# Saturday AMHA General Membership Meeting



## JMS Miniatures (Feb 21, 2009)

I see they passed the hardshipping of the Geldings fee lowered, thats fantastic!

What are they talking about now? What else have they passed?

[SIZE=8pt]By a hopeless dial-up person back in the stone age lol[/SIZE]


----------



## Reble (Feb 21, 2009)

JMS Miniatures said:


> I see they passed the hardshipping of the Geldings fee lowered, thats fantastic!
> What are they talking about now? What else have they passed?
> 
> [SIZE=8pt]By a hopeless dial-up person back in the stone age lol[/SIZE]



The measuring will stay with the last hair on the mane.

what time is it to be webcasting today?


----------



## MinisOutWest (Feb 21, 2009)

says 830 PST


----------



## MinisOutWest (Feb 21, 2009)

sound?


----------



## bellmills (Feb 21, 2009)

MinisOutWest said:


> sound?


no sound on internet!!!


----------



## Viki (Feb 21, 2009)

I'm just getting the hour glass!

Viki

I'm getting it all now. Thank goodness!


----------



## Alex (Feb 21, 2009)

bellmills said:


> MinisOutWest said:
> 
> 
> > sound?
> ...


There was sound yesterday when I watched for a few mins. Wonder what happened?


----------



## MinisOutWest (Feb 21, 2009)

got it now


----------



## bellmills (Feb 21, 2009)

sound ok now


----------



## Neil (Feb 21, 2009)

MinisOutWest said:


> sound?


It is on now. They just took attendance of the board. They have a quorm


----------



## Alex (Feb 21, 2009)

Yep sound is fixed.


----------



## MinisOutWest (Feb 21, 2009)

World Show Expense Report-

Premium Books- World and Championships will be posted on line. passed

suggestions

Combine Liberty and Amatuer Party

reducing price on sashes

costs 12000 to add a day to the world show

eliminate formal park driving, best matched pair, three by one owner, golden showmanship,

combine golden and adult showmanship

combine multiplre hitch classes

elimniate to photograph winners in the ring- passed already

championship show expense report

2 of 3 were at a loss

suggestions

eliminate plaques to sashes- passed for vote today

reduce ribbons 3rd to 10th

changing qualifying points to world show


----------



## ClickMini (Feb 21, 2009)

Is anyone else having trouble with the web cast?

Also, does anyone know when the vote for officers will be? If I remember correctly, it usually happens around the lunch break?


----------



## MinisOutWest (Feb 21, 2009)

minimini? you there, can you tell them to talk closer to the mic? thanks, especially Libby and people at the podium


----------



## Reble (Feb 21, 2009)

Ok just so i understand this correctly,

My mare will be 4 this year, so should she go permanent instead of waiting for her to turn 5 years?

or this is just hardshipping? I'm sorry not sure what I was hearing?





and when does this take effect?


----------



## Viki (Feb 21, 2009)

Can the actual mic's be turned up? This is killing me here! Very frustrating to not be able to hear these people well!

Viki


----------



## sdmini (Feb 21, 2009)

Reble said:


> Ok just so i understand this correctly,My mare will be 4 this year, so should she go permanent instead of waiting for her to turn 5 years?
> 
> or this is just hardshipping? I'm sorry not sure what I was hearing?
> 
> ...


From what I understand it applies ONLY to the hardshipping aspect. Three year olds will now be eligible for AMHA hardshipping, as a direct result of the realization that the financial benefit from hardshipping will be missed.


----------



## ClickMini (Feb 21, 2009)

WHAT EXACTLY WAS THE VOTE THIS MORNING ON THE REGISTRATION AGE???


----------



## Mona (Feb 21, 2009)

sdmini said:


> Reble said:
> 
> 
> > Ok just so i understand this correctly,My mare will be 4 this year, so should she go permanent instead of waiting for her to turn 5 years?
> ...


I understood it to mean that ALL permanent registrations would be dropped to 3 years, from the current 5 years, and for the reasons sdmini stated.


----------



## Reble (Feb 21, 2009)

thanks for all the replys, that makes it clear..


----------



## Millstone Farm (Feb 21, 2009)

So ALL horses will now be eligible for permanent registration at age 3 -- even those whose papers state differently?

Or does this just apply to harshipping??


----------



## Alex (Feb 21, 2009)

So now to hardship into amha it is now onlyhas to be three yrs old to hardship, correct? This rule starts in 2010 right?

Thanks


----------



## MinisOutWest (Feb 21, 2009)

after the special needs vote, what was done? I missed if classes went from 0 to 1 point to qualify


----------



## Alex (Feb 21, 2009)

I believe it was Splitting Youth Country Pleasure and making a 7 and under class only at the world show. Then the Show rules commitee was anounced Now they are on 1hr lunch break

Yes it was passed that youth need 1 point


----------



## icspots (Feb 21, 2009)

Yes, youth went from 0 to 1 point to qualify and they are splitting the 12 and under driving class to 7 and under and 8-12.


----------



## Neil (Feb 21, 2009)

Lunch break. Maybe I can get something done around here now.

Gee, maybe I should change my photo. The holidays are over.


----------



## Viki (Feb 21, 2009)

Just passed! ALL AMHA horses to be brought perm at age 3, effective March 1, 2009!

Viki


----------



## Reble (Feb 21, 2009)

Viki said:


> Just passed! ALL AMHA horses to be brought perm at age 3, effective March 1, 2009!Viki



so my question again, about my 4 year old mare this year should go permanent this year?


----------



## Viki (Feb 21, 2009)

Yes, you should bring your mare perm this year.

All horses turning 3, 4 & 5 in 2009, should/will be brought perm in 2009.

Viki


----------



## bellmills (Feb 21, 2009)

what with foals born in 2009 from mares under 5 year old? Do the foals get papers if the mares papers are not change to temperary????


----------



## bellmills (Feb 21, 2009)

bellmills said:


> what with foals born in 2009 from mares under 5 year old? Do the foals get papers if the mares papers are not change to permanent????


----------



## midnight star stables (Feb 21, 2009)

Was that John Eberth(SP) speaking? Will there be a dwarf test _*soon*_?


----------



## RockRiverTiff (Feb 21, 2009)

I would think foals from mares who now need to be brought permanent would still be eligible for papers. There's always been a six-month leeway on horses eligible for permanent registration, and if I'm not mistaken they also passed a rule waiving all late fees on horses aged 3-5 in 2009.


----------



## RockRiverTiff (Feb 21, 2009)

midnight star stables said:


> Was that John Eberth(SP) speaking? Will there be a dwarf test _*soon*_?


He said there may be a test for the Type 1 mutation available later this year.


----------



## midnight star stables (Feb 21, 2009)

RockRiverTiff said:


> midnight star stables said:
> 
> 
> > Was that John Eberth(SP) speaking? Will there be a dwarf test _*soon*_?
> ...


Out standing! I met him last year in person - a *Wonderful* man and member to our breed!




Congrats to him! What farm does he come from?


----------



## bellmills (Feb 21, 2009)

when a mare her papers are revoked ,you can't get papers of your foals untill the mares papers are update to permanent . So will the mares papers also revoked after 1 mars 2009 when the mare is four years old ??


----------



## MinisOutWest (Feb 21, 2009)

This is where I wish I could have been at the meeting. Such an important position for the association and only 69-79 people to make the decision for all of us not able to attend. ugh


----------



## RockRiverTiff (Feb 21, 2009)

MinisOutWest said:


> This is where I wish I could have been at the meeting.  Such an important position for the association and only 69-79 people to make the decision for all of us not able to attend. ugh


I agree.


----------



## Neil (Feb 21, 2009)

Who were the nominees for the last office election?


----------



## Reble (Feb 21, 2009)

did they pass on Life time membership for next year? $480.00 (missed it...)


----------



## RockRiverTiff (Feb 21, 2009)

Yes--I think there's only a 90-day window though and lifetime memberships purchased during that window will be limited to 25 years.


----------



## Versatility Farm & Training (Feb 21, 2009)

Reble said:


> did they pass on Life time membership for next year? $480.00 (missed it...)



They voted to allow lifetime memberships to be purchased March 1-May 31 2009 only, for $480 and the "lifetime" is defined as 25 years, for the lifetime memberships purchased during this time period only. Anyonw who already has one it is still a literal lifetime.


----------



## Reble (Feb 21, 2009)

RockRiverTiff said:


> Yes--I think there's only a 90-day window though and lifetime memberships purchased during that window will be limited to 25 years.


thanks sorry to ask but did they say when the window of the 90 days would take place?


----------



## Versatility Farm & Training (Feb 21, 2009)

Reble, see my post right above yours.

I wish Mike would repeat questions asked. I can't hear people when they ask questions, and Mike will often answer and I'm too busy tryingto figure out what was asked to pay much attention to what the answer is.


----------



## Reble (Feb 21, 2009)

Reble said:


> RockRiverTiff said:
> 
> 
> > Yes--I think there's only a 90-day window though and lifetime memberships purchased during that window will be limited to 25 years.
> ...


They voted to allow lifetime memberships to be purchased March 1-May 31 2009 only,

So just trying to understand this:

someone who has not paid for this year can buy a life time membership in the 90 day window? and what about if the person like myself have already paid for this years membership? Do I just pay the difference now?


----------



## Versatility Farm & Training (Feb 21, 2009)

They voted to allow lifetime memberships to be purchased March 1-May 31 2009 only,

So just trying to understand this:

someone who has not paid for this year can buy a life time membership in the 90 day window? and what about if the person like myself have already paid for this years membership? Do I just pay the difference now?

That they did not address.


----------



## ClickMini (Feb 21, 2009)

Did they announce who the new president is? Jim Barenklau?

Also what about the other officers? Missed the whole thing.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Feb 21, 2009)

Glad to hear that their is a "lifetime" membership, however I think they should call it something else since you are only going to be a lifetime member of 25 years. You will still save ALOT of money, but still. No complaints but perhaps they should word it a bit differently.

Glad to see now Perm. is at 3 years of age. Shouldn't be so much confusion with the both registeries. I don't think this will be a BIG deal. They should give people plenty of time to update their paperwork. As for as the mares just send in her perm. paperwork along with the babies registration. No biggie. Just means I can update my stallion's papers now and not wait til Sept.

Has their been any discussions on the new driving class?


----------



## ClickMini (Feb 21, 2009)

I would also like to know about hardship...I have one I will hardship immediately who is 4yo, that I will show this year in AMHA...it would change my whole plan for the year if this passed.


----------



## RockRiverTiff (Feb 21, 2009)

ClickMini said:


> Did they announce who the new president is? Jim Barenklau?
> Also what about the other officers? Missed the whole thing.


President - Jim Barenklau

Vice President - Dave Miller

Treasurer - Larry Elniff

Secretary - Laura Mullen


----------



## Versatility Farm & Training (Feb 21, 2009)

ClickMini said:


> Did they announce who the new president is? Jim Barenklau?
> Also what about the other officers? Missed the whole thing.


Yes he is president, Dave Miller Vice, Laura mullen Secretary


----------



## ClickMini (Feb 21, 2009)

Thank you so much.


----------



## Becky (Feb 21, 2009)

Larry Elniff is Treasurer.


----------



## Versatility Farm & Training (Feb 21, 2009)

I wish I could chat with the meeting!!!!!!!

Make it easier, have a halter futurity committee, and then also a halter comittee


----------



## Alex (Feb 21, 2009)

They are talking about the new driving now! I believe it is called classic pleasure?


----------



## Neil (Feb 21, 2009)

Versatility Farm & Training said:


> I wish I could chat with the meeting!!!!!!!
> Make it easier, have a halter futurity committee, and then also a halter comittee


Too bad you aren't talking to someone at the meeting. I am off and on.


----------



## wildoak (Feb 21, 2009)

I'm still a little confused on the hardship and permanent issues - doesn't a rule change generally go into effect the following year? Are we saying that this one will be effective in 2009 or 2010?

Jan


----------



## Versatility Farm & Training (Feb 21, 2009)

DId they say the June Board meeting is June 11-14th? Cause the AMHA website already lists 2 shows for the 13-14th of June.


----------



## Mona (Feb 21, 2009)

wildoak said:


> I'm still a little confused on the hardship and permanent issues - doesn't a rule change generally go into effect the following year? Are we saying that this one will be effective in 2009 or 2010? Jan


Yes, you are absolutely CORRECT! They said it is coming into effect 2009, and is a huge rule violation!



I even called Kristy, leaving a voice mail, as well as emailed her, and emailed Alison as well to pass the message along, asking for clarification and explanation on this, but it appears to have been ignored, so we'll now have to see what transpires as a result of this!


----------



## midnight star stables (Feb 21, 2009)

Mona said:


> wildoak said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still a little confused on the hardship and permanent issues - doesn't a rule change generally go into effect the following year? Are we saying that this one will be effective in 2009 or 2010? Jan
> ...


It sounds as though they are still in need of money though... IMHO, I think this is the reasoning behind it, but I could be wrong





Maybe it was an overlooked mistake, that they will correct.

I think it is a good thing, but a huge change for AMHA.


----------



## Becky (Feb 21, 2009)

I think taking horses temp to perm at 3 yrs of age is a great idea and a great boost for the registry!









It will bring in needed funds for AMHA and will help keep horses' paperwork up to date. A win - win situation!


----------



## MMF (Feb 21, 2009)

Did anyone hear which site was selected for the 2011 Annual Meeting?


----------



## Becky (Feb 21, 2009)

> Did anyone hear which site was selected for the 2011 Annual Meeting?


San Antonio, TX


----------



## minimomNC (Feb 21, 2009)

San Antonio, TX


----------



## albahurst (Feb 21, 2009)

> Yes, you are absolutely CORRECT! They said it is coming into effect 2009, and is a huge rule violation!


This was addressed in the meeting -guess you missed it. They are giving people an extra year - 2009 - to allow the membership to become aware and not be overwhewlmed with the cost of updating three years worth of horses ( 3yr oldes, 4 yr olds, 5 yr olds.) Win- win!!!



> I even called Kristy, leaving a voice mail, as well as emailed her, and emailed Alison as well to pass the message along, asking for clarification and explanation on this, but it appears to have been ignored, so we'll now have to see what transpires as a result of this!


I am sure they will get back with you when they have a free minute- they were in a meeting.


----------



## Viki (Feb 21, 2009)

I think it's a great change. Takes AMHA back to it's original way of doing things. Once upon a time, AMHA did require all horses to be perm at 3 yrs. I was actually at the annual meeting that it got changed to 5 yrs.

Personally, it will make keeping up with my paperwork easier! AMHA & AMHR going perm at 3! Yea!

Viki


----------



## R3 (Feb 21, 2009)

I had to leave during the discussion on the new Classic Division... Did it come up for a vote, and if so, what was the result?

Thanks


----------



## Mona (Feb 21, 2009)

Well in the long run, it might make paperwork easier, and it might bring in more more money, but it is also going to bring in many more oversized horses to AMHA! Once thoe horses go permanent at 3 years and then continue to grow after that, there will be many more horses that will exceed the 34" and their papers will never be turned in, but I guess that won't matter, as long as it is bringing in more $$$.


----------



## Becky (Feb 21, 2009)

In my opinion, cheaters are going to cheat whether it's 3 years or 5 years. Honest breeders/owners will continue to be so.


----------



## Viki (Feb 21, 2009)

I totally agree Becky!

Viki


----------



## Mona (Feb 21, 2009)

albahurst said:


> > Yes, you are absolutely CORRECT! They said it is coming into effect 2009, and is a huge rule violation!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again, yes, I am quite aware of that, however, they were taking comments from those watching.


----------



## Alex (Feb 21, 2009)

Does anybody know when the hardshipping gelding w/ lowered fees starts?

I am just so glad, I can now be hardshipping my gelding AMHA when this rule takes effect.


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 21, 2009)

> Well in the long run, it might make paperwork easier, and it might bring in more more money, but it is also going to bring in many more oversized horses to AMHA! Once thoe horses go permanent at 3 years and then continue to grow after that, there will be many more horses that will exceed the 34" and their papers will never be turned in, but I guess that won't matter, as long as it is bringing in more $$$.


Mona,

What makes you think that way? Why would you feel that AMHA is trying to bring in more oversized horses just because they brought the permanent papers to 3 years? I personally have never had a Miniature horse grow after 3 years old. Many stopped growing at 2 years.

Besides, AMHR has it that way and it was mentioned that it would just be easier to have it the same way as AMHR so that everyone can do all of the paperwork the same time. Also, AMHA was finding out that many of their registered horses were being lost and not permanented at 5 years old as too many people were forgetting to do it. So in that case, yes loss of revenue.

What organization would vote to not make more money to keep it afloat? After all, AMHA treats their exhibitors at the World show like gold. Expecially the Amateurs. With a free dinner, donuts and water at ringside as we wait to go into the ring.

They hire many police officers to protect us from any crime. Supply beautiful trophys, rosset ribbons and leather World Jackets for winning a World Championship. For Reserve they get a similar trophy only with a silver halo rather than gold and a rosset ribbon, plus all the other 8 places get placks and really nice ribbons for display at home. All of these special things cost money.

Frankly, I am more than happy for AMHA to continue to want to make money so that they can continue to treat us like gold at the shows, continue to promote the Miniature horse in the US and Overseas (sure helps with my sale of horses), and all of the other things that they are involved with to help improve our breed..


----------



## Irish Hills Farm (Feb 21, 2009)

I will be hardshipping two of my ASPC / AMHR horses, Wall Street Illusion Jazz Singer (stallion) and Grahams Hula Girl At Heart (mare), into AMHA this year as both are 3 years old. I find this very exciting and am just tickled beyond belief to soon have 2 triple registered horses.

I also have a 2 year old AMHR filly who will now be hardshipped into AMHA next year when she turns 3.

I think this is a very smart move on AMHA's part to allow horses to be brought permanent and hardshipped in at 3 years of age.


----------



## Mona (Feb 21, 2009)

> What makes you think that way? Why would you feel that AMHA is trying to bring in more oversized horses just because they brought the permanent papers to 3 years? I personally have never had a Miniature horse grow after 3 years old. Many stopped growing at 2 years.


Please do not put words into my mouth. I did not say I think AMHA is trying to bring in oversized horses. I am merely saying that I feel that this is going to be the end result. Seems we (AMHA) has worked very hard throughout the years to keep the horses under 34", and I personally feel they have been somewhat more successful in doing so due to their having the permanent height measure at 5 years. I have seen MANY, MANY(MOST) of my horses grow beyond 3 years of age.



> Besides, AMHR has it that way and it was mentioned that it would just be easier to have it the same way as AMHR so that everyone can do all of the paperwork the same time. Also, AMHA was finding out that many of their registered horses were being lost and not permanented at 5 years old as too many people were forgetting to do it. So in that case, yes loss of revenue.


Yes, I know AMHR does it that way, and since all of my horses are AMHR registered, I have seen that mos DO in fact grow taller after 3 years of age. I know it will bring in more needed money. I just feel it was brought in for that reason only($$$), and not in the best interest of the breed overall.



> Frankly, I am more than happy for AMHA to continue to want to make money so that they can continue to treat us like gold at the shows, continue to promote the Miniature horse in the US and Overseas (sure helps with my sale of horses), and all of the other things that they are involved with to help improve our breed.


I AGREE with this wholeheartedly! Of course I want to see AMHA continue to make money and flourish, but I just hate to see it happen this way, that's all.


----------



## wildoak (Feb 21, 2009)

> They said it is coming into effect 2009, and is a huge rule violation


If memory serves (which it sometimes doesn't these days!), seems like there can be an exception to that rule if - and I don't know the exact criteria - the association deems it in the best interest of the assn or maybe a financial emergency. Ring any bells?

I am curious about the timing, but I have no issue with bringing horses permanent at 3. Some expense initially, bringing everyone up to speed, but once that's done it will be easier to keep track of and I think will make very little difference in terms of horses going over. Can't say I've _never_ had one grow after 3, but most miniatures seem to achieve their height by then.

Jan


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 21, 2009)

> What makes you think that way? Why would you feel that AMHA is trying to bring in more oversized horses just because they brought the permanent papers to 3 years? I personally have never had a Miniature horse grow after 3 years old. Many stopped growing at 2 years.





> Please do not put words into my mouth. I did not say I think AMHA is trying to bring in oversized horses. I am merely saying that I feel that this is going to be the end result. Seems we (AMHA) has worked very hard throughout the years to keep the horses under 34", and I personally feel they have been somewhat more successful in doing so due to their having the permanent height measure at 5 years. I have seen MANY, MANY(MOST) of my horses grow beyond 3 years of age.


My missunderstanding, I thought you felt that AMHA was doing this to make more money. Whether AMHA gives permenant papers at 3 years or 5 years, it really does not matter. If someone is going to say their horse is under 34" and it is really 36", they will say it whether it is 5 years old or 3 years old. How many horses do you see out there who are perm. registered 33 3/4" tall, You can gurantee that most of them are oversized.

For the honest ones who turn in their papers, I would imagine if their horse goes over at 5 years old, they are still going to turn in their papers.

I am one who belives that if the horse is registered as an AMHA horse, it should not loose its papers just because it is over. Still the same horse, still able to produce horses that are under. Back to the old argument, that if we are going to make this a breed by closing the books, then none of the horses should loose thier papers, they just can not be shown.

In the dog show world, a Tibetan Terrier has to be 14" to 16" for a bitch and 15" to 17" for a dog. Just because one may go over, does not mean it is no longer a Tibetan Terrier, it just means it can not be shown. One just has to be careful what one breeds the larger dog to. It should be the same in the Miniature AMHA horse World.

Frankly, in 10 years of having and breeding Miniatures, I have never had one grow after 3 years. I even bought one as a yearling that at 2 years old was 34". She is now 5 years old and still 34".


----------



## Mona (Feb 21, 2009)

Riverdance said:


> My missunderstanding, *I thought you felt that AMHA was doing this to make more money*. Whether AMHA gives permenant papers at 3 years or 5 years, it really does not matter. If someone is going to say their horse is under 34" and it is really 36", they will say it whether it is 5 years old or 3 years old. How many horses do you see out there who are perm. registered 33 3/4" tall, You can gurantee that most of them are oversized.


Well that part you did not misunderstand. That IS what I meant, (I don't have a problem with them wanting to make money, I just feel it was passed for all the wrong reasons, and that IS that it was done SOLEY to make money and not for the betterment of the breed and/or association overall.) but I did not mean that they were *trying *to bring in taller horses. I just meant I feel that it will result in that. I think since it has been 5 years as permanent, that many breeders have handed in the papers...made more people honest in the long run, and I fear it will have an opposite effect now. Yes, I know honest people will do what they want, just as dishonest will, but sorry, that is how I feel about this.



Riverdance said:


> I am one who belives that if the horse is registered as an AMHA horse, it should not loose its papers just because it is over. Still the same horse, still able to produce horses that are under. Back to the old argument, that if we are going to make this a breed by closing the books, then none of the horses should loose thier papers, they just can not be shown.


I personally agree with this too.



Riverdance said:


> Frankly, in 10 years of having and breeding Miniatures, I have never had one grow after 3 years. I even bought one as a yearling that at 2 years old was 34". She is now 5 years old and still 34".


I have had MANY.


----------



## Becky (Feb 21, 2009)

Another exciting thing I see about taking horses perm at 3 will be that their heights will be listed on their foals papers. A mare having her first foal at 4 will have her permanent height on her foals' papers. Same with a stallion. Bred at two, going perm at 3 when his foals are born will have his permanent height on his foals' papers. I like that!


----------



## Viki (Feb 21, 2009)

That's a great point Becky! One more benefit of this new change!

Viki


----------



## Carrie12 (Feb 21, 2009)

Is hardshipping still closing in 2013?


----------



## Mona (Feb 21, 2009)

Carrie12 said:


> Is hardshipping still closing in 2013?


Yes.


----------



## Katiean (Feb 21, 2009)

Becky said:


> I think taking horses temp to perm at 3 yrs of age is a great idea and a great boost for the registry!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


'

This is gonna kill me. I already had to bring 1 mare perm by the May show. Now I have to do this with 2 mares or I don't show. They should give us a few months to get this done and still let us show with the temp papers on a 4 year old.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Feb 21, 2009)

Well the way I see it is if people are going to lie if their horse goes over 34" after they turn 3 and not turn in their papers, what will stop them when they are 5? They will still do it. Until we can get these horses personally inspected and measured before they go pernament, like they do for hardshipping, there is no way to stop this.

I think so far from what I have seen the decisions have been good. Except I still wish they will call their "Lifetime membership" something else since it isn't necessarilly "Lifetime".

Did anyone hear the vote for the new driving class? Also were they voting again for reinsmanship, I thought I might have seen it in the World but could be wrong?


----------



## ruffian (Feb 21, 2009)

[quote name=From what I understand it applies ONLY to the hardshipping aspect. Three year olds will now be eligible for AMHA hardshipping, as a direct result of the realization that the financial benefit from hardshipping will be missed.

They will be losing hardship money no matter when they enforce the rule. IMO it makes sense in that people can show and breed their horses 2 years earlier, which brings in additional $$ to AMHA.

And as mentioned before, those who are going to cheat, are going to cheat. Period.

In reality losing the ability to Hardship is going to hurt BOTH registries, because AMHR will not allow a horse that is not either AMHA or ASPC to be registered. But that's another thread.


----------



## Relic (Feb 21, 2009)

Well crap crap crap l thought l was all caught up on my registery work except for 2 temp to perms in June and any new foals to come and now that l'm pulling out all my files for birthdays l see that we need to bring 14 mares 2 stallions and 2 geldings from temp to perm this year because of the age change back to 3years old...



l swear it was changed years back because to many of the minis were still growing after the age of 3 but were thought to be done by age 5...


----------



## sdmini (Feb 22, 2009)

My two cents (which maybe a high estimate on what it's worth) the change in "mature" age from five to three had little to do with the "influx" of money from those horses being brought from temp to perm. As they stated they are going to give a grace period, i.e. no higher fee, for those that do not bring their three year olds permanent with in that period of, I believe, two years. Now I don't know about you but my $50-$100 is going to sit in my pocket where it will do me the most good in this economic crunch rather than pay a bill I don't have to for 2 years.

I do think there was a realization of shooting the golden goose on the closing of books and devised a way to assist plumping the coffers while they could. I, personally, have no issue with it so do not see a criticism where there is none. Saying that AMHR does it this way holds little water when one association doing it one way has, in the past, been a good reason for the other NOT to do it that way.





There will be hardshipped horses that measure honestly in at three that WILL NOT measure in at five, of that I will bet all my minis, three dogs, one tortoise, five fish and count 'em if you can number of cats, heck I'll even throw in the husband.



Again I have no real issue with it, just an observation.

I will say I loved the convention on-line. Like many I didn't get to watch the whole thing but what I was able to I really enjoyed. I found Frank Lupton's presentation extremely well done and matter of fact speaking refreshing. The whole convention reiterated the fact that the association is not one person but rather a consortium of individuals working for the "greater good". Now of 'course I will not always agree with some of the decisions made but will always appreciate those that do give of their time and money.


----------



## normajeanbaker (Feb 22, 2009)

So am I understanding this right that I can hardship in my 4 year olds this year into AMHA??? I have read that you can get perm. papers at 3, so does this apply to hardshipping as well? A few people have asked this, but I cant find the answer to the hardshipping.

Thanks

Jen


----------



## Becky (Feb 22, 2009)

> So am I understanding this right that I can hardship in my 4 year olds this year into AMHA??? I have read that you can get perm. papers at 3, so does this apply to hardshipping as well? A few people have asked this, but I cant find the answer to the hardshipping.


Yes, that is correct. You can hardship horses in to AMHA this year that are 3 years and older.

Relic, you don't have to take all of those horses perm this year. You still have unti they are 5 years old.


----------



## SHANA (Feb 22, 2009)

Yikes, I'll have to bring two permanent this year, my stallion Cross Country New Kid In Town and my mare, Unquestionably Cute Jypsy Rose SPH. Kid will be 4 and Jypsy will be 3 this year. Then I can hardship 2 mares if money permits, Risquefishers Winter Sky and FDC's Moongirl Shania. Sky should have been A/R but her dam outgrew her papers and was 36". Sky is only 30.75" as a 4 year old. Shania will be 3 this year and when I measured her she was 30.5".



Also pay to be a member since I haven't done that yet. I'll probably hardship my 2 girls later in the year once I sell some foals.



Would be nice if they reduced the hardship costs for mares and stallions, not just geldings. They would get a lot more horses hardshipped that way before the hardship closes in 2013.


----------



## kaykay (Feb 22, 2009)

My very first AMHA mini that I bought was 3 years old. When I picked her up the owner measured her and she was 33" on the nose. No big deal.

2 years later she had grown to 35" and I did not bring her perm. I had her papers revoked even though many people told me to go ahead and send them in LOL. To date she has never produced an over 34" foal even when bred to a 36" stallion.

Anyway yes they definitely keep growing after age 3

Kay


----------



## Irish Hills Farm (Feb 22, 2009)

I think each horse is an individual and SOME MAY grow past 3 years of age.

My ASPC Stallion, Wall Street Illusions Jazz Singer, has been a hair under 34" since he was 2 years old, actually since January '08. I have periodically measured him since than and he hasn't grown at all. I really do not believe he will grow any more.

And Hula, the ASPC/AMHR mare that will also be hardshipped into AMHA this year, hasn't grown since she was a 2 year old either.


----------



## Minimor (Feb 22, 2009)

> Anyway yes they definitely keep growing after age 3


Some do, many don't. There's not one on the place here that has grown after age 3; most seem to be done by the time they are 2 1/2, and a few have stopped at 18 months.


----------



## justagirl (Feb 22, 2009)

Alex said:


> Does anybody know when the hardshipping gelding w/ lowered fees starts?
> I am just so glad, I can now be hardshipping my gelding AMHA when this rule takes effect.


I may have missed this ... but I'm wondering the same thing.

So this means I can hardship my AMHR 33 gelding this year ??


----------



## pinck43 (Feb 22, 2009)

I also agree that doing permanent papers at age 3 is a great idea. Now when doing R papers, A papers can be done at the same time. I do have a problem with papers being taken from already registered horses. I feel that once they are registered, they STAY registered. Just because they happen to go over, why should they be eliminated from the registry? You can't show them. You can only use them for breeding stock. And who is to say their offspring would go over. I've seen where both parents are small and foals go over( nothing large in their background). Just like families. Small parents, tall kids. I also don't feel people are CHEATING by wanting to keep their horses A registered. Once registered, they should stay registered. Sorry, but this has always been a sore subject with me. dionne


----------



## R3 (Feb 22, 2009)

Personallly, I do not like the idea of taking horses permanent at three. I especially do not like the idea of hardshipping horses at three years old. There ARE horses that don't finish growing until they are more than three years old, and I do not believe it is an 'insignificant' number. So, if a horse if one of those horses that is hardshipped at three, and then it continues to grow (or, for that matter, a 'regular' AMHA horse that was taken permanent at three.), will it's papers be pulled? Most likely not, as once people have gotten their 'hardship/permanent' measurement, they avoid a measuring again.

By hardshipping at three, we set up the situation where a 'honest' person can hardship in a horse at three, have it 'go over' as it matures, and then end up having to have its papers revoked. This should never happen, once a horse has it's 'mature' official height, it shouldn't be able to legitimately have grown taller.

Another aspect of these 'hardshipped' horses that DO continue to grow is that in the mean time, that horse was bred and produced foals, who now are 'full' AMHA papered animals, so we have done nothing positive for improving the genetics to produce under 34" horses, as these foals carry taller genes. Genes that would NOT have been introduced into the Associaition if the age to hardship had not been reduced.

Another side-effect of changing the age to take a horse permanent, is that is is going to give us two more years worth of foals that will be able to be hardshipped before the registry closes. The original date of 2013 was chosen so breeders would have time to have their foals born in 2008 (when the rule was made?) to be hardshipped. Now, it also allows foals of 2009 and 2010 to slip in under the deadline as well. I'm not saying this is a 'negative', but it does change the 'intent' of the closing date of the registry. If we stayed with the 'intent' of the deadline, then we would also have changed the date for closing the regstry to 2011.


----------



## minimomNC (Feb 22, 2009)

If there are so many people who oppose taking a horse permanent at three, a lot of which are permanent at three in AMHR, they why have you not changed the age in AMHR to five? The horses will not grow different for the AMHA papers than they do for the AMHR papers so if you truly don't think a horse should be permanent at three, why haven't you even tried to change the age in AMHR? I have never heard anyone say a horse shouldn't be permanent at three before, until now that is, everyone has gone about the business with AMHR with no complaints, so why now since AMHA changed?


----------



## sdmini (Feb 22, 2009)

minimomNC said:


> If there are so many people who oppose taking a horse permanent at three, a lot of which are permanent at three in AMHR, they why have you not changed the age in AMHR to five? The horses will not grow different for the AMHA papers than they do for the AMHR papers so if you truly don't think a horse should be permanent at three, why haven't you even tried to change the age in AMHR? I have never heard anyone say a horse shouldn't be permanent at three before, until now that is, everyone has gone about the business with AMHR with no complaints, so why now since AMHA changed?


Ahh but you forget AMHR has a "B" registry and it's not so much I have in issue with it but rather the fact that there will be plenty of horses that will not mature under 34" that will be allowed to hardship in, not that they obtained the right to be AMHA registered by birth. Now whether a horse should or should not lose it AMHA papers if it goes oversize is a whole different kettle of fish and one I think needs to be addressed if AMHA is to truly become a breed.


----------



## midnight star stables (Feb 22, 2009)

sdmini said:


> minimomNC said:
> 
> 
> > If there are so many people who oppose taking a horse permanent at three, a lot of which are permanent at three in AMHR, they why have you not changed the age in AMHR to five? The horses will not grow different for the AMHA papers than they do for the AMHR papers so if you truly don't think a horse should be permanent at three, why haven't you even tried to change the age in AMHR? I have never heard anyone say a horse shouldn't be permanent at three before, until now that is, everyone has gone about the business with AMHR with no complaints, so why now since AMHA changed?
> ...


And if a B goes over? Do we turn a blind eye to that fact?


----------



## sdmini (Feb 22, 2009)

midnight star stables said:


> And if a B goes over? Do we turn a blind eye to that fact?


Ha ha, no more so than before.

I am not talking about the horses that are AMHA registered by birth I'm talking about the ones that are HARDSHIPPED in, that have earned their right for registration papers solely on their measurement status. Do I believe some ASPC horses squeak in AMHR at 38" at three that do not remain so afterwards, absolutely. Again you are missing the fact that this is only an acknowledgement of this fact. I'm not starting a letter writing campaign to reverse the ruling nor is it even a criticism merely stating that there is now a loop hole to get horses that are NOT going to remain 34" into an association that does not allow (not that it isn't done) over 34" to currently remain AMHA papered.

By the way I have one that I fully believe at five will be over 34" but I bet at three will not.


----------



## shelia (Feb 22, 2009)

How will this affect my situation? I bought a colt that was just AMHR because the mare was only AMHR. I paid to have their mare hardshipped, but for reasons beyond my control this took 2 years! I finally have the paperwork to do it. It cost $600.00 for the mare and will cost $600.00 to have the prgeny hardship for the colt. (along with other fees). He is now 3 years old! The rule used to be, if they are under 4 years old they can be hardshipped by progeny. Has this changed? Am I now going to have to pay $1,200.00! He is well under 34. Did I waste $600.00?

With this economy, money has become very tight this year, so even the $600.00 is going to hurt more than in previous years.


----------



## Southern_Heart (Feb 22, 2009)

OK so you pay the price to have a horse or several horses go perm at 3. Then it or they go over 34" later say at 5, you have just tossed that money out the window as the papers will be pulled if it goes over. :arg! At least at 5 you can be somewhat sure they are done growing. Sounds like an AMHA money making deal to me. I am not for it.





Joyce


----------



## Versatility Farm & Training (Feb 22, 2009)

The reasoning given for changing the age was that many horses weren't being taken permanent at age 5.... I wonder if they ever considered the fact that the horses weren't taken permanent because they had gone over? NOt everyone takes the time to send the papers back, they just sell the horse as a pet without papers, or with R only papers. If I have one go over, I'm defenitely not going to take it permanent, so Ithink they will see the same result with 3 year olds, just a bit less because many are not done growing by 3, but they will keep their papers because they already have them. Often breeding stock only get measured for their papers, so a broodmare may get measured at 3 years old and be an honest 33.75" but continues to grow to 34.5" the owner may not realise she went over, cause they have no need to measure her anymore. I know I have many horses that their AMHR papers say one height, and their AMHA papers have a taller height. Most cases it isn't by much, but it is still a difference.

I think hardshipping should be left at 5, because we know not all horses are done growing by 3. I think we could let horses hardship in at 3 but, they should be given temporary papers, then be taken permanent at 5.


----------



## Dona (Feb 22, 2009)

Versatility Farm & Training said:


> The reasoning given for changing the age was that many horses weren't being taken permanent at age 5.... I wonder if they ever considered the fact that the horses weren't taken permanent because they had gone over? NOt everyone takes the time to send the papers back, they just sell the horse as a pet without papers, or with R only papers. If I have one go over, I'm defenitely not going to take it permanent, so Ithink they will see the same result with 3 year olds, just a bit less because many are not done growing by 3, but they will keep their papers because they already have them. Often breeding stock only get measured for their papers, so a broodmare may get measured at 3 years old and be an honest 33.75" but continues to grow to 34.5" the owner may not realise she went over, cause they have no need to measure her anymore. I know I have many horses that their AMHR papers say one height, and their AMHA papers have a taller height. Most cases it isn't by much, but it is still a difference.I think hardshipping should be left at 5, because we know not all horses are done growing by 3. I think we could let horses hardship in at 3 but, they should be given temporary papers, then be taken permanent at 5.


I agree. Even tho most of my own breeding mature well before three...different bloodlines all mature at different rates. Of course, feeding programs can affect rate of maturity, as well as health issues, etc.

I bought a little mare once who measured a true 26" at a full 3 years old. When I took her permanent....she was 27.5".

So, she grew another 1 1/2" after age three....so it stands to reason, that some of the taller ones could easily grow another 2 inches after age 3.


----------



## sdmini (Feb 22, 2009)

shelia said:


> How will this affect my situation? I bought a colt that was just AMHR because the mare was only AMHR. I paid to have their mare hardshipped, but for reasons beyond my control this took 2 years! I finally have the paperwork to do it. It cost $600.00 for the mare and will cost $600.00 to have the prgeny hardship for the colt. (along with other fees). He is now 3 years old! The rule used to be, if they are under 4 years old they can be hardshipped by progeny. Has this changed? Am I now going to have to pay $1,200.00! He is well under 34. Did I waste $600.00?With this economy, money has become very tight this year, so even the $600.00 is going to hurt more than in previous years.


To my understanding it was age five and under that the prodigy rule applied to. However stallions are $1,200 so 1/2 of a stallion/colt cost is still going to be $600, if I read the above right.


----------



## Mona (Feb 22, 2009)

I just wanted to try to explain what I mean. I KNOW there are cheaters out there, always have been, and there always will be. I also know that if they will cheat now, chances are, they have been doing it all along or would do so anyway, regardless of the new rule. What I am trying to say, is that even though cheating does go on, I honestly felt that more people were becoming honest, coming forward and not keeping the papers on horses that clearly outgrew them, thus somewhat keeping the (illegally) oversized horses registered with AMHA down in numbers, in comparison to that of maybe 10-15 years ago.

Now what I can see happening, is that there will be MANY people that will go ahead and permanent register and squeak them in at 3 years, and sit back laughing in a few years time, while they look at all the tall horses standing out in their pasture, and saying to themselves..."Gee, you sure do look 36", but I don't care...as long as I never lay a stick on you it doesn't matter...you stay registered in AMHA!"



And they do not have to measure them until they sell them, even if they LOOK 13hh!


----------



## shelia (Feb 22, 2009)

sdmini said:


> shelia said:
> 
> 
> > How will this affect my situation? I bought a colt that was just AMHR because the mare was only AMHR. I paid to have their mare hardshipped, but for reasons beyond my control this took 2 years! I finally have the paperwork to do it. It cost $600.00 for the mare and will cost $600.00 to have the prgeny hardship for the colt. (along with other fees). He is now 3 years old! The rule used to be, if they are under 4 years old they can be hardshipped by progeny. Has this changed? Am I now going to have to pay $1,200.00! He is well under 34. Did I waste $600.00?With this economy, money has become very tight this year, so even the $600.00 is going to hurt more than in previous years.
> ...


yes, you are reading it right. I believe the rules said they can't be over 4 years old. I suppose they did that because the did not qualify for permenant registration. Once they are old enough for that they can no longer be hardshipped by progeny would the full fee would then have to be charged? Now that they can be permanantly registered at 3 will they still leave the progeny hardship the way it was before? Progeny hardship for a colt was $600.00. Regular hardship for a stallion is $1,200.00.


----------



## Minimor (Feb 22, 2009)

> even though cheating does go on, I honestly felt that more people were becoming honest, coming forward and not keeping the papers on horses that clearly outgrew them, thus somewhat keeping the (illegally) oversized horses registered with AMHA down in numbers, in comparison to that of maybe 10-15 years ago.


I would have to say that from my experience, the opposite is true. I can't say about 10-15 years ago, because I only got into Minis late in 2001, but at that time plenty of people told me about how they hadn't brought this horse or that horse permanent because he/she had matured too tall....or they had turned in papers because a horse went oversize--it was the right thing to do, according to them. Now, just 7 1/2 years later many of those same people advise that if ever I have a horse that goes oversize, do not turn in the papers--keep the horse at home and use it for breeding... someone said just the other day something to the effect of: 'if the big boys can do it, we little people may as well do it too'. Given the number of people that have said something of this sort to me, I really have to think that there are many other people out there that feel the same way, and so there are fewer and fewer people that are turning in papers on oversize horses. Plenty more, I'm sure, fudge the measurement on their permanent papers even at age 5, so I don't think changing the permanent age to 3 will make any great difference. There are oversize horses that manage to get measured in for hardshipping, so again I just don't see it making any great difference that horses can now be hardshipped at 3.

I also think that a major reason horses don't get brought permanent is they are sold and the new owner doesn't bother paying for memberships; if they don't buy a membership and/or transfer the horse into their name it's almost certain that they will never make that horse permanent. Perhaps by allowing horses to become permanent at age 3 there will be more breeders that still own the horse and will make their younger horses permanent....though outside of this bringing in extra revenue for AMHA I'm not sure it really makes any difference. If you raise a foal and keep it until it's 4--sell it and the new owner never brings it permanent....how is that worse than if you make the horse permanent at age 3 then sell it at age 4....buyer still doesn't transfer the horse nor register any of the foals they may raise from that horse...what is the difference. Only 2 things I can see--AMHA got the extra revenue for that horse at age 3, and breeder has the satisfaction of having his horse show up on the studbooks as "permanent"...as opposed to revoked, which might make a few people automatically assume the horse went oversize and lost its papers.


----------



## Songcatcher (Feb 22, 2009)

I am thrilled that I will be able to buy a "lifetime" membership, even if it is only for 25 years. I think that will cover the time I have left and then some.


----------



## minimomNC (Feb 22, 2009)

I have been a life member for several years, best move we made back then. But just remember that you have to renew your subscription to MHW every year, at first I would forget but now renew when I do amateur cards and my daughters membership. But it does help not paying that $65 a year now.


----------



## horsehug (Feb 22, 2009)

If you are a lifetime member, how much does the MHW cost each year?

Thanks,

Susan O.


----------



## Mona (Feb 22, 2009)

horsehug said:


> If you are a lifetime member, how much does the MHW cost each year?


Susan, according to the AMHA Work Orders (which I just received within the past few weeks) it states that subscriptions to the MHW in the US are $36/Bulk or $55/1st Class.


----------



## horsehug (Feb 22, 2009)

Thanks Mona!

Susan O.


----------



## Songcatcher (Feb 22, 2009)

Mona said:


> horsehug said:
> 
> 
> > If you are a lifetime member, how much does the MHW cost each year?
> ...


BUT, the MHW is now available ONLINE! Of course, it is nice to have a hard copy, but being online is a great assett.


----------



## Katiean (Feb 22, 2009)

I do have a question about bringing to perminant at age 3. My mare is 4 this year so I know I will have to bring her current. But, can I show her with her temp papers and in say June or July bring her perm?


----------



## dali1111 (Feb 23, 2009)

I am glad they lowered the hardship age to three but I do wonder about the temp to permanent. I think lowering the harship age is wonderful because I personally know of two yet to be born foals due this year that will be worth hardshipping. The sire is papered but is not up to date and both mares had papers at one point but were lost when their original owner died and his son who knew nothing about horses took them. The lady bred these mares thinking she would be able to harship the foals. Neither of these horses will likely ever be shown and if they are colts they will be gelded and if a filly she will never be bred, they also have an amazing lifelong home and will most likely never be sold...does it really matter if they are ever registered? no, but of course it is great if they are.


----------



## Sandee (Feb 23, 2009)

Katiean said:


> I do have a question about bringing to perminant at age 3. My mare is 4 this year so I know I will have to bring her current. But, can I show her with her temp papers and in say June or July bring her perm?


I don't have the exact answer but on the temp papers they give you 6 months from the actual birthdate (turning 5 originally). So I would think they will have to give you several months and maybe even until she is 5yr + 6months. I'm in the same circumstance (4 yr old this year) except there are no AMHA shows in this area for me to "worry" about.


----------



## Humhill (Feb 23, 2009)

Seeing as I'm 27 years old, I'm a little scared of a "Lifetime Membership" that only last 25 years. I don't wanna jinx myself....

Anyway, here's the math:

Pay the membership fee every year:

$65 x 25 = $1625

Pay the Lifetime Membership and buy World subscription:

$36 x 25 = $900

$480 + $900 = $1380

You save $245

Although, that's all assuming that the prices never change, you don't lose interest in Miniature Horses within 25 years, and the AMHA is still around.


----------



## RockRiverTiff (Feb 23, 2009)

Humhill said:


> Although, that's all assuming that the prices never change, you don't lose interest in Miniature Horses within 25 years, and the AMHA is still around.


That's also assuming that the price of the MHW and the price of an AMHA membership doesn't go _up_ in 25 years.


----------



## Margo_C-T (Feb 24, 2009)

R3 put the reasons why this latest (and IMO, yet another rule-ignoring)move is not a good idea for the stability and future of the AMHA, so no need for me to repeat them--I'll just say I agree with her position, 1000%!

I was an AMHA member when the original 'go Permanent at three' rule was CHANGED to 'go Perm. at FIVE'. This was based, at least by recommendation, on actually long-term, observational records by one of the breed's most knowledgable and experienced founders and horsemen, Vern Brewer-which showed that a significant number of horses DID grow a measurable amount after age 3. Who can cite ANY kind of such 'research' that THIS decision is based upon? ANYONE??? NO, I believe that this is ALL about a desperate desire to generate quick income--which IMO is a MIGHTY POOR 'excuse' for a major change without a logical basis in fact! You know, it's really NOT about what is a benefit for 'you', but about what is best for the future of the breed.....I grumbled when it was changed before, but came to realize that it was a better move toward keeping to the concepts of the 'breed' --as in, the world's most correct horse in miniature, with the ORIGINAL choice of 34" and under--and may I also add that that height, and that height ALONE, was FIRST chosen by the AMHR; the B division was added a number of years later.

There have been plentiful 'stories' of the 'tall mares in the back pasture' for all of the nearly 25 years I've been a member of AMHA--and I imagine there always will be. Some owners just never pay attention,some measure incorrectly,some know but pretend they don't--the variety of rationalizations are endless. A 'breeding stock only' division, along with truly ACCURATE and STRICTLY-FOLLOWED measurement at the only places it is required--shows and when applying for Hardship--would help, I believe--not 'stop', but help(but of course, that's for another thread). The truly honest will follow rules; those who aren't, won't.

I think it needs to be remembered how many who purchase miniature horses do not, and likely will not, breed show. I suspect the 'reason' given about how many don't take horses Permanent at five is a empty argument....given to add credence when the real reason is vastly different.

I do applaud the MHW online move! It really astounds me that one organization can be so smart in some ways, and so 'off-base' in others....

JMHO, of COURSE.

Margo(Lifetime AMHA Member for...oh, about 15-17 years now)


----------



## JWC sr. (Feb 24, 2009)

Like you Margo, we were around when the rule went from 3 - 5 and remember all the discord that went with the rule change. Additionally, I also agree with you that the rational of pulling an already registered horses papers when they go over 34" is a little silly.






I compare that to if a horse is a registered appy. and comes out with no spots then the registry pulling the papers. In the Appy. world they call that an outcrop, but the horses keeps its papers as such.





In my humble opinion there needs to be a breeding stock only place for the oversized horses to be put. It would eliminate the lying about the size of the already registered horses that are used as brood mares etc. and would also generate registry fees for the registry.





By the way we have not been in it as long as Vern was, but we have been at it for over 20 years now and indeed some horses do grow after three years old and it seems to run in lineage for us anyway. For example with our stallion's *Cherryville's Rio De Oro's *babies always shoot up in the first year and then are at whatever height they are going to be as adults by the time they are about 2 1/2years old, *La Vista Farms Roses First *babies seem to grow all the way till three to five years old, *WF Pattons See Me Shine's *babies seem to grow untill they are 4 - 5 years old and Silver Plates Baccara Luxor's babies are finished as a norm by the age of 3. So as someone earlier in the thread said it all depends on the individual horse, nutrition etc. etc.





As far as the rule changes not being in accord with the present rules of AMHA, it all comes down to the clause in the rules that states the E-board is capable and has been recently exercizing the ability to declare it an emergency and in the best interest of registry. Till that one clause is changed or at least modified immediate implementation of rule changes will continue, no matter who is in charge of the E-board. Which is fine with me if that is what everyone wants, but we need to as a registry be honest and move forward with a set of rules we intend to live by without deviation. I also think that to that clause that is being used so often now days, there needs to be some kind of perameters where the long range and short range impact of the proposed rule change is looked at from a financial and direction of the registry point of view by someone in charge.





Cindy and I are also both life time members of AMHA and proud to be.





My two cents worth and with that and about 2.00 you might get a good cup of coffee. LOL


----------



## Versatility Farm & Training (Feb 24, 2009)

One of my biggest concerns with changing the permanent registration from 5-3 starting immediately is the cost to the owners. This now means breeders have to take 3 years worth of foal crops permanent in one year! I cant speak for everyone, but I think this may result in more horses not being permanently registered because people can't afford to take 3 years worth at one time. I know I can't afford to take 3 years worth permanent AND register this year's foal crop. I plan each year and budget for how many horses I will need to take permanent, and how many I will need to register, I had not budgeted for 3 years worth this year, and I am just a small scale breeding program, I can't imagine what the larger farms will have to shell out! The fees may seem small, but they add up quick, especially if you have a stallion or two.

I spoke to one of my regional directors to ask them to clarify the rule passed for me to make sure I was clear on it. Every 3,4 & 5 year old must be taken permanent this year. There will be no late fees for the 4 & 5 year olds obviously, but they must be done. When I told her that I can't afford to do 3 years worth all at once, because I had not budgeted for it, she said the board will be having a conference call soon and she would bring up my delima. So I encourage any of you who are also in my situation to contact your regional director and let them know. If enough of us bring this up, something may be done about it. It may not be that this change is retracted, but maybe fees will be reduced for this year only, or some way to help us be able to afford this change imposed on us.


----------



## Relic (Feb 24, 2009)

Well l sure hope there's some leeway on not having to do them all for this year. l have 18 to take perm plus this springs foals which should be around 8. Very pricey with the dollar down...l sure hope they tell us soon instead of all these different opinions l've heard this week as to whats what..


----------



## JWC sr. (Feb 24, 2009)

I understand your dilemma and can understand how for some folks this could be a problem. This is a perfect example of a situation where with a major rule change such as this, the impact of the rule change both from a financial and direction standpoint needs to be looked at. Prior to implementation!!!

For us we already are working on the paper work for our horses and will bring them all permanent shortly. But I would hope that the Board will allow for some type of grace period for those that cannot afford to do this. Maybe something like a waiver of late fees to bring the horses permanent for the two years that are involved. Something like that would make sense to me anyway and would not impact some folks as hard as it could.

I hope some of our new directors are reading this.


----------



## minimomNC (Feb 24, 2009)

I understood that there would be a two year period to bring horses permanent, that would be the time line for this years 3 year olds to have been brought permanent at 5 years. I never heard that they all had to be done this year, only that it would start as of March 1.


----------



## Margo_C-T (Feb 24, 2009)

John, I appreciate your thoughtful post. I agree about lineage being a factor, also. Back in 'older' days, it seems there were some who would actually deprive their young stock of proper nutrition, aiming to 'stunt' their growth so they'd be smaller; if/when such horses began receiving good nutrition, they'd also began 'catching up' on their growth, often to the surprise and dismay of (usually)novice owners. Hopefully, THAT isn't being done nowadays; however, there will ALWAYS be differences in growth rate among individual animals.

I was away at a driving clinic with a GREAT ADS whip this past weekend, so did not see any of the meeting, but have read all of this thread, along with a detailed report from fellow members. It is my understanding that the action itself- that is, of changing the age of permanent registry from 5 to 3 years--was probably 'legal', but, according to my reading of Roberts Rules, using a 'standing rule' to put it almost IMMEDIATELY into effect, instead of at the start of the PROCEEDING(not 'preceeding'!) or FOLLOWING, year(as specified in the current AMHA Rules), contradicts the Bylaws, and should nullify the vote.

Personally, I think the whole idea of changing from 5 back to three years is a bad one; where is the well-thought-out rationale for so doing? I also have to again wonder--what about the 'unintended costs' to the AMHA...reprinting forms, reprogramming the already-aged and unable-to-cope computer system are just a couple of things that occur to me.....and especially on VERY short notice! And not to mention, the concerns already raised by individual members who will be affected!

Margo


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Feb 24, 2009)

You know at first I was all for this changing to permenamet at 3 years of age but people are making some good remarks for against this. This reminds me of them changing the measurment to the base of the withers like last year. Just another band-aid for another bigger problem. I want to know what research has been done.

Perhaps people should write up a proposal and allow breeding stock for oversize minis. They do have plans by what year to become a breed, they need to have this. I think it will bring back alot of honesty. But of course the main concern is too have them 34" & under.


----------



## Reble (Feb 24, 2009)

Just got off the phone with Pam at AMHA

They are having a meeting tonight about the permanent registration? change from 5 to 3 years.

They are *thinking* of starting it, January of next year? Since there is so much confusion.

Will let us know about life time membership which of those people have already paid this years fee.

If this will be minis from the $480.00 life time (25 years) this opportunity is March 1st - May 31st / 2009

Hope to know more tomorrow, someone is going to call me back.


----------



## C.A.R.E. (Feb 24, 2009)

This was just posted in the other "active" AMHA thread, but it warrants repeating here.

There have been many good comments and questions posted here, unfortunately, no one seems to have all the answers, not even the BOD and EC of AMHA!

How long are the members expected to just sit by and watch while the Board ignores, violates, abuses or manipulates the rules any way they want to?

The bylaw that passed, that changes the hardship and permanent registration of horses from five years to three, was first approved to go to the Annual Meeting at the June/'08 board meeting, AND *before it was even written! *(see June '08 minutes as published on the amha.org site)

There were questions as to it being correct on the first day of the Feb.'09 Annual Meeting, so was held off, and was brought back to the meeting on Saturday. It was never mentioned if it got the two-thirds vote required to pass a bylaw, or if it was a majority vote. Can't be sure that it even passed legally. It was stated that 100 members were registered for the meeting on Friday, but only 79 were present and voting on Saturday just before the election of officers. Sad isn't it, that 40 members, a majority of those in attendance, could elect officers for 12,000 members??!!

If accepted as passed, it has no mention of any implementation in the bylaw. Article XIV (A) and ( C ) state that amendments passed at the Annual Meeting will go into effect on January 1, of the proceeding year. (which would be January 1, 2010.)

Article XIX of AMHA bylaws states that Robert's Rules of Order will govern the Association in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation, these Bylaws, and any special rules of order the Association may adopt.

The vice-president made a motion to pass a standing rule to start implementation of the bylaw in March 2009. *Roberts Rules of Order states that no motion is in order if it is in conflict with the bylaws. If it is in conflict, the standing rule is Null and Void even if the vote is unanimous. *

The whole purpose of waiting until January 1, of the proceeding year to put new rules and bylaws into effect, was to have 10 months to determine all issues involving implementation of the rules.

There was no emergency in passing a standing rule. Just because it was said that it would bring $50,000 into the association is not necessarily true. No one knows that. Sure, it may bring in the income, but in return, what will it cost AMHA to implement it? We can already see the confusion of people on this forum, wondering if they have to register their 3, 4, and 5 year old horses this year, and if so, the great expense they will have in doing so. What is the time frame to register? Will any late fees be waived? Have the directors determined how much it will cost to change the computer program to accept 3 year old hardship and permanently registered horses? Have they determined what it will cost to print new registration certificates, transfer forms and all other material that might be involved.

This is no way to handle an issue as serious as this change. Apparently the directors don't know the answer yet. They will have a teleconference call before they can answer questions, at yet more expense to the association. How about following the flow chart and getting all implementation issues worked out before a rule change is made, and then it would save the unnecessary expense of having to call a special teleconference?

It is time the members tell the Board to stop making hasty decisions. Follow the rules as they are written. Many mistakes were made last year doing this same type of hasty rule violations. We hope that with the new EC members, things will not be repeated in 2009!


----------



## iowa (Feb 24, 2009)

As a new member of the AMHA it was perplexing to me that at shows, mature stallions, mares and geldings were in the class 3 and over. To me it would have made more sense to be 5 and over since that is when their permanent papers took effect. Now the permanent status and the class name will at least match.


----------



## Humhill (Feb 24, 2009)

C.A.R.E. said:


> It was stated that 100 members were registered for the meeting on Friday, but only 79 were present and voting on Saturday just before the election of officers. Sad isn't it, that 40 members, a majority of those in attendance, could elect officers for 12,000 members??!!


Which is why we should all be allowed to vote. Does my opnion not count just becuase I have a job and live on the other side of the country from the meeting?? I also get the feeling that it's the same small group of people voting on all this.


----------



## C.A.R.E. (Feb 24, 2009)

Humhill said:


> C.A.R.E. said:
> 
> 
> > It was stated that 100 members were registered for the meeting on Friday, but only 79 were present and voting on Saturday just before the election of officers. Sad isn't it, that 40 members, a majority of those in attendance, could elect officers for 12,000 members??!!
> ...


EXACTLY! This is somethng very near and dear to the hearts of C.A.R.E. and MANY AMHA members, and because of this, we are currently working on trying to have member voting passed. We strongly feel that this is the only FAIR way to give all members a voice in their organization, and to feel like ALL members opinions are important, not only those fortunate enough to be in attendance at the meetings. We feel that if member voting is implemented, it will help draw members back into AMHA. At least we can hope, and work towards trying to make it happen.


----------

