. The only thing I could add to that is not make it a extradionary rule for 2011 but have it for the 2012 season. If the next years foals are to be measured at the withers what happens to those who will go over when this rule was not taken into affect when they decided to breed their mares.



That seems reasonable, giving people some time to adjust their breeding programs.

I will be negatively impacted in the short term too, I also have horses on the ground and in utero who would no longer measure in if the rule was changed but I think the industry will pay now or pay later. I hope the membership and BOD thoroughly look at this issue at Convention.


----------



## Mominis (Sep 21, 2010)

I do not support it. I am afraid of the fate of the horses who may only be AMHR registered and will lose their ability to show and therefore their 'worth' to their show homes. While the ASPC/AMHR horses have another option, those AMHR only horses are out of luck. I don't want to see an outbreak of former show horses turning up with poor Champ's lot in life. That really scares me for the horses.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Sep 21, 2010)

Mominis said:


> IWhile the ASPC/AMHR horses have another option, those AMHR only horses are out of luck. I don't want to see an outbreak of former show horses turning up with poor Champ's lot in life. That really scares me for the horses.


I believe the proposal as written (although maybe I am remembering wrong) has a grandfathered in phrase meaning any horse currently registered will NOT measure the new way. So that no former show horses would be out of luck


----------



## REO (Sep 21, 2010)

I am fiercely opposed to changing where we measure. Why should *I* be forced to change *my* breeding program, that I have spent 17 years of blood, sweat , tears and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ developing, just because *some* people cheat at shows? Why should I have to be the one to adjust my life and whole herd because some people can't enforce the rules or write them them better?

Even if they are changed, there will still be cheaters and still people that make mistakes trying to enforce them (I'm NOT talking about everyone, but the ones that caused this to be an issue in the 1st place)

I say, leave it alone and just enforce it, re-write it better, set down uniform standards etc.

Most people are thinking of showing or show horses. I'm thinking of horses LIVES and how they'll be affected if they're suddenly not worth diddly. It's hard enough marketing NICE registered horses, I hate to think about horses that are suddenly "grade".

Sorry, I must have put on my grumpy old lady suit today, but that's how I feel. I'm usually quiet, but I feel very strongly about this.


----------



## OhHorsePee (Sep 21, 2010)

REO said:


> I am fiercely opposed to changing where we measure. Why should *I* be forced to change *my* breeding program, that I have spent 17 years of blood, sweat , tears and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ developing, just because *some* people cheat at shows? Why should I have to be the one to adjust my life and whole herd because some people can't enforce the rules or write them them better?
> 
> Even if they are changed, there will still be cheaters and still people that make mistakes trying to enforce them (I'm NOT talking about everyone, but the ones that caused this to be an issue in the 1st place)
> 
> ...



100% agree! So tell me this... How much will my now double registered mares that are 36 1/2" and 37 1/2" decrease in marketable value? Now that does not even count the monies from future foals lost. I think this proposal came about to make it better for some to market to Europe. Like I said about that months ago they just should measure at the withers honestly for those that need the wither measurement. If this proposal passes I have to wonder what legal ramifications will occur. I may even have to jump on that bandwagon if it happens.


----------



## jeniemac (Sep 21, 2010)

REO said:


> I am fiercely opposed to changing where we measure. Why should *I* be forced to change *my* breeding program, that I have spent 17 years of blood, sweat , tears and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ developing, just because *some* people cheat at shows? Why should I have to be the one to adjust my life and whole herd because some people can't enforce the rules or write them them better?
> 
> Even if they are changed, there will still be cheaters and still people that make mistakes trying to enforce them (I'm NOT talking about everyone, but the ones that caused this to be an issue in the 1st place)
> 
> ...


----------



## REO (Sep 21, 2010)

What I mean is, it's easy for some to say, "Well people will have a few years to change their breeding programs." But I don't think they fully understand what will happen.

Right now, people sell horses to other breeders, people getting started in breeding, because they're changing their programs etc. In order to sell what you have, there has to be a market for them.

If all of a sudden people are forced to scramble to change their programs to suit those that decided to change where they are measured, who will buy those horses? NO ONE will want these suddenly oversized horses or their offspring. There will be a glut of unwanted horses out there. (things are bad enough out there as it is) What will happen to them all? Dump them without papers at auctions to be bought by meat buyers or game farms in Mexico?

To me, the big picture ripples out farther than simply changing the way we measure.

It's good people are trying to figure out how to make things better for people, but I don't feel changing the way we measure will be better for the _horses_ in the long run. My horses are my kids and I LOVE them.

Thanks for letting me say the way I feel and not being mean to me if you disagree





Sorry, I guess I wasn't done yet LOL!


----------



## chandab (Sep 21, 2010)

REO said:


> I am fiercely opposed to changing where we measure. Why should *I* be forced to change *my* breeding program, that I have spent 17 years of blood, sweat , tears and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ developing, just because *some* people cheat at shows? Why should I have to be the one to adjust my life and whole herd because some people can't enforce the rules or write them them better?
> 
> I say, leave it alone and just enforce it, re-write it better, set down uniform standards etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Sep 21, 2010)

When it come to this proposal I think its only fair if AMHR sent this out to all its members to beable to vote on it, just like the way it is. No changing to it at all at Convention. Cause this is a big deal and can make a impact on the breed. That way the breeders have a voice not just those who show.

Its just like when AMHA had their proposal to measure at the base of the withers, that was a HUGE mistake for AMHA when so many few people voted to pass it. AMHR needs to learn from their mistake and let the whole membership vote on it. Shoot IMO it needs to be done that way with all proposals period, but this paticular one does affect everyone involved with AMHR.


----------



## susanne (Sep 22, 2010)

If measuring is done from the top of the withers AND the height limit is changed (permanently) to 39 or 40 inches, no horses would be bigger and nobody would need to change their breeding programs.

It's the same horse, just measured in a different place.


----------



## REO (Sep 22, 2010)

Yup. But going by threads here in the past, MANY people that are for it are also for not raising the withers allowance (height)


----------



## Jacki Loomis (Sep 22, 2010)

JMS Miniatures said:


> When it come to this proposal I think its only fair if AMHR sent this out to all its members to beable to vote on it, just like the way it is. No changing to it at all at Convention. Cause this is a big deal and can make a impact on the breed. That way the breeders have a voice not just those who show.
> 
> Its just like when AMHA had their proposal to measure at the base of the withers, that was a HUGE mistake for AMHA when so many few people voted to pass it. AMHR needs to learn from their mistake and let the whole membership vote on it. Shoot IMO it needs to be done that way with all proposals period, but this paticular one does affect everyone involved with AMHR.


I think voting on measuring by the entire membership would benefit the association in the long run, get more buy in on the final decision and then those on both sides no matter how it came it out would feel that they had a chance to voice their feelings.

I'll share (paraphrase) the conversation I had at Nationals with a long time breeder, this is what changed my mind as I did not previously see a benefit to changing the measuring.

"Fifty some years ago when the Shetland market was at it's lowest point, some breeders rebranded their smaller Shetland ponies as Miniature Horses. Fast forward to today and the current trend of cheap hardshipping of ever taller horses, Shetland ponies, and Hackney ponies which dilutes the very successful Miniature Horse brand. Our new customers can no longer see the difference between a pony and a miniature horse, the only people who benefit from this change are the Shetland pony breeders who now have a new market for the smaller ponies. The ASPC - AMHR is sacrificing long term demand for the Miniautre Horse for short term increases in revenue."

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]


----------



## kaykay (Sep 22, 2010)

> "Fifty some years ago when the Shetland market was at it's lowest point, some breeders rebranded their smaller Shetland ponies as Miniature Horses. Fast forward to today and the current trend of cheap hardshipping of ever taller horses, Shetland ponies, and Hackney ponies which dilutes the very successful Miniature Horse brand. Our new customers can no longer see the difference between a pony and a miniature horse, the only people who benefit from this change are the Shetland pony breeders who now have a new market for the smaller ponies. The ASPC - AMHR is sacrificing long term demand for the Miniautre Horse for short term increases in revenue."


Wow! Had to read this twice. Its been posted here over and over that small shetlands were the beginning of the Miniature horse. I have said over and over they were marketing genuis's.

What so many fail to see is that many of those Shetland farms always bred small mini sized ponies and continued to do that even after the Miniature horse boom. They never wavered. They are still going today. Some of these are AMHA/ASPC/AMHR registered (not hardshipped)

Shetlands were NEVER supposed to have to hardship into the registry they created but this got turned by Bod that was current at that time. Which still makes no sense that the very pony that created the Miniature horse has to hardship? Really think about that without bias and you will see that it doesnt make sense.

The problem is so many never noticed the ASPC/AMHR horses until the last few years even though they were always around. These Shetland farms that had the courage to not throw away the ASPC papers have been breeding these so called "fad" ponies for 50 years! When they started winning then people who never saw it suddenly saw it.

The measuring issue has nothing to do with what a horse a registered. It has everything to do with being able to accurately measure and enforce the rule book. It wouldnt matter if there were ZERO ASPC/AMHR horses showing at Nationals you would still have a measurement issue.

One has nothing to do with the other and I am just so tired of everything that is wrong being blamed on ASPC/AMHR horses.


----------



## Minimor (Sep 22, 2010)

I'm sorry, I don't see anything in there that would cause me to think that heights should be reduced? What in there is a bad thing? As I figured, this is solely to keep more Shetlands out of AMHR. It won't keep them all out because there are surely a number of them that will still measure in at 38" or less at the top of the wither, but it will leave some of them out. That is one thing.

The thing that I am opposed to about this--it is effectively ruining the breeding programs of a number of breeders (not mine--I say this from an outside viewpoint because I am not actively breeding and have no intention of breeding any more Miniatures--and I do not have any AMHR horses that have ASPC papers)...those who have some good horses that measure 36-38" at the last mane hair horses...they are going to have to remove those horses from their breeding program and start over or just quit....and they are going to be left with horses that have little value. Perhaps they can sell those horses as show horses if they are young....older horses that have spent several years as broodmares are not likely to be purchased by anyone as show horses, and no one will purchase them for breeding--it is exactly as REO posted earlier--what fate will these horses be doomed to if this rule change goes through?

I called this the 'sorry loser proposal' earlier when this discussion first came up, and I continue to call it the SORRY LOSER PROPOSAL today.


----------



## muffntuf (Sep 22, 2010)

"Fifty some years ago when the Shetland market was at it's lowest point, some breeders rebranded their smaller Shetland ponies as Miniature Horses. Fast forward to today and the current trend of cheap hardshipping of ever taller horses, Shetland ponies, and Hackney ponies which dilutes the very successful Miniature Horse brand. Our new customers can no longer see the difference between a pony and a miniature horse, the only people who benefit from this change are the Shetland pony breeders who now have a new market for the smaller ponies. The ASPC - AMHR is sacrificing long term demand for the Miniautre Horse for short term increases in revenue."

Jacki - I do not see this completely. I do understand there is a small market for the AMHR/ASPC, but I watched the classes from Nationals, there were only 4 AMHR/ASPC that stood out to me as being possibly out of place in the crowd, mostly in driving. But they measured in at Nationals so they could compete.

From the pony perspective - I can't see the difference in the Foundation, Classic show ring right now, it looked like 95% miniatures in the ring, not shetlands.

So this goes both ways in sense.

I do not believe it is the Shetland Pony that is sacrificing the miniature horse at all.

I am still opposed to this proposal until we study the effects it will have on the registry and the miniatures that could possibly be left behind. AMHR/ASPC registered animals might be measured out now, but as everyone has said - they would go to ASPC. But what about the miniature that isn't double registered? They will be measured out and this is targeted at the B size miniatures. I am not willing to loose a whole segment of the registry because someone calls foul play.


----------



## drivinghoss (Sep 22, 2010)

Any proposal that will change the standard of registering horses is bigger than a single convention or Board of Directors.

If the Board is truly wise they will recoginize that changing the registery standard is bad for business.

Any proposal this big should be put to a vote of all the members of ASPC/AMHR. Send out a ballot and let people read the proposals and make up their minds and vote by secret ballot.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Sep 22, 2010)

Jacki Loomis said:


> "Fifty some years ago when the Shetland market was at it's lowest point, some breeders rebranded their smaller Shetland ponies as Miniature Horses. Fast forward to today and the current trend of cheap hardshipping of ever taller horses, Shetland ponies, and Hackney ponies which dilutes the very successful Miniature Horse brand. Our new customers can no longer see the difference between a pony and a miniature horse, the only people who benefit from this change are the Shetland pony breeders who now have a new market for the smaller ponies. The ASPC - AMHR is sacrificing long term demand for the Miniautre Horse for short term increases in revenue."
> 
> Jacki Loomis
> 
> [email protected]


I agree fully.

Iam not sure what the answer is as it will effect others but then again what is happenening now is effecting others

maybe the real answer here when looking out for the AMHR registry is to leave the height and measuring where it is and simply close hardship to anyone and everyone? I am not sure


----------



## AshleyNicole (Sep 22, 2010)

REO said:


> I am fiercely opposed to changing where we measure. Why should *I* be forced to change *my* breeding program, that I have spent 17 years of blood, sweat , tears and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ developing, just because *some* people cheat at shows? Why should I have to be the one to adjust my life and whole herd because some people can't enforce the rules or write them them better?
> 
> Even if they are changed, there will still be cheaters and still people that make mistakes trying to enforce them (I'm NOT talking about everyone, but the ones that caused this to be an issue in the 1st place)
> 
> ...




I agree!!! Horses will be suddenly worthless even if they are grandfathered in....who wants a horse that will produce something oversized.... It is not fair that a few people get to decide what happens to the rest of us. I agree with the person who said that this is for the few that sell overseas. Although I know that another reason is that measuring needs to be fixed or enforced better, but at least add a couple of inches so that current stock isn't suddenly worthless. I fear that a lot of the breeding stock will end up like Champ.....This will affect not only the future of AMHR but also the horses who suddenly no one wants. Also what about the many small breeders who can't suddenly even in two years rework their breeding programs?? Is AMHR going to reimburse those who have spent money, time, etc into their breeding programs only to have the rules changed and suddenly valuable horses aren't worth anything? The small breeders are the majority of AMHR and if you try to please the few and forget the many it is very bad business and I think the registry will regret it in the long run really....


----------



## kaykay (Sep 22, 2010)

> The small breeders are the majority of AMHR and if you try to please the few and forget the many it is very bad business and I think the registry will regret it in the long run really....


Amen sister. I have said for years that the small little farms are what enables this registry to continue. They are the ones that pay to register, pay trainers, pay to show locally, pay pay and pay some more. They are without a doubt the backbone of the registry but have very little say in what goes on.

For most small farms its not that they dont want to go to convention and be able to have their say, they simply cant afford it or cant be away from their farm that long as they dont have a hired staff to care for horses while they are gone etc.



> THE MAJORITY DO NOT WANT THEM.. yes it may just be a name and calling them minis made them more marketable- that is evident in the amount registered and amount of revenue brought in from minis compared to ponies.


If no one wants them and they are such a tiny percentage then who cares? And how could they have such a huge impact? Doesnt make sense.

Again fix the problem where it lies and stop blaming registration papers. The issue isnt Shetland ponies its having stewards measure properly and enforcing the rule book.

Kay


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Sep 22, 2010)

~Lisa~ said:


> I agree fully. Yes these small ponies have been around for ever but gues what the reality is and was THE MAJORITY DO NOT WANT THEM.. yes it may just be a name and calling them minis made them more marketable- that is evident in the amount registered and amount of revenue brought in from minis compared to ponies.
> 
> People (the majority) still do not want "ponies" and if we make AMHR a a small sized ASPC registry then yes we will lose people in the long run. I have been saying that for a couple of years now.
> 
> ...


Lisa I totally agree. I know many are tired of going against the shetlands they either are just giving up competely or are switching to AMHA. So I think AMHR is loosing either way.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Sep 22, 2010)

Well kay the difference they are making is the perception.. marketing remember is all about perception

Just like some may give the perception they are an expert - others will buy it be it the truth or not if they market themselves well enough that it becomes a common perception

The perception is AMHR is now a place for ponies so yes that perception could very well make a very big difference in the future of AMHR seeing as many who do not even show small farms have the perception that for their horses to be marketable - their programs to profit they must add ASPC

Of course not all perceptions are based in truth but often times truth doesnt seem to matter the perception takes precedent


----------



## Minimor (Sep 22, 2010)

There are so many contradictions in this. Lisa is saying no one wants them (ponies that are also AMHR registered), or at least the majority do not want them and there are so few being shown, and yet someone else said earlier on in this thread that they are changing the AMHR horses so much that Minis are no longer possible to tell apart from Shetlands. So, a big minority of people/breeders are having such an impact on the breed that they are changing (or have changed?) the entire breed into small Shetlands? Come on now, that doesn't even make sense.

The majority don't want them, so it's said, and yet there have been others complaining on this forum about how they are ruining the market for non-ASPC AMHR horses, people say they want to stop things before it gets to where they cannot sell their AMHR horses at all...fear is no one will want AMHR because they want only ASPC/AMHR. If the majoirty don't want the ASPC/AMHR horses then this shouldn't be a concern at all. The majority want and will continue to want AMHR only--a small minority will want ASPC/AMHR. So, where is the problem?

Reference has been made to only a small number of ASPC/AMHR horses being shown, yet someone commented to me yesterday that the over division at Nationals this year was "all Shetlands"...sounded like the over classes were full of Shetlands. She wasn't complaining, even though she doesn't have Shetlands, it was simply an observation on her part.

I guess I just don't see how on one hand people can state that the majority of people don't want ASPC/AMHR and yet on the other had they are fussing because ASPC/AMHR is taking over AMHR. How can there be so many ASPC/AMHR horses taking over everything when so few people supposedly want them?

I think the truth is that there are a lot of people that do want them....not the majority of Mini owners overall perhaps, but the majority of show people and the majority of breeders that breed for the show ring....really the high profile people that the public hears the most about overall, those that are putting their horses out into public view with showing and advertising...those people DO want ASPC/AMHR. I'm not sure why those exhibitors and breeders should give up their wants for that "majority" who mostly are not even affected by the ASPC/AMHR horses. Just in the people I know personally there are a fair number who don't have ASPC/AMHR, don't care if they never have ASPC/AMHR and will never see their market affected by the ASPC/AMHR horses. That "majority" doesn't really care one way or the other about what happens with ASPC/AMHR horses and the measurement issues. Some, though, would like to use that majority to suit their own agendas.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Sep 22, 2010)

AS an afterthought here instead of focusing on how much the ASPC can help improve the minis why does the ASPC not focus on improving the ponies within its registry as well as actually promoting them to the general public so that they to as they sit ASPC registered ponies in all divisions could eventually become as appealing to the general public as the miniature horse?

And yes the amount of members who show is a small percentage but the reality is in any breed good or bad what is winning in the show ring does effect how others feel about the breed and perceive what is happening in that breed. A judge said to a group of other judges ( I am paraphrasing here) we must pick carefully and as best to the standard as we can. We are what makes a breed good decisions and bad we make the breed. That is a huge responsibility. I could not agree with her more she realizes the decisons come with great perceptions about the breed to those at the show and the thousands and thousands of owners not at the show

and Holly yep you are darn right I have an agenda that agenda is simple and one I have no shame in. Keeping AMHR as financially healthy as possible. Iam one who realizes and admits and appreciates the fact that with the funds coming in from AMHR - ASPC is allowed to continue- ASPC is allowed a Congress show- I am aware of the financial statements and how Congress in one year can cost more then ASPC brings in for the year. It should be everyones agenda not to push what will maket their farm- not to belittle others for being sore losers-

But to realize that what has worked in the past to bring in the dollars - has done just that worked- what has not worked in the past to bring in a lot of revenue is still not bringing in alot of revenue.

Yep my agenda is keeping revenue coming in and looking long term as to the ramifications of AMHR being percieved as a place for ASPC ponies that cant compete in ASPC. *I do not believe that to be fact..* but that is the common perception based here on this forum and out there in the mini world.

Imagine the increase in ASPC classes locally as well as at Congress if they could only show ASPC

As a AMHR member and a ASPC member I would hate for us to not look into the future and find a way to promote ponies to the outside world. To get the revenue the ASPC brings in up and even close to the revenue AMHR brings in. Only then can we have the things many members say they want a bigger Congress a bigger and better facility. A Congress equal to Nationals and a thriving AMHR industry and well as a thriving ASPC industry


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Sep 22, 2010)

~Lisa~ said:


> AS an afterthought here instead of focusing on how much the ASPC can help improve the minis why does the ASPC not focus on improving the ponies within its registry as well as actually promoting them to the general public so that they to as they sit ASPC registered ponies in all divisions could eventually become as appealing to the general public as the miniature horse?


I agree, I think the ASPC itself needs help in promotion, why do they need to go thru with it in AMHR? Get out there and advertise why the ASPC is so special, they can certaintly make great kids ponies.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Sep 22, 2010)

I do believe AMHR is a great place to promote the ASPC divisions - I think it is an easy market to cross over people who are already going to shows and know the farms ect. However that said I would love to see all those small Shetlands back in the Shetland ring to help increase local participation which in turn would allow more show managers to add ASPC classes to the line up.

I just think we all need to think long run and look at the bigger picture- the whole and complete picture and right now I personally do not think that is happening.


----------



## OhHorsePee (Sep 22, 2010)

Minimor said:


> There are so many contradictions in this. Lisa is saying no one wants them (ponies that are also AMHR registered), or at least the majority do not want them and there are so few being shown, and yet someone else said earlier on in this thread that they are changing the AMHR horses so much that Minis are no longer possible to tell apart from Shetlands. So, a big minority of people/breeders are having such an impact on the breed that they are changing (or have changed?) the entire breed into small Shetlands? Come on now, that doesn't even make sense.
> 
> The majority don't want them, so it's said, and yet there have been others complaining on this forum about how they are ruining the market for non-ASPC AMHR horses, people say they want to stop things before it gets to where they cannot sell their AMHR horses at all...fear is no one will want AMHR because they want only ASPC/AMHR. If the majoirty don't want the ASPC/AMHR horses then this shouldn't be a concern at all. The majority want and will continue to want AMHR only--a small minority will want ASPC/AMHR. So, where is the problem?
> 
> ...


Loved it! Awesome post!! I see this proposal as much agenda based as the A's and B's being dropped and as well as the China ponies escapade.


----------



## Minimor (Sep 22, 2010)

This discussion is pointless, I know that. But...



> Imagine the increase in ASPC classes locally as well as at Congress if they could only show ASPC


 What makes you think people would show these double registered horses ASPC if they couldn't show them AMHR? A good low of those owners would ditch those horses or keep them and just not show them at all, they would haul other AMHR horses instead. Many of them bought them to be AMHR because that is what they want to show in.
And I still don't see how you figure that the ASPC/AMHR horse that comes from 10 generations of ASPC/AMHR horses are any less "MINIATURE" than the AMHR horses that came from 10 generations of AMHR-only horses?? Try looking at it this way. Supposing that those same 10 generations of horses had been bred exactly the same as they have been, with the only difference being that 10 generations back someone had thrown away ALL the ASPC papers, so that those horses were then AMHR only for all of these 10 generations. You would have the exact same horse you have now, only it would be AMHR only, not ASPC/AMHR. You would be okay with having those "Miniatures" in AMHR because now they would be Miniature and not Shetland? That is the part in this whole thing that really makes no sense. Why should a number of ASPC/AMHR horses now be penalized because way back when some breeders just happened to keep their ASPC papers on the horses that they registered AMHR?


----------



## muffntuf (Sep 22, 2010)

There are so many contradictions in this. Lisa is saying no one wants them (ponies that are also AMHR registered), or at least the majority do not want them and there are so few being shown, and yet someone else said earlier on in this thread that they are changing the AMHR horses so much that Minis are no longer possible to tell apart from Shetlands. So, a big minority of people/breeders are having such an impact on the breed that they are changing (or have changed?) the entire breed into small Shetlands? Come on now, that doesn't even make sense.

Just to come back to my comments. This is based on observation from Congress. In the Foundation and Classic classes I competed against a lot of what seemed to me to be the double reg'd equine and they looked like miniatures to me, not shetland ponies. Since I competed, I did take notice. In one class it seemed my pony was the only Shetland looking pony in it, and that pony placed 4th. The first three placings were miniature looking - but ASPC/AMHR miniature/pony.

Oh and there was one miniature miniature, who is also registered as ASPC who competed, everyone towered over the animal as it was only 30" or something like that. But - to prove the point, that was a true miniature in my eyes, it did not look like a pony in any respect. And unfortunately the halter class I saw the miniature compete in, it was placed low in the placings.


----------



## Devon (Sep 22, 2010)

Minimor said:


> What makes you think people would show these double registered horses ASPC if they couldn't show them AMHR? A good low of those owners would ditch those horses or keep them and just not show them at all, they would haul other AMHR horses instead. Many of them bought them to be AMHR because that is what they want to show in.


True if anyone really thinks pushing our aspc/amhr ponies out of amhr will somehow make ASPC as successful as AMHR it won't I love AMHR bought a horse that is mini height and a shetland; if I couldn't do that anymore I wouldnt show them at all my interest isn't in showing shetland besides the closest show is like 7 hours and out of country




So Id probably just not do anything with that stock and maybe start a whole new program or maybe not seems like a huge waste of my money thus far in my program...


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Sep 22, 2010)

*I am very open to being wrong I am very open to everyone embracing the ASPC in the mini ring and out and that this will only help the entire registry and the revenue thrive. I am not heck bent on my fears being right. I would love for it not to be I am just saying we need to consider the possiblity and the results it could have*


----------



## JWC sr. (Sep 22, 2010)

I guess I am just stupid or something, personally I would love to have nothing but multiple registered horses. ASPC/AMHR/AMHA/Pinto and whatever else I can come up with. It gives me more options for owners in order to find life jobs for my horses.





In my mind this is not as big a deal as some would have us believe. We as a registry were fine before all the Shetland versus mini stuff started and we will be fine after it has died down. Breeding for the best small equine you can produce cannot and is not a badthing in my book anyway. Breed what you like and enjoy! After all nobody is getting rich doing this stuff!


----------



## Echo Acres (Sep 22, 2010)

Once again I have to admit I have not read this whole topic, but looks as though it has gotten slightly off subject as a shetland verses miniature debate.

Now back to the topic. I thought the measuring down at nationals was way off. For one thing one of the stewards doing the measuring was very rude and made many inappropraite comments. Some of which went against the rule book. I think as the show went on they got worse because no one wanted to get measured by them. For one thing they measured about an inch higher than the others. Also the spots they had to measure it were terrible. If you stood back you could clearly see the dips in the floor. We discovered that only one of the areas was somewhat flat so they could be measured accurately and insisted we use that one. The others it was obvious that the horse was standing higher than where the stick was being placed. I had a senior horse measure close to 35 inches. Tell me how a senior horse can grow 1 1/2 inches in 2 months time? He normally measures 33 1/2. A young horse I may believe, but not a senior horse. Also it was frustrating if you had to remeasure to try and find the right time where the right steward was available. I know those stewards work long hours there and I thank them for that. Could a few changes be made to make it better, sure.


----------



## kaykay (Sep 22, 2010)

> Of course not all perceptions are based in truth but often times truth doesnt seem to matter the perception takes precedent


I guess we can finally agree on something. Perceptions can be misleading. There are some that profess to love the American Shetland Pony and then blame them for everything wrong in the registry and bash them every chance they get.

Kay


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Sep 22, 2010)

Thankfully we all have a chance to be part of the decision making process. I hope that a decision can be made that will allow AMHR members to feel heard and one that ASPC members will be happy with as well. I think we can all agree that without one..we would not have the other!


----------



## LaVern (Sep 22, 2010)

No it did not change anything for me. And I guess I don't care anymore. It will Be as it will Be. It doesn't matter what it says our horses or any other breed of horses are supposed to look like, we as humans will try to change things and push the envelope. That is what we do.

If tall wins we will breed tall. If high steppers win we will breed high steppers. Whatever - and we have chosen to play the game.


----------



## dannigirl (Sep 22, 2010)

LaVern said:


> It doesn't matter what it says our horses or any other breed of horses are supposed to look like, we as humans will try to change things and push the envelope. That is what we do.
> 
> If tall wins we will breed tall. If high steppers win we will breed high steppers. Whatever - and we have chosen to play the game.


----------



## alphahorses (Sep 22, 2010)

JWC sr. said:


> I guess I am just stupid or something, personally I would love to have nothing but multiple registered horses. ASPC/AMHR/AMHA/Pinto and whatever else I can come up with. It gives me more options for owners in order to find life jobs for my horses.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree. Not to mention the fact that most minis ARE shetlands - they just don't have the papers. So I don't understand why it is even an issue.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Sep 22, 2010)

LaVern said:


> No it did not change anything for me. And I guess I don't care anymore. It will Be as it will Be. It doesn't matter what it says our horses or any other breed of horses are supposed to look like, we as humans will try to change things and push the envelope. That is what we do.
> 
> If tall wins we will breed tall. If high steppers win we will breed high steppers. Whatever - and we have chosen to play the game.


Well I do agree with you right there. IMO the shetlands showing with the minis will not go away, I think its going to be AMHR's route, and either I accept it and go along with it or fight it/go some where else. I accept it, but am I happy about it no, which means I'm not going to rule out AMHA.

I always said that AMHR/ASPC needs to come back together, I hate getting into these type of arguments. So I just won't say anything about it anymore. A miniature is a miniature as long as its 38" and under, truly thats what a miniature is.

As far as this measuring proposal goes IMHO it does not mean squat to me if it does not go into vote for all the membership. Alot of us cannot go, I want to but I have to go to school, many of us sacrificed just to go to Nationals. So you know what lets give AMHR's members a chance to have their voices be heard and let us tell you how we feel about this proposal.


----------



## Devon (Sep 23, 2010)

JMS Miniatures said:


> I always said that AMHR/ASPC needs to come back together, I hate getting into these type of arguments. So I just won't say anything about it anymore. A miniature is a miniature as long as its 38" and under, truly thats what a miniature is.


true



If it is under 38" it is a miniature .. A miniature horse is a height breed therefore there is no true "miniature" so therefore there shouldnt be a Shetlands Vs Minis showing AMHR debate every 5 seconds .. they are ALL minis if they are under 38" no matter what their other papers or lineage... if the shetland is 36 it is a miniature horse disregard all other papers it carries...


----------



## dannigirl (Sep 23, 2010)

Measuring will always be an issue. Hopefully someone can come up with a foolproof way, but that is very unlikely. Where we measure the horse is not nearly as important and the spot the horse is standing and the integrity of the person doing the measuring. As for me, I know that if I push the limit with any of my horses so that they measure either 34" or 38" most of the time, there will be those times they will measure out. I feel that is a chance I take. I will grumble, but will usually blame the spot the horse is standing and not the steward unless the steward was very unsensitive and rushing--something I have yet to encounter at any show. I don't usually watch anyone else get their horses measured because I really don't want to know if there is a way to cheat or if someone is doing it.



It is hard to find a level spot and then get the horse to stand exactly in that level spot, but that should be the only unknown in the measuring process.


----------



## stormy (Sep 23, 2010)

Keeps being said but of course the Shetland folks keep denying this....Shetlands are not Shetlands, minis added breeds the Shetlands did not and went a differant way....made a differant type (as can clearly be seen in the show ring). AMHR is not just a height registry or ALL horses under 38" would be able to be registered, not just Shetlands and AMHA horses.

Just imagine if all the Shetlands at Nationals showed in the Shetland registry how big congress would be! Cross registring is impacting the Shetland as a breed also and I think not in a good way.

Still wondering why Shetland did not just add another height division if the breeders wanted a miniature shetland designation.

So off the soap box. In my opinion makes absolutely not differance were a horse is measured, cheaters will cheat! Would not want to see AMHR and AMHA measuring by differant methods...would be very confusing to those with double registered stock. Horses will always measure differant on differant days by differant people depending on if they are nervous, cold, fat, when their feet were trimmed, the surface they are measured on, are they as square etc.


----------



## Sandee (Sep 26, 2010)

stormy said:


> ..................
> 
> ................................
> 
> ...


I've tried to wade through this whole topic. First as to the statment above- The Shetland registry would have "fix" their judges too. You see I have one of those double horses. The Sheltand judges commented that he had "too high a headset" for the Classics but if you put this short guy up against the High Stepping tall Moderns --then what chance has he there? So AMHR is the obvious anwer for him to compete.

Next as to the measuring...I don't know which steward was "measuring high" as when I went no one was complaining and my guys (they're only A & R registered)came in shorter than their permanent cards! I do leave extra hair at the end of the mane because I was told "the steward can tell the difference" and I was told, way back when I started, that I cut off too much!! So now I let them decide.

Changing the way you measure without changing the height requirments is (pardon my French) NUTS! The 34" horse that would measure 35 or 36 or between is still the SAME HORSE. His movement didn't change and neither did his conformation. He'll most likely still be competing against the same horses that he did before. It's just not politically correct to say we now accept "taller" horses. BULL....

Those sticks that have double levels on them will still be "off" a bit if the floor you're using is NOT LEVEL.

The best we can do is try to give our stewards good equipment, standardized training, and accept them for the humans that they are which to my understanding is fallible.

I'd like to say "boy those rotten judges" because I didn't place as high as I'd like but most of the calls, especially when I went back and looked at the tape version of the classes, were what I agreed with. I can't say that about the Congress show. There, now someone can get all twisted over that.


----------

