# AMHA is CLosing Their Books!! As well as a new Height rule change!!



## Riverdance (Feb 22, 2008)

AMHA just voted to close their books as of 2013 no one will be able to harship a horse in.






Also, they have voted to change where a horse is measured to help eliminate cheating






Now it will be in the little grove at the base of the withers. No more dying manes, or pushing on horses backs or sewing in more mane hair. Now maybe the horses will either loose their AMHA papers or be shown in the correct classes for now on.


----------



## nightflight (Feb 22, 2008)




----------



## muffntuf (Feb 22, 2008)

Do you guys do any drug testing for relaxing drugs so they drop their withers? That has gotten to be real common in other small equine breeds to make sure they measure in the smaller height classes.


----------



## heart k ranch (Feb 22, 2008)

I better hardship my mares soon then. I have two that need to be registered!


----------



## Alex (Feb 22, 2008)

i am very glad that they changed that! It needed to be done!


----------



## nightflight (Feb 22, 2008)

I've been pulled for the random drug testing before. We do have it.


----------



## targetsmom (Feb 22, 2008)

Am I the only one that can't find the "base of the withers"? Or is it because it is freezing cold, snowing, and all our horses are covered with snow (and several inches of hair)? But I had no trouble finding the last mane hair. There is supposed to be a groove there???


----------



## Irish Hills Farm (Feb 22, 2008)

> AMHA just voted to close their books as of 2013 no one will be able to harship a horse in.


I don't think that is a very smart decision. I'm one that believes the gene pool is small.

And I've never seen a little groove at the base of the withers.........


----------



## mininik (Feb 22, 2008)

Wow. Does this mean Miniature Horses will have to be bred with appropriately defined withers now, or will they be bred to be sway backed so they measure ever smaller?



The latter shouldn't be a problem with such a small, (soon to be) closed gene pool.


----------



## KenBen (Feb 22, 2008)

The gene pool is too small to close the books. We should be adding more horses in and new bloodlines. Could someone possibly post a photo pf this so call groove we have to measure to.

KenBen


----------



## ThreeCFarm (Feb 22, 2008)

That is sad that we still can't measure like the rest of the horse world...





So, will they still be 34" and under? Or is that going to change to go along with the new way of measuring? I'm going to have to go out to see if I can find this "groove." Surely finding the highest point of the withers would be easier???? sigh...


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 22, 2008)

At the base of the withers there is a little indentation. I think everyone will be taught how to find it, but it takes only seconds to find it.

The last hair of the mane created a lot of cheating. There are trainers who also show for AMHR who have sewn main hair in to make their horses smaller, they have dyed the mane as well as the back hair coat and sprayed it with hair spray to make it seem like mane hair.

This new rule will eliminate much of the cheating. Besides all of the people who have pushed and pushed on their horses back to make them drop their back. This can no longer happen. Unfortunatly, there will still be cheaters out there, who will continue to come up with ways to get their horse under, but this will make it much harder.

At the base of the withers there is a little indentation. I think everyone will be taught how to find it, but it takes only seconds to find it.

The last hair of the mane created a lot of cheating. There are trainers who also show for AMHR who have sewn main hair in to make their horses smaller, they have dyed the mane as well as the back hair coat and sprayed it with hair spray to make it seem like mane hair.

This new rule will eliminate much of the cheating. Besides all of the people who have pushed and pushed on their horses back to make them drop their back. This can no longer happen. Unfortunatly, there will still be cheaters out there, who will continue to come up with ways to get their horse under, but this will make it much harder.


----------



## mininik (Feb 22, 2008)

Just for fun...

http://bp3.blogger.com/_SGy6jIXdDDw/RxNE4f.../Els20Aug05.jpg

I wonder what this horse would measure at under the new rule?


----------



## Irish Hills Farm (Feb 22, 2008)

Does this not also make it that much harder to sell horses over seas? Wither would've been the smart thing to do.


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 22, 2008)

ThreeCFarm said:


> That is sad that we still can't measure like the rest of the horse world...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If we change it to measure at the withers (which was proposed) then many horses that measure in today, would no longer measure in. Many horses have higher withers than their back. This could create a real problem with many of the horses out there measuring and throwing 33+" horses. I have a mare, for instance, at the last hair she is 33 1/4", at the withers, she is over 34". She is a AMHA World Top 10, if we did the withers, she would be out as would many others. sS, yes, we are still at 34", but the grove is in the same area as the mane. A last mane hair can be just about anywhere on a horse, the grove is always aat the base of the withers.


----------



## Erica (Feb 22, 2008)

Yes I feel AMHA will loose out on a lot of good horse flesh to be had by closing the doors; I can think of several AMHR horses that were hardshipping in just recently that are already making an impact........and there would have been many more.





While yes it may reduce of the "grade" or "pet" breeding happening, it's also going to reduce some of those really nice AMHR horses from being added to your gene pool, but that's just my opinion coming from someone who tries to bred the type of horse that I like, and as close to the best that I can, whether, 30" or 36". AMHA or AMHR.

So I'm guessing the new rule about measuring is for show purposes and for new horses being registered? As what about all your 33.5-34" horses that have already shown, got papers, production records; and they have a "dip" and it's measured at 34.5??

Measurements anywhere just need to be consistent; I don't show at worlds, but I watched measurements on many of horses, some horses were allowed to stand however they pleased, front legs a foot part, parked out, head held up; other people were not even allowed to stand square - horses were standing way up under themselves and measured on their withers (talking about last year when it was last mane hairs) this is not coming from an exhibitor who feels their horses were not measured right as I didn't have a single horse down there, but from a spectator and member of that association.


----------



## mininik (Feb 22, 2008)

They could have hardshipped the previously measured horses in had AMHA chosen to measure correctly. It's not as though this new measurement isn't going to lead to cheating or some horses not measuring in.


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 22, 2008)

Irish Hills Farm said:


> Does this not also make it that much harder to sell horses over seas? Wither would've been the smart thing to do.


Actually, part of this request to change this was from overseas. They want it like this too. They have to follow the same AMHA rules that we have over here.

They just like the horses to be smaller than many that we have here.


----------



## squeaky (Feb 22, 2008)

ok, read the rest of the thread and then editied mine. While I understand that many of the horses now that have papers can measure over if we were to go to using the top of the withers, but then, any new system seems like it would knock some horses out of the registry.

Thats the problem with a height breed. Like Erica said, there needs to be consistency with how the horses are set up to be measured. I have had times measuring horses where the steward hasn't even let me put the horses two front feet on the line before they started measuring. I have always asked for a remeasurement of the horse when this happens, but it needs to be changed.

Amanda


----------



## Boinky (Feb 22, 2008)

*snort* still trying to make horses a height they really aren't. They should have just changed it to the top of the withers and been done with it. Have a "grandfather clause" for those those horses that measure over due to the new system but the new theory would be to breed even smaller from them. It's all just a big joke. I'm assuming they are refereing to the "dip" INFRONT of the withers? many mini's don't even have that and i've never seen a "dip at the base behind of the withers other than for their back..which also is another joke.


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Feb 22, 2008)

In order to be taken seriously by every other horse registration society in the world, measuring to the top of the whithers is the only way to go.

Time and time again the AMHA have been advised how to do this, easily, without making any horses "overheight" that are registered now, have been registered and would be eligible for registration within an acceptable timeframe, but they just keep throwing up the old chestnuts and it is wearing very thin.

We, in Europe, do not want smaller horses, we want horses that really are the height that they claim to be, not two or three inches higher, that's all!!

And, yes, the gene pool is too small, and this will possibly come back to bite the AMHA on the backside, or possibly not, it is all rhetorical- when was the last time the BOD actually took any action based on members (ordinary, person in the street, not "top breeder/shower" person) wishes???


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 22, 2008)

Erica said:


> Yes I feel AMHA will loose out on a lot of good horse flesh to be had by closing the doors; I can think of several AMHR horses that were hardshipping in just recently that are already making an impact........and there would have been many more.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



AMHA feels that they have a large enough gene pool. They want to focus on creating a breed registration rather then just a height registration.

There have been some real problems with some of the horses that were allowed in, as they were really oversized and should never have been allowed in. This will now creat a problem with more oversized horses. You all must have heard about the horses that were pulled at the World or who had to change classes.

That is also why they have created a different way of measuring, something that the Europeans wanted too.

They like them smaller over there then even what we breed. They would prefer nothing taller than 32".

.


----------



## ThreeCFarm (Feb 22, 2008)

Riverdance said:


> [
> 
> That is also why they have created a different way of measuring, something that the Europeans wanted too.
> 
> ...


That is because they measure at the top of the withers (yes, the minis too!), which is why, going by OUR measurement, they want nothing over 32", as then they know it should measure in at the highest point of the withers.

BTW, I just went outside and felt for a "groove" on 6 horses. I guess I must be stupid after 15 years with horses (big horses), but I certainly couldn't find one. And shouldn't we be using a spot to measure that can be seen by those watching, not just felt by the measurer???? Now how is this going to be policed?


----------



## Sunshine Acres (Feb 22, 2008)

Actually this will not measure out horses in fact it will do the opposite. Most horses have the BASE OF THE WITHER LOWER then the last mane hairs. I think most horses that have measured out at 34.50 and 35.0 can perhaps measure in now.

Remember this is measuring at the base of the withers still not like the rest of the horse world. Not the highest point of the withers so in essence taller horses will now measure in at 34.00 with this new rule

This has nothing to do with how they measure overseas so really was not brought on for that reason.

JMO


----------



## ThreeCFarm (Feb 22, 2008)

Riverdance said:


> ThreeCFarm said:
> 
> 
> > That is sad that we still can't measure like the rest of the horse world...
> ...


You couldn't pull papers on a horse that was correctly registered and taken permanent by the rules at the time they were registered/taken permanent. You couldn't make the height change retroactive. Rather, those horses that were correctly registered, following the rules in existance at the time they were registered, shouldn't be affected.


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 22, 2008)

Sunshine Acres said:


> Actually this will not measure out horses in fact it will do the opposite. Most horses have the BASE OF THE WITHER LOWER then the last mane hairs. I think most horses that have measured out at 34.50 and 35.0 can perhaps measure in now.
> 
> Remember this is measuring at the base of the withers still not like the rest of the horse world. Not the highest point of the withers so in essence taller horses will now measure in at 34.00 with this new rule
> 
> ...


Again, they can not measure at the withers like the rest of the horse world without loosing many horses and creating a real problem. At the base of the withers keeps it closer to the last mane hair for the most part.

It will go both ways. Some horses will get in that used to measure over, some horses will now measure over. What they are trying to eliminate is cheating. If you use the last mane hair, then people where dying back coat along with the mane and spraying it with hairspray, or sewing in mane hair or pushing on the back. These will not work anymore.

It was also mentioned that the Europeans showing in AMHA will have to follow our rules, that is measuring at the base of the withers. This was agreed upon by them prior to this meeting, or so they said at the meeting.


----------



## nightflight (Feb 22, 2008)

Wait a moment... so do we still have the ability to protest up to two hours after a class, or does it still have to be done before the gate closes?


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 22, 2008)

ThreeCFarm said:


> Riverdance said:
> 
> 
> > ThreeCFarm said:
> ...



Papers will not be pulled, the horses that now may measure over will still keep their papers. They will be grandfatheres in.


----------



## ThreeCFarm (Feb 22, 2008)

Riverdance, you misunderstood what I was referring to. I am talking about the reasoning why we supposedly can't go to the highest point of the withers. You keep saying a lot of horses would be over then, why can't those horses be grandfathered in, if the horses now that may measure over can be grandfathered in? It doesn't make sense.


----------



## targetsmom (Feb 22, 2008)

I think you have to check back tomorrow on the protest rule while the Board figures out what they can do.


----------



## RockRiverTiff (Feb 22, 2008)

Well I for one am happy. I am not sure about the new measuring rule, but I'm sure I'll figure it out. I would have preferred the top of the withers too, but I feel this is still more credible than the ridiculous old last mane hair rule.

As for closing the registry, those of you that had plans for hardshipping have five years to implement them. I for one do not feel that 160,000 horses is that limited of a gene pool. There are several rare breeds that have been around for centuries with a studbook that is a fraction of that. Nothing would make me happier than to be able to say that my Miniature horses are a breed. If AMHA is preparing to make that happen, then I am prepared to do what's necessary to assist them. We have *finally* chosen a direction for these animals, and I think that direction is FORWARD!

Time will tell.


----------



## mininik (Feb 22, 2008)

Riverdance said:


> If we change it to measure at the withers (which was proposed) then many horses that measure in today, would no longer measure in. Many horses have higher withers than their back. This could create a real problem with many of the horses out there measuring and throwing 33+" horses. I have a mare, for instance, at the last hair she is 33 1/4", at the withers, she is over 34". She is a AMHA World Top 10, if we did the withers, she would be out as would many others. sS, yes, we are still at 34", but the grove is in the same area as the mane. A last mane hair can be just about anywhere on a horse, the grove is always aat the base of the withers.
> 
> ...
> 
> Papers will not be pulled, the horses that now may measure over will still keep their papers. They will be grandfatheres in.




So what would have been the issue with measuring correctly AT THE WITHERS?!!?!


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 22, 2008)

nightflight said:


> Wait a moment... so do we still have the ability to protest up to two hours after a class, or does it still have to be done before the gate closes?



Unfortunatly I had a phone call and missed part of that one. I think at this time we still can, but not sure. Anyone know?


----------



## nightflight (Feb 22, 2008)

Thank you. I was following along, but thought I may have missed something.


----------



## Charlotte (Feb 22, 2008)

On the gene pool thing and everyone worrying about AMHA closing the gene pool.........back when DNA was being studied as something AMHA 'might' do in the future Frank was asked to visit with genetics laboratories regarding this subject as it related to miniature horses. He was told by the geneticists that miniature horses have the most diverse gene pool of any modern day horse breed.

I just keep wondering where all this concern about a small gene pool is coming from?

Charlotte


----------



## wpsellwood (Feb 22, 2008)

> I just keep wondering where all this concern about a small gene pool is coming from?


Me too!!! Go AMHA I think you are making headway!!


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 22, 2008)

ThreeCFarm said:


> Riverdance, you misunderstood what I was referring to. I am talking about the reasoning why we supposedly can't go to the highest point of the withers. You keep saying a lot of horses would be over then, why can't those horses be grandfathered in, if the horses now that may measure over can be grandfathered in? It doesn't make sense.



Sorry for missunderstanding. They did talk about that at the meeting and felt that even thought they would be grandfathering these horses in, they woudl still be producing many horses that would no longer make it in as there can be a difference of and inch or two from last mane hair virse withers.

They did try the withers, but it was shot down. I really do not care which one, as long as we can eliminate some of the cheating. It was such a fiasco at the last World show with many horses with perminant papers saying they were 33" tall being shown in the 32 and under class. Kind of hard to beat them when they were so much taller than the true 32 and under horses. My stallion was 31 1/2' tall and many of the horses in his class made him look like he belonged in a smaller class.


----------



## Feather (Feb 22, 2008)

The last subject today was to revise the protest rule that the board over turned in Oct. The 60 days prior publication notice became a sticky issue so the President ajourned the meeting for today & tomorrow will come prepared to address it with a reivision agreed to by the committee developed in October to fix it. The committe finaly agreed to a fix/change at this annual meeting.

He will find a way to legally get it( the special committee revision) implemented for 2008 Jan 1st tomorrow.


----------



## Charlotte (Feb 22, 2008)

Yep Riveredance, that is what the special committee has been working on for months now! A way to implement the protest rule so that anyone so obviously cheating is going to get called on it!

I don't know what the committee got worked out, but I sure hope something gets passed that will go into effect in '08 so that we don't take a 28" stallion in the senior 28" and Under class and find he's WAY the smallest horse in the class! Been there, done that! And I for one am TIRED of it!

Charlotte


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 22, 2008)

mininik said:


> Just for fun...
> 
> http://bp3.blogger.com/_SGy6jIXdDDw/RxNE4f.../Els20Aug05.jpg
> 
> I wonder what this horse would measure at under the new rule?











Actually, the base of the withers is still up there, even though his back is not.


----------



## dali1111 (Feb 22, 2008)

> I for one do not feel that 160,000 horses is that limited of a gene pool.


That may be so but look at how many of those horses are very closely related? How many horses can you think of with this breeding or that breeding...a son or grandson of whoever? ...And how is this going to change cheating at all? people will always find a way to cheat no matter what..at least with the last hair we just had people adding hair etc. now we will have people breeding badly comformed horses to get that "dip" down real low. Not to mention that minis have always been a height breed..our numbers are increasing so why change that? How many of "the greats" can you think of with shetland breeding?


----------



## RockRiverTiff (Feb 22, 2008)

dali1111 said:


> now we will have people breeding badly comformed horses to get that "dip" down real low. Not to mention that minis have always been a height breed..our numbers are increasing so why change that? How many of "the greats" can you think of with shetland breeding?


What good does it do to get a horse measured in if it's badly conformed in the first place? I do not genuinely believe there is going to be a large contingent of people breeding for hideous horses just so they can get them papers. And minis have *never* been a breed. We are a height *registry*. Closing the studbook is the first step toward actually becoming a breed. Furthermore, I in no way consider our numbers increasing so quickly a good thing. As many people at the convention said, we are having a serious supply and demand issue. Numbers are increasing and prices are decreasing. It's time we become proactive about the legitimacy of our horses AND our practices.

As for the greats with Shetland breeding, yes, we all accept that they are a large part of the gene pool. Nevertheless, if you're talking about ASPC registered ancestors, in most modern AMHA champions you're going to have to look several generations back to find one.

If I'm not mistaken, the ASPC's studbook is not much larger than 160,000 is it? And yet they are a breed and have made impressive changes in quality and type over the last couple decades. Why is it so hard to accept the same may be possible for our minis? Especially if they are carrying much of the same genetics?

(Edited to say: I don't mind hearing the facts if I'm wrong, but I'd rather this not turn into AMHA vs. AMHR again. I am a member of both.)


----------



## Mona (Feb 22, 2008)

> AMHA feels that they have a large enough gene pool. They want to focus on creating a breed registration rather then just a height registration.


I feel that the Miniature Horse will NEVER be a TRUE BREED, because even though the bloodlines have not been added to with outside blood, being a height registry, they will never be a pure BREED registry.




If they wer a true BREED, then oversized horses would never lose their registration.



> I just keep wondering where all this concern about a small gene pool is coming from?


I think a big part of the concern in the size of the gene pool may be due to the number of dwarf producing/dwarf gene carrying horses today. If and when a test becomes available to isolate and identify these genes, with horses being tested, we may all be surprised at what we find, and maybe then, they will find the gene pool should still be open to allow others in that test free of dwarfism.


----------



## Minimor (Feb 22, 2008)

I do believe that people will always find a way to cheat. What's to stop them from standing the horses stretched, or splayed? So it's against the rules to stand them that way, so what? It was also against the rules to press down on the back, & yet that was still being done. Only an idiot would believe that a horse's mane ends half way down the back, and yet measurement people were agreeably allowing "fake" hair to be used to measure horses at the lowest point of the back... If rules were enforced there wouldn't have been such problem with measuring, even at the last mane hair.

As for closing the book, I'd point out that it takes more than a closed book to create a real breed. You've got to have a type--a "look" that sets the breed apart from every other breed. I'm curious to know what is that ideal type for AMHA?

My first thought was that AMHA was worried about all the talk about how more and more AMHR/ASPC horses were going to be hardshipped into AMHA as time goes on, and they feel closing the books will stop that from happening?

For my part I'd like to see AMHR close their books too. Perhaps leave it open for ASPC ponies, since ASPC and AMHR are under the same club, but close it to AMHA horses and falabellas.


----------



## MountainViewMiniatures (Feb 22, 2008)

To have a "breed" with a height restriction is still just a height registry regardless of a closed registry or not. Something needs to be done about the over horses like APHA and ApHC did for their solid color horses and the AQHA did allowing cremello/perlino and excessive white. A breed is by blood- breeding one registered horse to another registered horse - you still have your ideal but you don't pull the papers if they aren't ideal (otherwise you should pull their papers if they don't pass a conformation test!)- I've seen 2 very tall horses have small offspring and 2 very small have tall. I will probably never buy another foal because you can spend a fortune in purchase price, training,upkeep only to have it stripped away in 5 years and wind up with a grade pony.


----------



## Heart L Ranch (Feb 22, 2008)

I totally agree with Mona. If AMHA wants to truly be a breed, then you need to still register anything (that is of course out of 2 AMHA parents) that goes over into a breeding stock classification. They cannot be shown but they can continue to produce. If this is not done, they really are not a "breed"


----------



## Yaddax3 (Feb 22, 2008)

A few things:

We show mostly AMHR but have shown AMHA. A few years ago, we hardshipped a mini gelding into AMHA. He always has measured from 33 1/2 to 34 -- never over. However, if this new way of measuring puts him over, will AMHA give me a refund for the $500 I paid to hardship him?

I ask that somewhat facetiously -- I know I'd never get a refund.

However ...

I am serious when I ask this:

Would this even be an issue if some of the people who have been measuring for AMHA did it correctly and didn't succumb to peer pressure or worry about straining friendships if a horse went over?

I believe Riverdance noted that some trainers/exhibitors try duping measurers. Unless the person measuring is legally blind, lacks morals or not paying attention, they should be able to tell when someone is trying to pull a fast one.

One last thing, and this question is not meant to offend, just to be educated and either support or strike down a belief I've heard from others: Do some AMHA-only exhibitors fear that horses coming over via hardship from AMHR will start taking blue ribbons and world titles away from them?


----------



## ruffian (Feb 22, 2008)

> I feel that the Miniature Horse will NEVER be a TRUE BREED, because even though the bloodlines have not been added to with outside blood, being a height registry, they will never be a pure BREED registry. no.gif If they wer a true BREED, then oversized horses would never lose their registration.



There are very few "Pure" breed registry - Look at quarter horses, thoroughbreds, and POA's. National Show Horse. So why can't Miniatures become a breed?

As I understand it - a POA must be under a certain height, or they loose their papers. I wouldn't tell those folks they're not a breed. If a Quarter Horse has too much white in the wrong part of their body, they loose their papers, I'm not telling those folks they're not a breed, and they certainly are not purebreds, if you are saying purebreds such as Arabian or Lippizan. If a mini goes over height, or has dwarf characteristics, I wouldn't have a problem with them not being a miniature. I breed for miniatures under 34", and am very careful in my stock. I bought a mare that was supposed to be AMHA/AMHR, but outgrew her papers. So that's why I am breeding AMHR also. I happen to believe that if horses that go oversize are depapered (is that a word??



), then it would help reduce the foal of 2 32" parents grown to 37. Eventually.

I would have liked to see them go to measuring at the withers, and adding 2" to the AMHA. I would think that most true 34" horses would still measure in, and there's little chance of being in the wrong place to measure, and people from the sidelines can see where the stick is.


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 22, 2008)

Heart L Ranch said:


> I totally agree with Mona. If AMHA wants to truly be a breed, then you need to still register anything (that is of course out of 2 AMHA parents) that goes over into a breeding stock classification. They cannot be shown but they can continue to produce. If this is not done, they really are not a "breed"



Yes, this would be the way to go and perhaps in the future they will go that way.

In dogs, if a breed standard requires a dog to be no more than a certain height and they go over, they still keep their papers, but can no longer be shown. The ones that go over end up, for the most part, not being bred, because their offspring stands a chance of going over too. Thus would be the same in AMHA Miniature horses.

If AMHA goes the way of creating a breed, they will have to look at this in the future. For now, it was a sucess to get them to close the registry.

For AMHR to close their registry from AMHA horses is to cut their nose off to spite their face. AMHA is not trying to keep out AMHR horses, but to stop so many grade horses being registered and then sold as AMHA horses, when they really have no pedigree at all. This includes the ponys, as a pony is its own registered breed. At some point you have to stop adding other breed bloodlines.

They feel that there is an over abundance of AMHA horses and it is killing the market. This is not to spite AMHR, they are not in a contest with AMHR, and AMHR should try to stop being in a contest with AMHA. For the most part, AMHR has a diffferet look to their horses than the AMHA horses and most times one will prevail at one show over the other. Once in a while a really good horse will be liked by both clubs.

Both clubs have good and bad points. The AMHR horse tends to look more like pony's, the AMHA horse different. This does not make one better than another, and I am not putting down the pony. After all that is what makes horse races.

This fighting by both clubs is ridicules, it would be like Morgans and Saddlebreds fighting over whos horse was better. After all, Saddlebreds came down from Morgans. Morgans used to mix Arabians and Saddlebreds,(as well as some other breeds) but eventually closed their books too. They did not do this to get back at the other breeds, but to start creating a breed that said Morgan.

AMHA wants to do that too.

Just so that you do not think I hate AMHR, I myself am a member of both clubs, but feel that my horses go more with the AMHA look rather than the AMHR look. This does not mean to say that AMHA is better. But I am also tired of the nasty competitive comments between the two clubs.

.



Yaddax3 said:


> A few things:
> 
> We show mostly AMHR but have shown AMHA. A few years ago, we hardshipped a mini gelding into AMHA. He always has measured from 33 1/2 to 34 -- never over. However, if this new way of measuring puts him over, will AMHA give me a refund for the $500 I paid to hardship him?
> 
> ...


First, your gelding would be grandfathered in as was said several times before.

Second, Again with the negative comments with AMHR. AMHA is not worried about AMHR horses beating them. If they are a good horse, great, let them win. My horses are double registered. Does that mean if I win in AMHR, my horse is considered a AMHA horse that beat the AMHR horse, or if I win in AMHA, is it then considered a AMHR horse that beat a AMHA horse,. Come on!! OH!


----------



## Belinda (Feb 22, 2008)

> This is not to spite AMHR, they are not in a contest with AMHR, and AMHR should try to stop being in a contest with AMHA.
> The AMHR horse tends to look more like pony's, the AMHA horse different
> 
> But I am also tired of the nasty competitive comments between the two clubs.


Sue,

I first would like to say AMHR has Never been in a Contest with AMHA ! ! Not sure why or what makes you think that. And next the "Nasty Competitive comments you are tired of , you just put several in your post



Or it seemed so to me the way I read it.

AND why would AMHR closing their Reg. being cutting off their nose to spite their face , but yet it was OK for AMHA to do OH! Not sure where the logic is there.. ??

Next can I ask when You refer to the AMHR HORSE LOOKING ONE WAY AND THE AMHA HORSE BEING DIFFERENT ,, Tell me the two horses below where do they belong ?? Are they what type according to your post... As both have been reg. with both Assoc. for many years, And they are only one generation away from Shetland Pony.. Just trying to understand your statement above..











Buckeroo picture posted with Marianne's permission..

And I also am a member of both Assoc.. SINCE THE EARLY 1980'S !!!!!! SO I also enjoy and reg. horse with both.. ANd I also show at both National shows.. I would love someday to see both Registry's work together.. Ok now I am off my box and JUMPING WITH BOTH FEET in my FLAME SUIT..


----------



## Songcatcher (Feb 22, 2008)

Yaddax3 said:


> One last thing, and this question is not meant to offend, just to be educated and either support or strike down a belief I've heard from others: Do some AMHA-only exhibitors fear that horses coming over via hardship from AMHR will start taking blue ribbons and world titles away from them?


I am not an exhibitor in either A or R, but the statement DOES offend in that it portrays the attitude I see all too often from R only owners that they are superior.

I am a member of BOTH AMHA and AMHR and every horse I own is registered in BOTH registries. I have no hard fast facts, but I would suspect that there are more horses that are double registered than horses in only one or the other. Why do some people insist on pitting one against the other at every opportunity?


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 22, 2008)

Belinda said:


> > This is not to spite AMHR, they are not in a contest with AMHR, and AMHR should try to stop being in a contest with AMHA.
> > The AMHR horse tends to look more like pony's, the AMHA horse different
> >
> > But I am also tired of the nasty competitive comments between the two clubs.
> ...



Belinda,

I am sorry that you are reading into what I have to say as a negative. I am not trying to be negative. But one person posted that AMHA must be closing their books to spite AMHR and perhaps AMHR should close their books to AMHA. I was trying to say that AMHA is closing their books because they would like to produce a breed rather than just a height breed. AMHR is still a height breed. Another post that perhaps AMHA was afraid of the AMHR horses beating them (which I have read on many posts). yet, I never read these kind of posts from an AMHA person against a AMHR person.

I did not imply that the AMHR horses are ugly or poor or anything else. In many cases the winning horses from AMHR and AMHA have a different look. This is NOT to say one is better than the other. Again, I said that is what makes horse races.

I will AGAIN, say that my horses are also double registered and have done well in both registrys when I showed both. But I find that they do a little better with AMHA amd my taste leads more to the AMHA horses. As did my taste lead to preferring Morgans to Saddlebreds when I bred Morgans. That does not mean I hate Saddlebreds. I find that AMHR leans a little bit more towards the pony/shetland look, Again, nothing wrong with it, but I like the more refined Arabian, Morgan look that seems to do better at the AMHA shows.

One of the reasons why I stopped going to AMHR shows was all of the competative negativeness regarding AMHA and their horses. I got tired of hearing it over and over again. At the AMHA shows, I never hear this negativeness from AMHA members. Both clubs will only get along better when each club quits saying negative things or competative things against the other.

I too would love to see both registrys work together and neither one of them say something negative about the other, or think that one is better than the other. Again, they both have pros and cons.


----------



## Yaddax3 (Feb 22, 2008)

> First, your gelding would be grandfathered in as was said several times before.


I noticed the term "grandfathered in" used in several other posts, but I don't recall seeing an explanation of exactly what that meant. So now I ask for the sake of clarity: How will AMHA define grandfathered in? Does it mean my horse and others will be measured the "old way" or does it mean they will get a one-inch or so height allowance?



> Second, Again with the negative comments with AMHR. AMHA is not worried about AMHR horses beating them. If they are a good horse, great, let them win. My horses are double registered. Does that mean if I win in AMHR, my horse is considered a AMHA horse that beat the AMHR horse, or if I win in AMHA, is it then considered a AMHR horse that beat a AMHA horse,. Come on!!


As I said, I wasn't looking to offend, but apparently I did.

Sorry if I ruffled a feather or two, but, Sue, you've done some ruffling of your own by saying AMHR horses look different than AMHA horses. As someone once said to me: Come on! OH!



> ...the statement DOES offend in that it portrays the attitude I see all too often from R only owners that they are superior.


Funny. I have found it to be the other way around.

To clarify: I'm not an R-only owner. Half a dozen of our horses are double registered. I came into this miniature horse world with no preconceived notions about AMHR or AMHA. I have met many wonderful people who exhibit both AMHA and AMHR and many wonderful people who exhibit AMHA-only or AMHR-only.

But I have encountered far more arrogance and smugness among some AMHA-only exhibitors. Quick example: More than one of them told me that any equine that measured over 34 inches was a pony, not a miniature horse. In other words, my AMHR B horses aren't worthy of being called miniature horses.

I wonder what these folks will think now if the so-called "pony" that has been measuring 35 inches will, under the new system, measure 34 inches and suddenly be eligible to show in AMHA. Is it suddenly worthy of the "miniature horse" designation?

I'll shut up now.


----------



## Sharron (Feb 22, 2008)

I haven't read all the posts, so don't know if someone has already thought of this or not...to me in order for the AMHA to be considered a breed...I feel you should be able to breed a 32" stallion to a 32" mare and know without a shadow of a doubt you will get a 32" & under foal when mature... Just my thoughts. And with today's gene pool this isn't going to happen...

On another note....which AMHR show did you attend Sue that was so negative about the AMHA individuals and their animals showing there? You see our North TX club puts on the largest ASPC/AMHR show at Glen Rose every spring and fall...The only negativity that I hear about the AMHA people coming to our shows is "They want to CHANGE everything" to be like AMHA, with how we show in our classes, etc, they want to change our rules to suit themselves, instead of following the AMHR rulebook, and abiding by THOSE rules. If that is the negativity you have been experiencing, then maybe the reasons put forth here, are why you have heard the comments. After all you came to play in our court, so follow the rules set forth by our association, we are expected to follow AMHA rules when we show at AMHA shows, and those of us that do, DON'T TRY TO CHANGE the rules to suit ourselves, nor talk bad about the association. I have been a member of both associations since the early 1980's, and have seen many changes come and go with both associations. Some good and Some bad...it will remain to be seen if the things voted on at the AMHA convention are for the good or detriment of the association. Only time will tell on that score...

I too wish those naysayers on BOTH sides would still their wagging tongues and work as hard *FOR EACH ASSOCIATION * as they are working to tear them both down.

I will go back to lurking...and maybe some of what I have written will make those naysayers, stop and rethink their actions.

Sharron


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 22, 2008)

Sharron said:


> I haven't read all the posts, so don't know if someone has already thought of this or not...to me in order for the AMHA to be considered a breed...I feel you should be able to breed a 32" stallion to a 32" mare and know without a shadow of a doubt you will get a 32" & under foal when mature... Just my thoughts. And with today's gene pool this isn't going to happen...
> 
> On another note....which AMHR show did you attend Sue that was so negative about the AMHA individuals and their animals showing there? You see our North TX club puts on the largest ASPC/AMHR show at Glen Rose every spring and fall...The only negativity that I hear about the AMHA people coming to our shows is "They want to CHANGE everything" to be like AMHA, with how we show in our classes, etc, they want to change our rules to suit themselves, instead of following the AMHR rulebook, and abiding by THOSE rules. If that is the negativity you have been experiencing, then maybe the reasons put forth here, are why you have heard the comments. After all you came to play in our court, so follow the rules set forth by our association, we are expected to follow AMHA rules when we show at AMHA shows, and those of us that do, DON'T TRY TO CHANGE the rules to suit ourselves, nor talk bad about the association. I have been a member of both associations since the early 1980's, and have seen many changes come and go with both associations. Some good and Some bad...it will remain to be seen if the things voted on at the AMHA convention are for the good or detriment of the association. Only time will tell on that score...
> 
> ...


Sharron,

I attended AMHR shows for several years. For the first 5 years I was in Minis I did only AMHR, both locally and at the Nationals. The negativeness was at all of the shows, especially the Nationals. It was not about AMHA not liking the way AMHR was running their shows, but comments more like AMHR is so much better than AMHA, or AMHA is going to go under, did you hear, with oh so big a smile on their face. on and on along those lines. When I went to my fist AMHA shw I was pleasantly surprised with the difference.

You are right that no one from AMHA should go to your shows and complain that they are not run like AMHA shows. They are at fault for doing that. You have your shows and you run them your way. If they do not like it, they do not have to show. with you.

As I have said over and over, it sure would be nice if the competativeness and negativeness would go away. If you had read through all of these posts you would have seen posts like AMHA was closing their books to spite AMHR. Or "what are AMHA people afraid that the AMHR horses will beat them" This is all unnessessary!


----------



## Sanny (Feb 22, 2008)

> One of the reasons why I stopped going to AMHR shows was all of the competative negativeness regarding AMHA and their horses. I got tired of hearing it over and over again. At the AMHA shows, I never hear this negativeness from AMHA members. Both clubs will only get along better when each club quits saying negative things or competative things against the other.


I've been following this post and had decided not to get involved in it because of the negative direction the post was taking but after reading this comment I had to say something. I have a great deal of respect for Sue and her horses and like her a lot, but I have had the opposite experience.

Let me share a story:

We went to eight or nine shows last year and attended most of the miniature horse-related functions in our area so we were around a lot of AMHA and AMHR people. The only time last year that I heard this sort of negativity about one organization versus the other was from an AMHA-only exhibitor. I was looking at horses this exhibitor had for sale at an auction and the exhibitor asked me how our horses did at AMHR Nationals.

I started to tell them and was cut off by the AMHA-only exhibitor, who went off on a tangent about how much better AMHA horses were than AMHR horses. She told me that I would have gotten my butt kicked if I had showed the same horses we won with at AMHR Nationals at AMHA Worlds and that a top ten horse at AMHA Worlds would beat any AMHR National Champion.

I was pretty much speechless and wasn't about to get into an argument about AMHA versus AMHR so I kept my mouth shut and just stood there and listened as she made her sales pitch. (I guess this was her way of trying to persuade me to bid on her horses.)

We went to the Minnesota State Fair two years ago and our double-registered horses that mostly show AMHR managed to do very well under the AMHA judges. We took just three horses and won $1,300 in prize money, beating this AMHA-only exhibitor's horses along the way. Our biggest winner was the gelding we hardshipped into AMHA. By the way, the only negativity we heard was from AMHA-only exhibitors bashing AMHR.

It's not the entire AMHA membership or AMHR membership sniping at one another. As with most things, it's only a few people here and there who feel a need to climb on their soapbox and prattle on.

Speaking of prattling on, I've said enough. Besides "Ghost Whisperer" is about to start.


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 22, 2008)

Yaddax3 said:


> > First, your gelding would be grandfathered in as was said several times before.
> 
> 
> I noticed the term "grandfathered in" used in several other posts, but I don't recall seeing an explanation of exactly what that meant. So now I ask for the sake of clarity: How will AMHA define grandfathered in? Does it mean my horse and others will be measured the "old way" or does it mean they will get a one-inch or so height allowance?
> ...



I am not trying to ruffel any feathers by saying that the WINNING AMHR horses look somewhat different then the WINNING AMHA horses. They usually do.. That is not implying that AMHA is better or AMHR is better, please stop trying to read into something that is not there!! How many AMHA/AMHR horses have won both registries? Very few.

I will say it again. Morgans look different than Saddlebreds, yet they both come down from the same breed. That is not saying that a Morgan is any better than a Saddlebred. I just liked the Morgan look better, but I do not dislike the Saddlebred.

I like the look of the AMHA horses better and what usually wins with AMHA, verses the look of the AMHR horses and what usually wins in AMHR. THAT DOES NOT MAKE ONE BETTER THAN THE OTHER, IT IS JUST MY OPINION. And I am NOT trying to be negative. So stop taking it that way!!

Should I be upset because you like the look of the AMHR horses better or the AMHR registry better. Who cares, enjoy, they are a good club!!


----------



## Boinky (Feb 22, 2008)

We've had the same experience. We showed AMHA our first show season since it was the closest show (and that isn't so close..lol). the first show didn't have much attendance and the people were fairly friendly and introduced themselves. The consecutive show's were aweful. the people were NOT AT ALL friendly. May just be our "area" people but it seems to be the same attitude i've seen with many AMHA only competitors.

I guess i don't get where the statement that AMHA has more arabian looking ones comes from. Quite frankly i've seen more "shetlands" that look as much like arabians as almost any "pure" mini..... and i suspect that's probably why they do so well in a world that wants their mini's to look like shetlands (not to mention many have correct conformation that has been completely disreguarded and bred away from for the small size) They are refined, leggy, necky, hooky ears ect. I"m not saying AMHA is bad .... i just haven't been impressed with the reception we got from it. It does not do the registry justice nor the clubs that behave this way. I can tell you i'm not the only one that has shown AMHR almost primarily now because of it. Our second year showing mini's we showed the AMHR circuit and it was VERY VERY friendly. even the big name trainers said hello and were friendly and they had no idea who we were from anyone else. no one gave us the cold shoulder because we were new ect. They were all very helpful and encouraging. to me just the fact that it was more friendly was a BIG BIG thing that draws me to that registry over the other.


----------



## muffntuf (Feb 22, 2008)

MountainViewMiniatures said:


> To have a "breed" with a height restriction is still just a height registry regardless of a closed registry or not. Something needs to be done about the over horses like APHA and ApHC did for their solid color horses and the AQHA did allowing cremello/perlino and excessive white. A breed is by blood- breeding one registered horse to another registered horse - you still have your ideal but you don't pull the papers if they aren't ideal (otherwise you should pull their papers if they don't pass a conformation test!)- I've seen 2 very tall horses have small offspring and 2 very small have tall. I will probably never buy another foal because you can spend a fortune in purchase price, training,upkeep only to have it stripped away in 5 years and wind up with a grade pony.


APHA and AQHA have made the new rules that they will recognize outcrops of each other's regsitry, which opens them to more registered horses, and they can now compete into their breed stock classes. Which by the way is growing in leaps and bounds, the breed stock classes.



ruffian said:


> > I feel that the Miniature Horse will NEVER be a TRUE BREED, because even though the bloodlines have not been added to with outside blood, being a height registry, they will never be a pure BREED registry. no.gif If they wer a true BREED, then oversized horses would never lose their registration.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again, please keep in mind the ever changing world of horses - the stock horse registries, etc. have a way of dealing with horses that have cropped out - breed stock, but they have developed breed stock classes. AQHA and APHA have been a fore leaderin this and have now started accepting each others crop outs, but only in the breed stock classes.


----------



## Fred (Feb 22, 2008)

I may be wrong but my feeling is that they don't want to hardship in any more small shetlands. When the R registry upped the fees a LOT of amha breeders jumped in and double registered their stock. At the time I heard a lot of "thats not fair" but heck the shetlands that were registered in were paying a hefty fee to do so why not the other mini registry. I for one prefer the AMHR and I'll tell you why. I worked for a pretty well known farm for many years and they were pretty much strictly amha. The rotten snobby attitude that you were socially inferior UNLESS you showed amha was how it was and even today in this area with some people still is. I am not joking and it is STILL prevelant today, I live in Boinky's area and she is not kidding. I know the prime insult when I beat the farm owners stallion was your "shetland" isn't as good as my miniature or the other one was " he's too big" heck he's 34 inches, last I knew that was the height requirement. My horse is reg amha and goes back quite a few generations but they think shetland is an insult, THEY ALL GO BACK TO SHETLANDS ANYWAY. There are many good people in amha but the real snobs stand out. I do know some fantastic people in the amha organization and I do plan on doing some shows this year but I am only going where I know I will have a good time.


----------



## Mona (Feb 22, 2008)

> I will AGAIN, say that my horses are also double registered and have done well in both registrys when I showed both. But I find that they do a little better with AMHA amd my taste leads more to the AMHA horses.


You've said this already in at least 3 of your posts in this thread. I just don't get it...to me, it makes NO sense. If your horses are all double reg'd, AMHA/AMHR how can they LOOK AMHA? How do you know they don't "look" AMHR?






As for people liking/disliking registries, I can say I have shown VERY little, as I do not enjoy showing...I am far too nervous to do so. BUT when I was getting into minis and went to southern Minnesota to look at horses, there was one particular farm that was what I consider an "AMHA snob". I was so put off by his comments, that no matter how nice his horses were, I would not buy from him because of his sour grapes towards the "far inferior horses" of AMHR! I was NOT impressed! And, what is REALLY funny for me to see now, is that that this same person is now showing/handling horses in AMHR...guess as the saying goes, if you can't beat'em, join 'em!





I should also add, that I like BOTH registries. I am not for or against either. I support both, and feel there is room for both, but I do feel there are hard feelings between some people because of the registries they support/favor.


----------



## bevann (Feb 22, 2008)

Was this an AMHA BOARD decision or something that was voted on by the membership attending the AMHA National meeting?


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 22, 2008)

bevann said:


> Was this an AMHA BOARD decision or something that was voted on by the membership attending the AMHA National meeting?



Voted on by those that attended the meeting. It could only pass if 2/3rds of those attending the meeting and voting voted yes. It took two votes and many discussions before it was passed. Many of the top breeders and trainers voted for it.


----------



## tagalong (Feb 22, 2008)

Somehow I knew this thread would take this turn. I am so tired of the comments like AMHA must be doing this just to spite AMHR or AMHR/AMHA is so much better and the people are friendlier and so on and so forth...

Some posts in this thread had my jaw dropping.... yeeeesh.

All the horses here are double-registered. We have had horses showing in both A & R....

I have concerns with sweeping statements like this...



> There are many good people in amha but the real snobs stand out.


.
I can list Snobs in AMHR as well. They are not exclusive to any registry - and yet this same schtick is prevalent whenever a thread turns to AMHA vs. AMHR. You know some of the usual litany - all A shows are unfriendly, not for amateurs, not for families, not for youth, comprised of snobs... when that is simply not the case.



> I too wish those naysayers on BOTH sides would still their wagging tongues and work as hard FOR EACH ASSOCIATION as they are working to tear them both down.


AMEN to that... it has gotten increasingly tiresome....



> As I have said over and over, it sure would be nice if the competitiveness and negativeness would go away. If you had read through all of these posts you would have seen posts like AMHA was closing their books to spite AMHR. Or "what are AMHA people afraid that the AMHR horses will beat them" This is all unnessessary!


Agreed, It is unecessary - and spiteful. And someone needs to explain to me how such comments even make sense... when many of those horses are double-registered. Or does that taint the AMHA horses in the eyes of the AMHR "purists/snobs"? You see how silly this all sounds? It goes both ways - this faux elitist nonsense... as was noted here...



> AMHA is not worried about AMHR horses beating them. If they are a good horse, great, let them win. My horses are double registered. Does that mean if I win in AMHR, my horse is considered a AMHA horse that beat the AMHR horse, or if I win in AMHA, is it then considered a AMHR horse that beat a AMHA horse,. Come on!!


The notion of AMHA being afraid that the AMHR horses will beat them is ridiculous. We have had the same horses do well - Championships etc. in AMHA - and then do equally as well in AMHR Under... Championships again. HORRORS! OH!



> One of the reasons why I stopped going to AMHR shows was all of the competative negativeness regarding AMHA and their horses. I got tired of hearing it over and over again. At the AMHA shows, I never hear this negativeness from AMHA members. Both clubs will only get along better when each club quits saying negative things or competative things against the other.


Exactly.... and yet we hear the negative sniping here on this forum at every opportunity... like this thread! Look what it turned into! Not even a discussion about the topic so much as yet another chance for a pile on...

I fail to see why the constant sniping even needs to happen. One thing I disliked about AMHR was the laughable registration papers - the absolute worst out of any registration process I have ever had to deal with - with any breed... with that dinky little useless diagram to show markings on. FINALLY someone there woke up to that fact - and now pictures are required... a step in the right direction. But I did not go around sniping about it....

I had a rude experience with a couple of _very_ snobby handlers at a couple of AMHR shows in the area - but did that make me trash AMHR at every chance? No. Because I realized that those who are loud-mouthed know-it-alls at any show are in the minority - and are not to be seen as representative of any group. Nor is any one show to be seen as an example of what all similar shows are like. AMHA. AMHR. Whatever.

And on and on it goes...

_*zips up flame suit and jumps off soapbox*_


----------



## Dona (Feb 22, 2008)

Sharron said:


> I haven't read all the posts, so don't know if someone has already thought of this or not...to me in order for the AMHA to be considered a breed...I feel you should be able to breed a 32" stallion to a 32" mare and know without a shadow of a doubt you will get a 32" & under foal when mature... Just my thoughts. And with today's gene pool this isn't going to happen...
> 
> Sharron



And it will never happen. OH! We're talking about simple genetics here. When you breed one 32" horse to another 32" horse, you will have a 50% possibility of getting a foal who will mature at approximately 32". You will also have a 25% chance of producing a foal who will mature SMALLER than 32" AND a 25% chance of producing a foal who will mature TALLER than 32". This would apply to ANY breed...regardless of the "gene pool".


----------



## Kitty (Feb 22, 2008)

I would like to know this also? If it is going to affect that many horses, shouldn't the average person have a say in this?? I have horses that I would probably like to hardship in 6 years, heck maybe 10 yrs out and is it fair to me as a person that has been a member of AMHA for 14 yrs to be denied? Not anyone can attend these meetings. Most of us are working people. I honestly think issues of this magnitude should be a whole registery vote. If you choose not to vote then you can't complain.

As mentioned many times, it would be impossible to consider them a breed. Too many issues. It is a height registery. And to deny any horse that is 34 or under and can add alot to the breed would be silly.





I have my thoughts on both registeries but at this point of my life I like one better than the other. But we register both A and R. And myself I just bred for a beautiful horse


----------



## ontherisefarm (Feb 22, 2008)

Did they mention if they were going to mail out diagrams to members so they can learn the new measurement process??? I am not trying to be sarcastic I truely dont know the dip they are talking about..



. Can anyone that knows draw one and post it her for the rest of us....


----------



## Carolyn R (Feb 22, 2008)

Like many others that have read this, I am sure alot of you were out at your barns during your PM feedings and were maticulously going over your horses' withers.

Unless I am a complete idiot when it comes to this, which I hope I am not (if I can't tell where a horses withers are after being around them since I could walk, I must having my own set of issues going on) I have seemed to notice that the base of the withers was at or below the last hair on their mane (out of 8 horses, only one's mane was at the base of the withers, the others manes were right above the base of the withers.

My concern is will the AMHR and the AMHA use uniform measuring points on a miniature?


----------



## wpsellwood (Feb 22, 2008)

I have started to post and wiped it out so many times as who can respond to some this except

[SIZE=24pt]Tagalong[/SIZE]



way to go I agree 100 percent


----------



## ClickMini (Feb 22, 2008)

Carolyn you do make a good point about the fact that the two miniature registries will now be using different measuring systems. That is a thought that I did not have cross my mind up to now.

I do believe that it is not quite right that decisions of this magnitude are voted on by a very few of our members. It being the season that it is, many of our breeders simply cannot get away, and as mentioned before others cannot afford to travel away due to a shortage of money and/or vacation days. It is a concern. The only way to address it is to get a by-law change in to allow absentee voting, and there are some people, including myself, that are working on that. I had hoped to get the rule change submitted in time for this meeting, but life has interfered for me since Christmas time and I have not been able to sit down and put the thought in that it requires. Other people are also working on it. One of our first major steps taken in this direction is to webcast the meeting, this is HUGE! I hope a lot of people are able to tune in tomorrow to view it. There are other things that can be done to facilitate that change, which probably most people would feel is for the good.

It is a rule change that brought in this registry direction, and it is a rule change that can repeal it. So if you feel very strongly about an issue, please do what you can to be an active participant in the process. This is OUR registry. It is not the BOD that makes arbitrary decisions. It is not "the registry." When people say, well I hope the AMHA thought about this aspect or that aspect of making that rule change, the AMHA is US!!! It is the people who get involved. That rule change was instituted by a margin of A SINGLE VOTE. It was the prevailing desire of the members who cared enough and were able to attend. So right or wrong, there you go. We are all equal opportunity players in the game.

Although the vote did not go in the direction I wanted it to, for many reasons, I still was fascinated by the process. I believe that it was won fair and square by the proponents of the rule change. I went to the meeting in person last year, and I watched every minute of it today online. I highly recommend that everyone who is passionate about the breed do all that you can to be well-informed about the registry. I didn't really get involved at all for the first several years of owning miniatures, but then realized what information was available to us and I took advantage of learning all I could about it. It is pretty easy to get involved, if you are interested.

In 2008 I hope to learn more about the AMHR registry, because it is where I have been doing most of my showing, and where I will be showing in the forseeable future. This is because I enjoy my "over" division performance horses. I love performance! There are a lot of performance opportunities in the AMHA registry also, and as soon as I can get my Esprit hardshipped in, you can bet that we will be there showing too. Yes, he will be eligible in 2010, so we will be under the deadline on that one. And I bet there will be a lot of people who will like him, in both registries. I believe in him enough to pay the big bucks to get him double-registered. I wouldn't do that with a horse that wasn't exceptional.

Anyway, I guess the point of my long and rambling post is, if you don't like the direction, get involved! It is not nearly as scary or intimidating as you might think.


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 22, 2008)

Carolyn R said:


> Like many others that have read this, I am sure alot of you were out at your barns during your PM feedings and were maticulously going over your horses' withers.
> 
> Unless I am a complete idiot when it comes to this, which I hope I am not (if I can't tell where a horses withers are after being around them since I could walk, I must having my own set of issues going on) I have seemed to notice that the base of the withers was at or below the last hair on their mane (out of 8 horses, only one's mane was at the base of the withers, the others manes were right above the base of the withers.
> 
> My concern is will the AMHR and the AMHA use uniform measuring points on a miniature?



The dip in the withers is often past the last mane hair, but not always. When putting your hand on your horses neck where it attaches to the back, you can feel where the neck and back connect. Where the withers ends, kind of like a drop off. That is where the horse would be measured at the drop off or the end of the withers. When you know what to look for, it takes seconds to find.


----------



## Devon (Feb 22, 2008)

Im sad that we are going to miss alot of "backyard" horses that couldpossibly make huge marks on the miniature breed. Once the books close .. It all the same horses nothing new .. kind of worries me .. Ill get my colt in now before the books close .. just know if I couldnt get him in Id be heartbroken he was highpoint wenaling in Ontario reserve grand strallion against seniors and he isn't in a registery right now because his dam's dam passed away before being registered .. So he beat alot alot of AMHR/AMHA and I guesse in the future no one will get thsoe special guys in


----------



## Sunshine Acres (Feb 22, 2008)

Carolyn R said:


> Like many others that have read this, I am sure alot of you were out at your barns during your PM feedings and were maticulously going over your horses' withers.


I did do some quick measuring and found that a couple 35 inch horses could now be 34.00. A few more 34.50 horses easily came in under 34.00 - varying from 33.25 to 33.50 and a couple were the exact same.

Looks like one way or another AMHA will have "B" size horses in the registry now.





I could not hear or missed in the meetings will this be retroactive allowing those who have had papers pulled back in with proper and new re measurement?


----------



## disneyhorse (Feb 22, 2008)

Okay I really could care less about the AMHA/AMHR arguing BUT...

Here is a horse skeleton. I am currently studying horse and animal anatomy because it's my current art class.






Now, the "withers" are those tall dorsal vertebrae that stick way up, the tallest part is where most horses are measured. You can feel most of those dorsal vertebrae... Between WHICH one of those vertebrae are the AMHA horses to be measured between? As you can see, there is no distinct bones that make a divot.

Andrea


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 22, 2008)

disneyhorse said:


> Okay I really could care less about the AMHA/AMHR arguing BUT...
> 
> Here is a horse skeleton. I am currently studying horse and animal anatomy because it's my current art class.
> 
> ...




You are not looking for a divit, but the end of the withers. The lowest bone before you get to the back. There is a bit of a drop on evey horse. What is great about this is that you can not cheat by pushing a bone down like you can the back.

Yes, with some horses, it will allow some taller horses in. Some horses mane stops at the top of the withers some farther down the back. So, some horses will no longer measure in, some that did not meaure in before, will now measure in.

BUT, horses that are 35 or taller, will no longer measure in by pushing the back down or adding mane hairs or dying the back hairs to match the mane. Or the worst, cutting the poor horses hoofs almost off to try and make them measure in.


----------



## Viki (Feb 22, 2008)

Like many others here, at feeding time tonight, I felt for withers! Hummm, I must be a simpleton too! I couldn't find it on all my fat little broodmares! I could see where you'd have a better chance to find it on a skinny horse. But, most of us have fat little girls with enough back fat to keep a buffalo warm! So, are the 'show horses' going to be starved down to rails so they can find the divot to measure? A horse in prime show shape would have less back fat than our breeding stock, but, the SHOULD have some! I'd hate to start seeing undernurished horses being trotted out as show horses!

Viki


----------



## Boinky (Feb 22, 2008)

Ok so what i'm understanding is that the horse is being measured in the "middle" of the back



basically the lowest spot of the back where the withers and the back meet (which is typically the lowest part of the back)... funny but i remember people joking that they might as well measure in the very middle of the back.. and i do NOT agree with the fact that the horse cannot be pushed down..that is infact easier to get the horse to drop down than the withers/last hair area...

Looks to me like they are definatly trying to get horses even SMALLER than they did by using the last hair of the mane plus more ways to get the horse in because they can most DEFINATLY sink down in that area.... this is a big laughing joke if where i'm understanding they are going to be measuring is where they are going to be measuring for certain!!

edited to add that this is a problem in BOTH registeries with the queer measuring.. just even more queer measuring in the middle of the back.


----------



## Fred (Feb 22, 2008)

Actually my horse has very flat withers so he would measure the same no matter how you measured him. even if you measure at the divot in the back [sorry withers] there will still be horses that will duck and get in. No matter how you measure someone will find a way around it. By the way AMHR recognizes and lets AMHA horses in their registry will AMHA now let AMHR horses in when the hardship is closed? That is an interesting question to think about seeing as some people think the R is bashing the A, but AMHR recognises AMHA horses but AMHA does not recognise AMHR horses.


----------



## Mona (Feb 22, 2008)

Fred said:


> By the way AMHR recognizes and lets AMHA horses in their registry will AMHA now let AMHR horses in when the hardship is closed? That is an interesting question to think about seeing as some people think the R is bashing the A, but AMHR recognises AMHA horses but AMHA does not recognise AMHR horses.


GOOD POINT! AND, also, will they (AMHR) go with the measurement as provided on the AMHA papers, as now, there may be a discrepency with the way that AMHR measures vs the way that AMHA measures.

One more question...this new method of AMHA measuring...is this effective immediately?


----------



## minie812 (Feb 22, 2008)

I understand the measuring will take effect January 1 2009



I need to go make some more popcorn guys...this thread is getting interesting!


----------



## ontherisefarm (Feb 23, 2008)

Mona makes a very good point. The more I think about this new measuring thing the more disappointed I get. This could have a total snowball affect that was not thought of before. What if AMHR decides to now require all horses from AMHA to now be inspected before registering them due to the new way of measuring.Which could cost alot more money than it does now to register them R. I enjoy both registries and would like to have all of my horses double registered some day. IMO if someone wants to cheat bad enough they will end of story. I really dont think this will solve anything. Like quite a few said top of the withers wouldve been better.


----------



## Mona (Feb 23, 2008)

> IMO if someone wants to cheat bad enough they will end of story.


*EXACTLY!!! * Changing the method of measuring will never end the discrepancies in measuring at shows or at home! If someone wants to squeeze under or even over for that matter, all it will take is a little constructive thinking to find a way to get away with it!


----------



## wpsellwood (Feb 23, 2008)

Here is an upside to changing where to measure. I saw a new person at a show and they were very unhappy as they couldnt get their horse in to the class they were told that horse had been showing in. Well I look at the horse and this person had shaved off the base part of the mane actually went up the neck a bit. The rule book says last part of the mane, the person measuring had to follow the rules. So the horse got bumped up. This new rule will help the new person that doesnt know to leave the mane trail. Or the accidently clip sine off in ones of those oooppss. There is now a spot that no one can pretend to make longer or accidently make shorter. Try to look at the positive side


----------



## Jean_B (Feb 23, 2008)

Belinda said:


> > This is not to spite AMHR, they are not in a contest with AMHR, and AMHR should try to stop being in a contest with AMHA.
> > The AMHR horse tends to look more like pony's, the AMHA horse different
> >
> > But I am also tired of the nasty competitive comments between the two clubs.
> ...








FINALLY - someone has the guts (and knowledge) to make the *INFORMED* statement that the backbone of AMHA ..... just one or two generations back on the papers in MANY cases .... is the shetland!! No flames here!

And I have to agree - if the books are closed and if the miniature is ever to be considered a breed - there *MUST NOT BE ANY PULLING OF PAPERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! * They maybe cannot show, but if an animal is the result of breeding 2 registered animals from the so-called "breed"....the resulting offspring is and MUST be registerable as part of the breed no matter how tall they grow ..... or it is not a breed and never will be.

One thing that would help - to some degree - is if AMHA required that anyone measuring at a show had to take a class and be approved by the home office!! Right now, any schmuck off the street can measure at a show....they don't even have to know one end of the horse from another. Believe me I KNOW!! I announced at an AMHA show which shall remain nameless a couple years ago. The person who was supposed to do the measuring was quite late, people were standing in line waiting....still no "measuring person". I had my stick with me and the show manager asked me to do it. Eventually the person who was supposed to do it showed up but because I had started measuring no one else could....and asked all kinds of STUPID questions....didn't even know it was supposed to be at the last hairs!! And I think some shows do this on purpose....hiring people who don't have a clue BECAUSE THEY CAN, and they can buffalo (or bully) this poor unsuspecting and uninformed schmuck into doing their cheating for them!!!

Ok - now I'm off MY soapbox!


----------



## StarRidgeAcres (Feb 23, 2008)

Jean_B said:


> Belinda said:
> 
> 
> > > This is not to spite AMHR, they are not in a contest with AMHR, and AMHR should try to stop being in a contest with AMHA.
> ...


Even my little under 30" horses have shetland not that far back, several of them right on the papers! Someone please feel free to correct me, but aren't they ALL originally from shetlands?

I personally don't care HOW we measure, the horse is what it is. I ALWAYS make a point of saying that to the measurer. They always (both at A and R shows) will measure one of my horses and then say something like "29.5 how does that sound?" And I ALWAYS say "it is what it is!" Then they look at me like I'm from another planet because I don't care what the horse measures at!





And yes, I'm always in a class where I know my horse is right at the height limit and there's always one or more an inch taller! It's going to happen, we can't get so stressed out over it. I personally believe what goes around comes around. All each of us can do is worry about our own horse and let the rules (and karma) take care of the cheaters.


----------



## Heart L Ranch (Feb 23, 2008)

AMHA is trying to implement licencing measuring stewards. I am signed up to attend a AMHA measuring clinic at the end of this month. I believe (do not quote me on this...LOL) that this is the first one being offered and it is being hosted by the Northwest Miniature Horse Club. From my understanding we attend the clinic and will have to pass a test at the end and will be carded. Now I am wondering if this clinic will still be held and if we will be taught to find that "special" place to measure.....


----------



## ClickMini (Feb 23, 2008)

Interestingly enough, Lori, someone was at my house a couple of weeks ago and was showing me this technique, which I had never seen nor heard of! So apparently this is not "new." At any rate, that person will be at the measuring clinic, as will I. I think it is something that anyone who shows should at least audit. Then you know the correct way to measure at home, and also will be familiar with the process at the show. That is my reason for going at any rate. And yes, I am signing up to be "certified."


----------



## maestoso (Feb 23, 2008)

Eliminating hardshipping won't make the miniature horse any more of a breed than it is with the hardshipping. It can't change what already is, it only shortens the spectrum. To me it sounds like the point of this is to try and make the registry more prestigious........ I see nothing wrong with hardshipping. What difference does it make? There are plenty of crap horses with papers, with records that go way back. Personally I'd rather see a NICE horse hardshipped in and be an asset to quality breeding. Next thing you know, our horses will have to be evaluated as weanlings for someone to decide weather or not they are worthy or papers. I just don't see the point of this.

As for the measuring thing, call me a pessimist, but I agree with those who say that no matter what rule you make, someone will find a way to cheat it.


----------



## Feather (Feb 23, 2008)

Listening to the online voting several discussions were running as the voting was processing; much discussion had already developed from the committee's meetings.

Closed registry: One discussion was to slow the "pet quality" production down.

Measuring at top of withers drew a "Down" vote as several groups were concerned about losing

too many performance horses. Measuring at the base of the withers voted in with little opposed.

91(?) people were registered at National Meeting & 94 were logged in by internet today.

A point was made that they were not trying to copy ANY registry but to choose the best route for AMHA.

They also voted to ONLY REGISTER a horse w/both parents from North America.

Etc, Etc, Etc.

No rule or by-law can please everyone. But they have to start somewhere when a problem arises & is pursued by some part of the membership going through required proceedures. The meeting are open to all members & for now it is what it is. On-line voting is down the road but at least now on the radar screen.

My but it does start some lively discussions, don't these annual meetings!!!


----------



## R3 (Feb 23, 2008)

The vote to only register horses with parents in North America had to do with the current HARDSHIP rule, not with regular registrations, and it does not prevent hardshipping of horses in any country if the foal can be parent qualified as an offspring of two already registered AMHA parents.


----------



## Jill (Feb 23, 2008)

I don't think AMHA and AMHR horses look different NOW. I mean, most of mine are BOTH. They look like minis. But, I can imagine given more time, it could be that the AMHA's don't look nearly as refined as the (under) AMHR's with the bigger selection of breeding animals and lines.

Since most of my breeding horses are both, it won't effect me at this time but it does tip my favor even further towards AMHR and sets the stage for that to be so on into the future as well.


----------



## Irish Hills Farm (Feb 23, 2008)

> Closed registry: One discussion was to slow the "pet quality" production down.


This makes no sense to me. If you are into "pet quality" horses, you surely are NOT going to spend the money to hardship a horse in. As to slowing down the pet quality, you just locked those horses in once the registery is closed. And I certainly don't see those breeders slowing down at all. OH!

It would only make sense to me to continue hardshipping horses in, especially if they can improve the breed. Maybe a smart thing to do,would've been to increase the criteria for hardshipping.


----------



## Jill (Feb 23, 2008)

How many people have paid $600 and $1,200 to hardship "pet quality" horses and isn't there an inspection process? (said sarcastically as I know there is an inspection).

And, you know... it almost makes me wonder if it's worth it to hardship the ONE AMHR only breeding animal I own... If what I can imagine about preferring the future look of AMHR over AMHA holds true. BUT, "whatever".



disneyhorse said:


> Okay I really could care less about the AMHA/AMHR arguing BUT...
> 
> Here is a horse skeleton. I am currently studying horse and animal anatomy because it's my current art class.
> 
> ...


Excellent addition to the discussion. Looking at the skelton, I can see that people can SINCERELY and HONESTLY debate where to correctly measure with the new rule.

I almost can feel it... my AMHA horses all just shrunk.


----------



## BLACKWATER FARMS (Feb 23, 2008)

I'm following this thread with interest.

For me I see the issue with the height--where to measure--is certainly an issue but in order for the "miniature" horse to be a breed there needs to be a TYPE standard otherwise it's still just a HEIGHT REGISTRY--whether it's at the last mane hairs, top or bottom of the withers.

JMHO

Linda


----------



## Yaddax3 (Feb 23, 2008)

It's all about money, isn't it?

AMHA breeders, particularly AMHA-only breeders, put much higher pricetags on their minis. There must have been sheer and utter panic at the AMHA Worlds when some folks realized their high-priced minis would plummet in value if measuring was done by the book.

So, they changed the book.

If it is true, as stated on this post and another one, that this so-called notch could mean a 35-inch mini can now measure in at 34 inches than this rule change will now validate minis that had their papers pulled or were at risk of losing them.

And if that is the case, it was a selfish and transparent vote. Imagine how thrilled the AMHA-only breeder must be to have a 35-inch mini whose price just went up several thousand dollars.

I'm not knocking it. Matter of fact, I'd like to be just as selfish and transparent. I'd like to see AMHR adopt this rule if it means a 39-inch horse can now measure in at 38. We have a two-year-old that may go over a half-inch or so, making him nothing more than a pet mini. He's a stunning-looking horse with a better trot than some of our national champions.

Let's go AMHR. Let's be selfish and transparent, too.


----------



## nightflight (Feb 23, 2008)

IMO

The registry almost has to pull papers from horses that do measure a million miles oversize. Why? Because we the breeders won't do it. If a horse falls so far from standard that it can't even be considered a miniature horse (as stated by our standard of perfection) we don't want to be held to the rules - we want to breed it breed it breed it and not loose that almighty dollar.

A breed can have a disqualifying fault - in this case height.

If we the breeders step up and measure our horses as they are (instead of sliding under the bar and griping because someone may pull our papers), well will pull those papers ourselves before the registry ever measures those horses. There you go. If we apply words like ethical, and terms like follow the rules, or breed to the standard to ourselves, the whole thing becomes a non-issue, doesn't it?


----------



## LaVern (Feb 23, 2008)

Wow, Does this mean Ol' Reb (NFC's Rowdys Rebel) is back in? I have been a promotor of becoming our own Blood Breed for along time, but this seems like it came up pretty fast and perhaps was not given enough people a chance to have some input. When visiting with some of our AMHR leaders about closing the Registry, the response has usually been the same. "We have to think this through" What we do now will affect generations of people and horses. Very wise in my opinion.

It is my personal opinion that this Forum is like a big old fashion dinner table. Where we all get a chance to sit down and say what we want and listen to the other members of our Big Old Family. I don't know how many times my opinon has been changed by what someone else has said.

I used to grumble about the makeup of the AMHR board of directors having the ablity to okay or not what was voted on at the general meeting, now I see the wisdom of it. They can say hey," We had better study on this alittle bit."

I so want our miniatures to be their own blood breed with their own look some day, but I think it has to be hashed over for perhaps years, so that we don't mess up. Renee LaBarre Reiten


----------



## Shortpig (Feb 23, 2008)

I think it's great they have chosen one way or the other. I guess my question here after reading several posts is this, how many horses have you seen where the back is higher than the withers? If your horse was measured at the last hair of the mane and that was below wither height then it should never measure over with the new measurement. Now I could agree it would be an issue if they chose to measure at butt height.

Some horses being butt high. But the dip is probably at the lowest point possible on most horses. Some horses have more of a rise from back to withers than others. So this will allow those horses to be registered.

If you have a horse carrying a little too much back flab that can and will increase height of the withers also.

I think one issue I haven't seen mentioned here is what about the people who own the larger horses, letting their heels grow so they measure taller. The minis is the reverse of that. Cut those heels down real short and keep their feet trimmed back to the nubbins so they measure under the mark if only by a hair. If you really want a true measurement on a horse. Top of hoof to top of withers. Eliminate the hoof totally and you will get the true honest height of a horse. I must say though that with the new measurement I now have 3 A

horses. The difference comes from where their mane hairs stop upon the withers. Measured at the dip my

stallion JPF Jimmy Dolittle is now an A horse and probably will measure a little under the 34" mark with no problem. As will son Koda and my mare Ariel. Amazing I still have Jimmy's A papers because he is so

borderline depending on his feet being trimmed. Not sure how I feel about the whole thing at this moment

whether right or wrong. Just how I feel about where to measure.


----------



## Boinky (Feb 23, 2008)

geesh at this rate i think they should reinstate the horses that's papers have been pulled for being over automatically if they measure within the height requirements and not charge for hardshipping. it's a big joke They are just losing more and more credibility the more foolish stupid things they do. Basically the way horses are already measured (last hair) is a way to dupe the public into thinking our horses are smaller than they technically should be..this is only making it less creditable by shaving off even MORE size.


----------



## Leeana (Feb 23, 2008)

IMO having two different registrys for one "breed" has always been interesting



. My biggest issue is that the miniature horse is one "breed" (be it height or blood w/e) and we have two different registrys describing the same "breed" as something completely different. Imagine the new comers confusion when they first get into the breed. You wonder why people lean more one way toward one registry then the other BECAUSE they are both so very different, now even more so.

Now it looks like when i meaure my horses im going to have to get two measurements just like to do for my shetlands. An amha measurement and amhr measurement.





I guess we will see how amha stands 2 or 3 years after closing their books. I dont think this was "needed" imo.


----------



## razzy3d (Feb 23, 2008)

I don't think that everyone realizes that AMHA studbook is the largest in the world. Therefore, our gene pool is quite large.


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Feb 23, 2008)

I had cause to measure two horses today- I can assure you there is NO groove at the base of the whithers so I have no idea what the AMHA is talking about but there you go!!

There is no way any horse needs to be "lost" by measuring properly, you just have to do it sensibly and allow a long enough time gap- 2013 would be ample time to get everything in order, I really can see no problems whatsoever.

The horses I measured were 30" to the whithers (ie measured properly in accordance with every single breed and registration society in the world!!) and 271/2" to the base (NO "groove") of the whithers, and the mare was 33" to the whithers and 31 1/2" to the base of the whithers- makes quite a difference, IMO.

Which, of course, is why it is being done.......


----------



## Field-of-Dreams (Feb 23, 2008)

razzy3d said:


> I don't think that everyone realizes that AMHA studbook is the largest in the world. Therefore, our gene pool is quite large.


Actually, I think the Quarter Horse people can claim that. There are over one MILLION QHs registered, and Minis are at about 3-400,000....

That said, as I fed today I felt for that "ridge". I checked my fat mares. Nope. I checked my thin mares. Nope. I checked my weanlings. Nope. I checked my geldings. Nope. I must have checked 20 horses and I couldn't find it. I DID find the ridge at the TOP of the withers quite easily, though.




Just measure at the TOP of the withers like the rest of the world and be done with it!!

Lucy


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 23, 2008)

Field-of-Dreams said:


> razzy3d said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think that everyone realizes that AMHA studbook is the largest in the world. Therefore, our gene pool is quite large.
> ...


It is not a grove or an edge or a dip, it is the bottom of the withers. Follow the withers down to the back. Many horses drop off a little, it is in that drop off.

AMHA chose the bottom of the withers because they wanted to measure on a bony area, like the top of the withers. BUT, by choosing the top of the withers would kick out many horses and create quite an uproar with the AMHA horse members. So, it was voted to do the measuring at the last bone of the withers. Still on a bone, but more within keeping of the size our horses are. It does mean that some horses that did not measure in before, will now measure in but that is less than kicking out hundreds of horses that would now be over if measured on the withers. It certainly was not done to allow more of the taller horses in as some people have said.


----------



## Irish Hills Farm (Feb 23, 2008)

I measured four horses after feeding everyone this morning. I also could not find any groove, dip, dent, yaddah, yaddah. Actually is was quite confusing where I was to actually measured but finally gave in and figured it most be this area here.....



Anyway, of the four I measured this morning, they are any where from 1/2" to 1 1/2" shorter........... OH!


----------



## Jean_B (Feb 23, 2008)

Riverdance said:


> It is not a grove or an edge or a dip, it is the bottom of the withers. Follow the withers down to the back. Many horses drop off a little, it is in that drop off.
> 
> AMHA chose the bottom of the withers because they wanted to measure on a bony area, like the top of the withers. BUT, by choosing the top of the withers would kick out many horses and create quite an uproar with the AMHA horse members. So, it was voted to do the measuring at the last bone of the withers. Still on a bone, but more within keeping of the size our horses are. It does mean that some horses that did not measure in before, will now measure in but that is less than kicking out hundreds of horses that would now be over if measured on the withers. It certainly was not done to allow more of the taller horses in as some people have said.


Apparently some here - as well as on the Board - do not understand the concept of "grandfathering" - a term you yourself used earlier in justifying this move....saying some horses would be grandfathered!!! So doesn't it stand to reason that if they would have made a move to measuring at the withers, that horses *currently* measuring "in" that would measure "out" if at the withers would be grandfathered?????

Personally I don't give a rat's behind about the change. I'll just keep on a-doing what I've been a-doing all along....breeding horses that I like, regardless of whether they are Under or Over that - IN MY OPINION are conformationally correct with the motion I want. If we get a "breed" as a result - fine....and if we don't.... it's not going to change anything I do. Nothing...Nadda....Zip.

Personally - and again this is JUST MY OPINION - I think this was a panic move on the part of some the AMHA "purists" that are in a panic because there are now some Modern Shetlands that are starting to measure under 34" and some of the AMHA purists are afraid of getting their hinies whipped in the driving arena and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with making this a breed! Like I said -- JUST MY OPINION.

OK - Flame Away!!


----------



## Sandee (Feb 23, 2008)

Mona said:


> Fred said:
> 
> 
> > By the way AMHR recognizes and lets AMHA horses in their registry will AMHA now let AMHR horses in when the hardship is closed? That is an interesting question to think about seeing as some people think the R is bashing the A, but AMHR recognises AMHA horses but AMHA does not recognise AMHR horses.
> ...


You are joking, right! In my book A and R have always "measured" different. Last spring I took a filly to and A show. The cut off for 2 yr olds in A is 32" so she measured UNDER 32. A month later I was at an R show with their "cut off" for 2 yr olds is 33" and she measured just under 33". I DON'T think she grew and 1" in one month so you tell me what happened. I don't mess with the horse at measuring time - I just put them on the line and let the steward do the measuring!!!


----------



## targetsmom (Feb 23, 2008)

OK, I am confused - if the new measuring rule isn't going to stop the cheating and doesn't agree with how the rest of the world measures horses (top of withers), but will change the measurement of 35" and 35 1/2" horses so they are now 34" ---- was that the point of the new rule all along?


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 23, 2008)

Jean_B said:


> Riverdance said:
> 
> 
> > It is not a grove or an edge or a dip, it is the bottom of the withers. Follow the withers down to the back. Many horses drop off a little, it is in that drop off.
> ...



Jean,

I am not quite sure what more I can say to make you understand. If AMHA decided to go to the top of the withers, there would have been MANY horses that would no longer measure in and many more horses that would have to be grandfathered in. Even if they were grandfathered in, they could and would be producing many horses that would not be within the new height measurment. (this is OK with AMHR as they have a B division, it is not alright with AMHA) With this in mind, AMHA decided to go to the bottom of the wither so not as many horses will be now oversized. In some cases some horses will now measure in.

(for clarification on what grandfathering is, if a rule is changed, say you live in an area where you are allowed horses on 3 acres, but the county has decided to change that rule to 10 acres, they can not kick your horses off your property, so you and your property would be grandfathered in and allowed to continue to have your horses. But, if sopmeone buys a 3 acre parcil near you and wanted horses, the would not be allowed to have them, since they bought the property after the 10 acre law went into effect)

Hopefully now you understand it all.

You certainly have the right to do what ever you would like with your horses, as does everyone else who is breeding their horses. As each club has a right to do what they feel is necessary to improve the breed. AMHA has chosen in the past to DNA their horses because it was the only way to be sure the right stallion was credited with the right foal. Even the top breeding facilities have had accidents and did not know who daddy was. Stallions have been known to get out or even breed through the fence. AMHA has chosen to make sure that the senior stallions shown at AMHA rated shows have two testicles to eliminate that problem in breeding horses in the future, they have chosen to check the bites of all horses in the show so that poor bites are not perpetuated and now they have chosen to close their books to try and breed the perfect Miniatuture Horse.

They did NOT do this (even though you would like to believe they did) to get back at AMHR. AMHR was never even brought up!!!!!



This is what AMHA wants for what they feel is the betterment of THEIR club.


----------



## Irish Hills Farm (Feb 23, 2008)

> AMHA has chosen in the past to DNA their horses because it was the only way to be sure the right stallion was credited with the right foal.


AMHA's DNA means nothing unless the resulting foal is/was Parent Qualified. Than, and only than was the DNA worth anything.


----------



## wpsellwood (Feb 23, 2008)

all foals are now parented qualified automatically if both parents are dna. Which they are all required to be dna from a certain year that escapes me 1995 and forward?? If Im not mistaken that change took place last year.


----------



## Irish Hills Farm (Feb 23, 2008)

> all foals are now parented qualified automatically if both parents are dna. Which they are all required to be dna from a certain year that escapes me 1995 and forward?? If Im not mistaken that change took place last year.



Yes, so for the past 12 years DNA has meant basically nothing unless the resulting foal was PQ'd. IT's about TIME that AMHA automatically PQ's the foals!!!


----------



## wpsellwood (Feb 23, 2008)

I guess better late then never


----------



## tagalong (Feb 23, 2008)

> AMHA breeders, particularly AMHA-only breeders, put much higher pricetags on their minis. There must have been sheer and utter panic at the AMHA Worlds when some folks realized their high-priced minis would plummet in value if measuring was done by the book.


Huh? The value of a horse is determined _by the quality of the horse itself _ - not by it simply being shorter. And that goes for AMHR as well. Our minis - registered both A & R - are the same price for whichever registry. Go figure. So much for that ^^^ theory. I do not personally know of ANYONE who has AMHA registered minis who sells them for higher prices simply because they are AMHA. I guess I am still



at the notion that this was a_ OMG!!! PANIC!!! EEEEEE!!!! Get back at AMHR!! We are so very skeeerd of Shetlands and AMHR horses!!! _ moment. That is nonsense - when so many of the horses are cross-registered anyway. It goes back to my original post in this thread about the AMHA vs. AMHR wars that some love to engage in at every opportunity. BOTH registries should measure from the top of the withers - but that is not going to happen. Does AMHR have any such plans? No. And pointing fingers at one registry while measuring nonsense occurs in the other one as well dumbfounds me....

I really need to stay out of this thread....



so it is back to watching the live feed from the Scottsdale Arabian Show...


----------



## Jean_B (Feb 23, 2008)

Riverdance said:


> Jean,
> 
> I am not quite sure what more I can say to make you understand. If AMHA decided to go to the top of the withers, there would have been MANY horses that would no longer measure in and many more horses that would have to be grandfathered in. Even if they were grandfathered in, they could and would be producing many horses that would not be within the new height measurment. (this is OK with AMHR as they have a B division, it is not alright with AMHA) With this in mind, AMHA decided to go to the bottom of the wither so not as many horses will be now oversized. In some cases some horses will now measure in.
> 
> ...


Oh believe me - I FULLY comprehend the concept of grandfathering - (no need to get SNIDE and BELITTLING) ....having been member of and president of a School Board for many years, as well as having worked for the Legislature for 24 years!! So YES - I understand the concept. But the logic of your argument escapes me.

So.....we are going to lower the measure point so that our currently-registered AMHA horses that are actually oversize using today's measurement will measure in....hence no need for grandfathering, right? And of course .... knowing how things go in the show-world....everyone will breed to get the tallest horse they can possibly legally show...RIGHT?

So.....what's going to happen when those 34" horses (meaning 34" at the low point of the withers) produce 35" or 36" horses?

Don't know why I even entered this discussion in the first place. I don't show on the AMHA circuit - probably never will. Went to a couple of their shows and definitely more fun showing on the Brand X circuit. Guess I'll just sit on my hands and watch...and laugh.


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 23, 2008)

Irish Hills Farm said:


> > AMHA has chosen in the past to DNA their horses because it was the only way to be sure the right stallion was credited with the right foal.
> 
> 
> AMHA's DNA means nothing unless the resulting foal is/was Parent Qualified. Than, and only than was the DNA worth anything.



It is if I go to register a foal out of my mare. That mare and the father of the foal have been DNA'd and their DNA must match their parents.


----------



## Belinda (Feb 23, 2008)

tagalong said:


> . BOTH registries should measure from the top of the withers - but that is not going to happen. Does AMHR have any such plans? No. And pointing fingers at one registry while measuring nonsense occurs in the other one as well dumbfounds me....
> 
> I really need to stay out of this thread....
> 
> ...


Tagalong,

* As a matter of Fact there is a proposal put in for 2008 Convention by ME , to measure the AMHR at the top of the withers * as we do our counter part the Shetland Pony.. However NOW with AMHA measuring at the Botom of the wither ??? OH! OH! OH! this might not work with the matter of HOW MANY INCHES different there will be, and I do not think we would ever change to the Bottom of the wither ,



, so not sure how to approach this now..

So guess now I am totally confused , as I thought the last hair of the mane was strange , but came to live with it over the last 40 some odd years... Now here we go with this.. I will also live with this one as I went to the barn and measured some of mine this morning , LOL !! Got several that can hardship now !!






, It never out of 10 horses made them measure bigger than the last hair of the mane. OUT of 10 all measured at least 1/4 to 1 inch smaller..


----------



## wpsellwood (Feb 23, 2008)

> I will also live with this one as I went to the barn and measured some of mine this morning , LOL !! Got several that can hardship now !! , It never out of 10 horses made them measure bigger than the last hair of the mane. OUT of 10 all measured at least 1/4 to 1 inch smaller..


Woooohoooo a positive thing now you can get some of those nice horses in that couldnt before I knew there was a bright side to this new measuring. Everyone was complaining!!! As long as they are measured the same who cares how it is done.


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 23, 2008)

Jean_B said:


> Riverdance said:
> 
> 
> > Jean,
> ...


Jean,

I gave the meaning of the Grandfather clause so that everyone reading would understand, as some people do not know what the grandfather clause is. I did not PM you to give you that deffinition, so I do not see why you feel I was belittling you.


----------



## Kitty (Feb 23, 2008)

It seems to me that we need some actual "officials" on here explaining this.

Any volunteers?


----------



## Katiean (Feb 23, 2008)

When does this rule take affect? And as far as the measuring at the base of the withers, I have a mare that blends strait from the neck to the back. She is very flat. where would you measure from?


----------



## Becky (Feb 23, 2008)

The new rules voted on by the membership at the meeting will go into effect Jan 1, 2009.


----------



## Katiean (Feb 23, 2008)

I tried to post a picture on my last post. It never works and then there it is. Here are 3 pics of the mare I was talking about.


----------



## Jean_B (Feb 23, 2008)

OK -- so I guess I'm still very confused behind the logic (?!?!?!?!?) of this decision....a statement was made that this was being done to make it so it would conform to how horses are measured overseas so that there would be less question on the true height of a horse....because we are now measuring at the last hairs, and when the overseas buyer received their supposedly 33.5" horse - it was actually 35" BECAUSE THEY MEASURE AT THE WITHERS!!!

So...now we are going to go with below the withers...which will that 33.5" horse (at below the withers) actually more like 36" or 36.5" at the withers!!!!!!! Does anyone actually think those countries will actually change their measuring practices?? They sure as heck didn't when it was at the last hairs. Why would they now?

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this will actually [SIZE=14pt]*destroy*[/SIZE]*[/b, rather than help, our credibility with the overseas market. OH!*


----------



## Boinky (Feb 23, 2008)

Belinda,

I think that you should still go with the measuring at the withers. It will only help the integrity/creditability of the AMHR in the long run. The way they are measured now (both registries) is a fraud really. It would make things much easier for your new developing European base ect and all owners in general. I can't tell you how many newbies myself included when i first started had NO IDEA they were supposed to measure at the last hair of the mane.. i mean every other horse in the world is measured at the top of the withers. So what if there is several inch difference between AMHA and AMHR? They are two completely seperate identities and I mean we measure at both show's and it wouldn't matter because what they measure is what they measure at each individual club show. I think AMHA made a very stupid unwise move by making it even LESS "true" in measuring than it already was at the last hair and it will only hurt them in the long run.

As for AMHA not being ok with having horses that are over in the registry and breeding..THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING BY DOING THIS. they just accepted even LARGER horses into their registry.. it SCREAMS FRAUD. so what if you grandfather in those horses that would be "over at the withers" because if they are under at the back they are MOST DEFINATLY larger than what you were already accepting that would be grandfathered..the lodgic is warped and STUPID... I'm sorry i'm not against AMHA but it's STUPID... the lodgic and mentality behind it does not imply smart!


----------



## royalview (Feb 23, 2008)

I agree with bionky in that all we need is another very confusing way to measure our horse??? HOw does this make any sense, if the majority of us cannot figure out what you mean by how to measure this new way can you imagine the harsh schooling we are all going to receive after we go to a show and learn that our measureing was way off!!! OH! Why not the top of the withers??



I think we all understand that!! I agree with Mona in that I dont think we should close our registry till we work out a way to genetically identify the dwarf gene, I bet if we really wanted to improve our breed eliminating those dwarf genes BEFORE closing the books would make the biggest betterment for our breed and then make the genetic testing manditory BEFORE allowing any one to hardship in. Yea new bloodlines without dwarfism. Do you really want this to be a breed or a height registry?? That is the question and untill that true mission of AMHA is to be a breed or a height I dont think that finding a new way to measure is adding any credibility to this supposed BREED . Its getting hot in here!!!


----------



## susanne (Feb 23, 2008)

If a horse measures 34 at the last mane hair, 33.5 below the withers, and 35 at the top of the withers, it is still the same size of horse.

At its best, this is a matter of semantics, at its worst, it is fraud. Either way, we're parsing our words to make horses seem smaller than they actually are.

The simple, obvious answer, but the pne that is surely flame-bait, is to measure at the top of the withers and make the top limit 35. But I guess that would be admitting all of the previous subterfuge...


----------



## Mona (Feb 23, 2008)

susanne said:


> If a horse measures 34 at the last mane hair, 33.5 below the withers, and 35 at the top of the withers, it is still the same size of horse.
> 
> At its best, this is a matter of semantics, at its worst, it is fraud. Either way, we're parsing our words to make horses seem smaller than they actually are.
> 
> The simple, obvious answer, but the pne that is surely flame-bait, is to measure at the top of the withers and make the top limit 35. But I guess that would be admitting all of the previous subterfuge...






You are RIGHT ON THE MONEY with EVERYTHING you have said here Susanne!


----------



## Boinky (Feb 23, 2008)

you've hit it right on the head susanne what i am thinking/feeling. I mean SURE it's great for all those people with "over" horses that wanted A papers (heck i have several i could get A papers on now..lol) but it's still a big lie and although good for individuals i don't see it being in the best interest of a whole club who bases it's whole theory on the size of the horse....


----------



## ontherisefarm (Feb 23, 2008)

Could anyone tell me ( as I dont have a rulebook) if we as a membership could contest the rule about measuring ? It seems to me there are more people on here that dont care for it than do so if they ( AMHA) changed it so there wouldnt be as many upset members somehow I dont think it worked....


----------



## mgranch (Feb 23, 2008)

Well I for one very much appreciate Riverdance's explanation of grandfathering!! I actually have even more questions about it!! My gelding is 4 and 34" at the last mane hair. So, with the measurement at the base of withers he is still an A registered horse which is what I paid good money for. If the rule was changed now to the top of the withers he would be over probably and I now am making payments forever on an R only horse. Not what I intended when I chose him!! So, since he is not yet permenent could he still be grandfathered?? How would they figure who gets grandfathered?? All A horses who measure 34" at the last mane hair??


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 23, 2008)

mgranch said:


> Well I for one very much appreciate Riverdance's explanation of grandfathering!! I actually have even more questions about it!! My gelding is 4 and 34" at the last mane hair. So, with the measurement at the base of withers he is still an A registered horse which is what I paid good money for. If the rule was changed now to the top of the withers he would be over probably and I now am making payments forever on an R only horse. Not what I intended when I chose him!! So, since he is not yet permenent could he still be grandfathered?? How would they figure who gets grandfathered?? All A horses who measure 34" at the last mane hair??



Your horse should still make it in, since the chances are he is going to measure a little smaller now. Otherwise he would be grandfathered in based upon the last hir of his mane. Any horse born next year when the rule goes into effect, will not be grandfathered in.


----------



## mgranch (Feb 23, 2008)

Thanks so much!! I understand now how this grandfathering thing works!! You do a great job explaining things so people can understand them! One more thought though if the rules changed again to top of withers and say my horse and others were grandfathered in then in a 34" class our horses would actually really be say 35" couldn't that possibly give an advantage to the taller horses?? Just a thought maybe a dumb one!!


----------



## MiniHunterHorseFan (Feb 23, 2008)

I just thought of something is this considered the base of the withers? Doesn't AMHR measure at the base of the withers? Or no? Would a horse measured at an AMHR show be measured as taller than if he would be measured at an AMHA show this way? Because if so what if he measured 34 1/4 at an R show and was a B horse, but at an AMHA show measured as 33 3/4? That would be strange.


----------



## Belinda (Feb 23, 2008)

Does anyone know who they have for new officers , I saw that Mike was Pres, but the rest I had to go to the barn and do some work and missed it..


----------



## capall beag (Feb 23, 2008)

AMHA is a height registry.

It seems odd that they don't measure the proper way, the only truly acceptable way at the top of the withers.

Who on earth ever decided to change the universal way to measure a horse??

I makes no sense and this seems to be adding further confusion??

How will this help overseas buyers








It is crazy, imo, to insist horses be a certain height 34" or under to qualify..........but really they are not








It is so illogical!

I can see, however, now that the mess has been created it would not be that simple to reverse it.

But with the Grandfather clause. Why not now measure correctly, at the withers, and have a true height registry.

One where horses really are a certain height!


----------



## disneyhorse (Feb 23, 2008)

Well... i do have to say the STRANGEST "measuring method" I've heard of was a man who inquired if my (18.1) hand horse was between 8-9 hands. "WHAT?" I said??? Where are you measuring?

He said he "bred Clydesdales a while back"



and measured at the bottom of the girth. (Not really sure the point of that one???)

But... if we measured the minis at the bottom of the girth they would be even SMALLER! And there would be a benefit for those people who had fatter horses that could measure "under"!!!

Andrea


----------



## Boinky (Feb 23, 2008)

lol andrea..never heard of that one either..LOl might be a little more difficult to teach one to sink "away" to be smaller with the stick coming up from under them (not impossible i'm sure..LOL).



disneyhorse said:


> Well... i do have to say the STRANGEST "measuring method" I've heard of was a man who inquired if my (18.1) hand horse was between 8-9 hands. "WHAT?" I said??? Where are you measuring?
> 
> He said he "bred Clydesdales a while back"
> 
> ...


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 23, 2008)

Hey guys I just got back from the barn and while I was out there I checked quite a few of my horses. On some of them, the mane goes past the end of the withers, so some of my horses just grew. On a lot of them the end of the mane and the end of the withers is about the same, and only one was going to get a little smaller.

I think many of you are looking in the wrong spot if you are coming up with and inch or more difference. This is why AMHA chose the end of the withers, to try and keep it as close as it was before.

For those of you who are still asking why it is not the top of the withers, go back towards the beginning of the posts and it is explained there several times why they decided to go this way rather than the top of the withers.


----------



## wpsellwood (Feb 23, 2008)

> Hey guys I just got back from the barn and while I was out there I checked quite a few of my horses. On some of them, the mane goes past the end of the withers, so some of my horses just grew. On a lot of them the end of the mane and the end of the withers is about the same, and only one was going to get a little smaller.


Mine are about the same too, with only one horse of the bunch smaller as his mane does not go down much at all. So I dont know what the fuss is about? Its the same forever one, its not like one gets to measure here and one gets to measure there. I come from racehorses for over 40 years of them, we measured at the top of the withers so what that was them. I know when we first got minis I didnt flip out because of where they measured. Its a rule deal with it.


----------



## Minimor (Feb 23, 2008)

> For those of you who are still asking why it is not the top of the withers, go back towards the beginning of the posts and it is explained there several times why they decided to go this way rather than the top of the withers.


Yes, quite clearly the intention was to fix things to allow bigger horses into the registry. Measuring to the top of the withers would make too many horses--and probably their offspring--too big, and so they had to find a measurement spot that would allow these bigger horses to stay in the registry. Sorry, but that's what many of us are getting out of this.


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 23, 2008)

mgranch said:


> Thanks so much!! I understand now how this grandfathering thing works!! You do a great job explaining things so people can understand them! One more thought though if the rules changed again to top of withers and say my horse and others were grandfathered in then in a 34" class our horses would actually really be say 35" couldn't that possibly give an advantage to the taller horses?? Just a thought maybe a dumb one!!



I doubt the rule will change to the top of the withers, as that was what was asked for to begin with. But if the rule changed, your horse would still be grandfathered in.

Yes, it would give an advantage to the taller horses that were grandfathered in, that is probably one of the biggest reasons why they decided not to go to the top of the withers.



Minimor said:


> > For those of you who are still asking why it is not the top of the withers, go back towards the beginning of the posts and it is explained there several times why they decided to go this way rather than the top of the withers.
> 
> 
> Yes, quite clearly the intention was to fix things to allow bigger horses into the registry. Measuring to the top of the withers would make too many horses--and probably their offspring--too big, and so they had to find a measurement spot that would allow these bigger horses to stay in the registry. Sorry, but that's what many of us are getting out of this.



No, the intention was not to let taller horses into the registry,(that is what the AMHR people keep saying, but it is not AMHA's intentions) but to not kick out the 33 and 34" horses (and their potential offspring) that would now be considered too tall. The taller horses would be grandfathered in, but not their offspring.

Another and perhaps bigger reason why they chose the bottom of the withers is because if one went to the top, the horses that were grandfathered in would have a height advantage in the show ring that the others would not. Plus, many of the perfomance horses are close to the 34" height and we do not want to loose those or their potential offspring.

Last, I went out and measured many of my horses, because they said at the meeting that the bottom of the withers is pretty close to where we measure now. They were right. Most of my Minis manes go to the base of the withers, a few have manes that go a little past (by 1/2" pat the end of the withers) and only one shrunk a little, and then, only a 1/4 inch.


----------



## Minimor (Feb 23, 2008)

Regardless of where you measure, a horse is as tall as he is. No bigger, no smaller, even if you take a measurement at a spot that makes him sound taller...or smaller.

So regardless of what the AMHA intention is/was, the point is, you are keeping the taller horses in as well as allowing their offspring (also taller, or at least that's a definite possibility). You've just said that the horses that would grandfather in would quite possibly be too tall if measured at the top of the wither, and even worse, their offspring would probably be too tall if they had to be measured at the top of the wither, and therefore if measurement from the top of the wither was used, all these offspring of these grandfathered horses would be out. So, in view of that, how can you then turn around and tell me/us that this rule change isn't allowing the taller horses in??? Of course it's allowing the taller horses in--horses that would be too tall if they had to be measured in another spot such as the top of the withers--you've said it yourself, several times over.

And obviously all horses are different--my horses nearly all have their mane ending up on their withers--not right at the highest point of the withers, but partway down the back of the withers...you can SEE that the wither continues to angle down from where the last mane hair is located. So regardless if I am feeling the right notch in the spine or not, the "right" one has to be lower than the last mane hair if that notch is supposed to be the base of the wither. As I said on one of the other threads, one gelding I checked actually had THREE notches that I could feel,and no one of those three was any more obvious than any of the others. Just the way his spine is, I could feel the space between each pair of vertabrae in that area--and that's all that notch is, a space between two vertabrae. Obviously not all horses have a very obvious "drop off" where wither and back join.


----------



## Boinky (Feb 23, 2008)

You know i'm very impressed to see so many people opposed to this. From a purely selfish standpoint MANY MANY people could stand to benefit from this rule. Many horses that were out are now in, but from an ethical viewpoint i see many of you seem to be taking the high road and despite it being benificial to you individually or even as a large group of people it's a moral/ethical issue to the rest of the world (other horse breeds, foriegn breeders ect) and it needs to be solved. I'm happy to see that many are seeing it as a real problem not matter how much we'd like our own horses to be in.


----------



## Jean_B (Feb 23, 2008)

Riverdance said:


> No, the intention was not to let taller horses into the registry,(that is what the AMHR people keep saying, but it is not AMHA's intentions) but to not kick out the 33 and 34" horses (and their potential offspring) that would now be considered too tall. The taller horses would be grandfathered in, but not their offspring.



HUH !?!?!?!?!?




This makes ABSOLUTELY no sense at all!!!!!!!!! OH! Not kick out the 33" & 34" horses??? THEY ARE ALREADY LEGAL. For crying out loud!!!!!! This is getting totally ridiculous.

OK - perhaps there IS an ulterior motive in doing this which a lot of people are thinking (I've had several people call me expressing their opinion on WHY this is happening....and I happen to agree!)

Let's see - we start measuring below the withers...and low & behold...all those 35" horses are now eligible for Hardshipping!! Yup....that's a lot of greenbacks coming into the somewhat stretched AMHA coffers. Call my a cynic, call me whatever you want...but I think this is a ploy to get a lot of people to cough up a LOT of money to hardship ... and voila!! the organization is solvent again! Will miracles never cease!! Yup - I'm a cynic. And if you think the reason for doing this is something to do with less cheating...I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.


----------



## Boinky (Feb 23, 2008)

lol jean..sounds like a pretty logical and probably when it boils down to it the truthful reason!


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 23, 2008)

Minimor said:


> Regardless of where you measure, a horse is as tall as he is. No bigger, no smaller, even if you take a measurement at a spot that makes him sound taller...or smaller.
> 
> So regardless of what the AMHA intention is/was, the point is, you are keeping the taller horses in as well as allowing their offspring (also taller, or at least that's a definite possibility). You've just said that the horses that would grandfather in would quite possibly be too tall if measured at the top of the wither, and even worse, their offspring would probably be too tall if they had to be measured at the top of the wither, and therefore if measurement from the top of the wither was used, all these offspring of these grandfathered horses would be out. So, in view of that, how can you then turn around and tell me/us that this rule change isn't allowing the taller horses in??? Of course it's allowing the taller horses in--horses that would be too tall if they had to be measured in another spot such as the top of the withers--you've said it yourself, several times over.
> 
> And obviously all horses are different--my horses nearly all have their mane ending up on their withers--not right at the highest point of the withers, but partway down the back of the withers...you can SEE that the wither continues to angle down from where the last mane hair is located. So regardless if I am feeling the right notch in the spine or not, the "right" one has to be lower than the last mane hair if that notch is supposed to be the base of the wither. As I said on one of the other threads, one gelding I checked actually had THREE notches that I could feel,and no one of those three was any more obvious than any of the others. Just the way his spine is, I could feel the space between each pair of vertabrae in that area--and that's all that notch is, a space between two vertabrae. Obviously not all horses have a very obvious "drop off" where wither and back join.


When I am talking about the taller horses, I am talking about the ones that measure right now at 33" to 34" at the last mane of the hair. They are already considered AMHA horses. They are not 34 1/2 horse or 35" horses but true 33" and 34" horses based upon the old AMHA measuring. If AMHA changed the rules by going to the top of the withers, technically these horses would no longer be considered AMHA horses, nor would any offspring that they may produce if they were 33" or 34" at the last mane hair. That would or could cause a major problem with many AMHA breeders who have horses close to that size. Therefore, they chose to go to the bottom of the withers which is closer to where the last mane hair is. In some cases this will let in some horses that previously were not considered AMHA eligible. Rather that, then kick out many horses that were accepted before.

I had no problem finding the end of the withers. It is not a notch, that you keep referring to. There is a "notch" inbetween each vertebra. Feel the top of the withers and how it drops off, right at the drop off is the end of the vertebra.


----------



## Field-of-Dreams (Feb 23, 2008)

Riverdance said:


> No, the intention was not to let taller horses into the registry,(that is what the AMHR people keep saying, but it is not AMHA's intentions) but to not kick out the 33 and 34" horses (and their potential offspring) that would now be considered too tall.  The taller horses would be grandfathered in, but not their offspring.


Here we go again- let's make it AMHR's fault....





Lucy


----------



## disneyhorse (Feb 23, 2008)

From the "top" of the withers and all the way down the whole back is vertebrae. WHICH vertebrae notch do we choose? The seventh vertebrae? The lowest vertebrae on the back??? I feel a notch between every single one, from the top of the withers, the side of the withers, the middle of the back... and this is only on the thinner horses. My friend's fat fat horse, can't feel anything, barely even the wither BONE.

Andrea


----------



## Irish Hills Farm (Feb 23, 2008)

Never mind........I give up.


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 23, 2008)

Jean_B said:


> Riverdance said:
> 
> 
> > No, the intention was not to let taller horses into the registry,(that is what the AMHR people keep saying, but it is not AMHA's intentions) but to not kick out the 33 and 34" horses (and their potential offspring) that would now be considered too tall. The taller horses would be grandfathered in, but not their offspring.
> ...


Jean,

Get a grip. AMHA is plenty solvent. If you took the time to listen in on the meeting they are way out of debt and in the black by several HUNDRED thousand dollars. (all in only a few years from the missmanagemment) By giving up hardshipping they are giving up an income of over $56,000 year, so if AMHA was "in it for the money" they would not be giving up hardshipping.

Also, if you would really read what is trying to be said (or better yet, listened to the meeting so that you would have been fully informed and stop trying to be so ornery), you would have known that it was not an easy decision that they made regarding top or bottom of the withers. AND, IF THEY WENT TO THE TOP OF THE WITHERS MEASUREMENT THEN YES IN THE FUTURE HORSES THAT AT ONE TIME WOULD HAVE MEASURED IN AT 33" AND 34" WOULD NO LONGER BE ELIGIBLE FOR AMHA. I do not see where that does not make sense.

IF AMHR ever changes their measuring to the top of the withers, then many of your A horses would then be B horses and many of your B horses would have to loose their papers. (Unless you want to start another height registry for the over sized B horses . If AMHR does that, then who is more worried about the almighty dollar?) Also, if AMHR changed their measurements to the top of the withers, how many of the AMHR people would be up in arms because all of the sudden their horses no longer qualified for papers.

At some point a horse is not going to qualify or be show quality. Not everything that one breeds is going to make it to the show ring. Whether it is because it is oversized, a bad bite, no testicals or a Dwarf. Some of these horse will just have to be someones beloved pet. Is not that alright too?

You have to think about the people who have paid a lot of money for their horse that measures 33 1/2" tall right now. They would technically now be oversized with the top of the withers measuring. Yes, they may be grandfathered in, but they would have to worry about the offspring that would not be grandfathered in. Then there is the show ring with the grandfathered horses competing unfairly against the horses that would not qualify for being grandfathered in.

NON OF THIS WOULD EVEN HAVE HAPPENED IF THERE WERE NOT SO MANY CHEATERS OUT THERE IN BOTH AMHA AND AMHR TRYING TO GET AN OVERSIZED HORSE IN INTO A SMALLER CLASS, iINTO THE A LEVEL OF AMHR OR INTO AMHA. It is because of what has happened this year that so many people are in an uproar.

I also have one more question, since you only show AMHR why should you care what AMHA is doing?

AMHA is not busy thinking up ways of getting oversized horses into their registry, but just the opposit!!

As for the Brooklyn Bridge, I think you already bought it!!


----------



## Mona (Feb 23, 2008)

Riverdance said:


> Also, if you would really read what is trying to be said (or better yet, listened to the meeting so that you would have been fully informed and stop trying to be so ornery), you would have known that it was not an easy decision that they made regarding top or bottom of the withers. AND, IF THEY WENT TO THE TOP OF THE WITHERS MEASUREMENT THEN YES IN THE FUTURE HORSES THAT AT ONE TIME WOULD HAVE MEASURED IN AT 33" AND 34" WOULD NO LONGER BE ELIGIBLE FOR AMHA. I do not see where that does not make sense.


So tell us then...really, in all actuality, WHAT did the change in measuring methods accomplish? If the vote to measure at the withers was shot down, then what was the reason for even wanting to change it to the base? It WILL NOT stop or prevent people from argueing heights, because there will ALWAYS be ways to get around it. They (in my opinion) would have been far better off to just leave it as it was, if it could not have been changed to the withers. It just makes NO SENSE whatsoever.


----------



## Gene (Feb 23, 2008)

I also have one more question, since you only show AMHR why should you care what AMHA is doing?

Since you only show AMHA, why should you care about AMHR OH!


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 23, 2008)

Gene said:


> I also have one more question, since you only show AMHR why should you care what AMHA is doing?
> 
> Since you only show AMHA, why should you care about AMHR OH!


Where have I posted anything regarding AMHR, except to say I have nothing against the club and that all of my horses are double registered. On the other hand I have had to defend AMHA from attacks by AMHR members all day.



Mona said:


> Riverdance said:
> 
> 
> > Also, if you would really read what is trying to be said (or better yet, listened to the meeting so that you would have been fully informed and stop trying to be so ornery), you would have known that it was not an easy decision that they made regarding top or bottom of the withers. AND, IF THEY WENT TO THE TOP OF THE WITHERS MEASUREMENT THEN YES IN THE FUTURE HORSES THAT AT ONE TIME WOULD HAVE MEASURED IN AT 33" AND 34" WOULD NO LONGER BE ELIGIBLE FOR AMHA. I do not see where that does not make sense.
> ...


Mona,

Based upon what was said at the meeting. The reason why they went to the base of the withers was because they wanted to measure on the bone rather than some arbatrary last hair of the mane. It was brought up that some trainers are sewing in mane hair to extend it down lower on the back so that the horse could then measure in, or they have left the hair longer on the back, dyed it to match the mane and then sprayed it with hairspray so that it woud feel like mane hairs. They can not do that if the measurer is feeling for the last bone of the withers. They can also not press down on the back as well in hopes that the horse will measure in.

I am sure that the cheaters will still find ways to get around this, but something had to be done. Someday it may come to be the top of the withers, but it has to be as fair as possible for all members. To me, the top of the withers is just fine.


----------



## Jean_B (Feb 23, 2008)

Riverdance said:


> I also have one more question, since you only show AMHR why should you care what AMHA is doing?


My horses are AMHA/AMHR registered .... however I CHOOSE to show on the AMHR circuit only....much NICER people for the most part, and the shows are much more fun all the way around.


----------



## Kitty (Feb 23, 2008)

OK GUYS enough. And I mean that in a nice way.

For one -the only person that should be defending AMHA is AMHA. And verus versa for AMHR.

And email not post any negative thoughts. You both know what you feel but PLEASE and I mean in it in a very nice way STOP.


----------



## kenna (Feb 23, 2008)

Why not change to the highest point of the withers and change the maximum height along with it? If you measure at the withers and change the max height to "36 inches," it's not like the horse's height is actually changing. The only reason I can think of for not doing this is to continue the "fraud" I guess of saying that these are 34" horses to the rest of the horse world, which they're not.

Measuring at a bone won't help much IMO, people can still stretch, push down (yes, the bone does go down if the back goes down!), trim feet down, etc...

OH!


----------



## MountainViewMiniatures (Feb 23, 2008)

razzy3d said:


> I don't think that everyone realizes that AMHA studbook is the largest in the world. Therefore, our gene pool is quite large.


Actually AQHA has a studbook of almost *5* million last time I checked in 2007, I'm sure this year's foal crop will put them over if they aren't already. AMHA is around 400,000


----------



## Yaddax3 (Feb 23, 2008)

> AMHA is plenty solvent. If you took the time to listen in on the meeting they are way out of debt and in the black by several HUNDRED thousand dollars.


I listened to the financial report online and AMHA's financial director said that after 2006 AMHA had $200,000 in the bank. He also said there was an $80,000 profit in 2007.

However ...

There is a projected loss of $58,000 in 2008, due, in part, to the hiring of three new office people. Another factor for that projection could be the decline in registrations.

Despite the attempt to put a sunny spin on the organization's finances, AMHA isn't exactly swimming in money, and it needs to find a way to deal with the 9 percent decline in registrations in 2007, which the financial director also noted.

One way to address such a decline is to create a panic by saying hardships will cease in 2013. Another way is to choose a measuring system that will transform 35-inch minis into 34-inch minis, which means more hardships. Which means more money.

I can't see into the future, but I can draw conclusions. And it's my conclusion that sometime around 2012, when the AMHA coffers have been enriched by all those panic-induced and height readjusted hardships, the 2013 deadline will be rescinded or extended. It doesn't financial sense to stop accepting all that hardship money, which certainly has helped AMHA climb out of the $800,000 hole it was in back in 2003.

(Based on Riverdance's figure of more than $56,000 a year, roughly $300,000 of the $800,000 deficit was offset by hardship-generated cash. And that was before the threat of a deadline.)

It's also my conclusion that at least one person will see this as AMHA bashing and AMHR boosterism. The thing is, I have horses that are double registered, so it behooves me to want AMHA to be a vibrant, successful organization to keep up the value of my horses. At the moment, it comes off as desperate and greedy.


----------



## Belinda (Feb 23, 2008)

MountainViewMiniatures said:


> [Actually AQHA has a studbook of almost *5* million last time I checked in 2007, I'm sure this year's foal crop will put them over if they aren't already. AMHA is around 400,000












Thank you Sharon , I just did not have time to get the numbers..

Ok now for the rest of all these posts..












It is time to stop the Maddnes and the bickering..


----------



## Dontworrybeappy (Feb 23, 2008)

Riverdance said:


> Based upon what was said at the meeting. The reason why they went to the base of the withers was because they wanted to measure on the bone rather than some arbatrary last hair of the mane. It was brought up that some trainers are sewing in mane hair to extend it down lower on the back so that the horse could then measure in, or they have left the hair longer on the back, dyed it to match the mane and then sprayed it with hairspray so that it woud feel like mane hairs. They can not do that if the measurer is feeling for the last bone of the withers. They can also not press down on the back as well in hopes that the horse will measure in.
> 
> I am sure that the cheaters will still find ways to get around this, but something had to be done. Someday it may come to be the top of the withers, but it has to be as fair as possible for all members. To me, the top of the withers is just fine.



OK, wait - it's "easier" to change the way of measuring 400,000 horses (give or take) to some oddball new "standard" than it is to just ENFORCE the rules, CATCH the cheaters and get them outta the game?

Is it just me?


----------



## MinisOutWest (Feb 24, 2008)

ok, ok ,ok, Stopping the fighting and fussing!!! you know whats going to happen???

In a year or two they will change the height measurement rule again to satisfy someone elses needs.

it will be a continual fight, so just buy horses under 34" with long feet and measure with a short stick and we all will be fine and not fight any more.

But I promise you, rules are made to be broken and changed by whom ever is in charge for that time.

Thats just life and it happens everyday- everywhere.


----------



## crponies (Feb 24, 2008)

Bottom line - own what you like and enjoy. Go to the shows that you enjoy.


----------



## k9mini2 (Feb 24, 2008)

Hi everyone. I rarely post but just have to add my 2 cents.

WHY did the club not change the rule to Allow *all * members the opportunity to vote..In todays technological age the current "convention voting system" fits very well for those who in my estimation are a privileged few to dictate their will to the majority.

None of this would be an issue had the true membership actually been allowed to vote on this issue and it then would have been decided by the TRUE Majority.

I see both sides of the argument, I frankly think changing the place to measure is going to reduce the credibility of the AMHA more than help...but done is done... I take it we will all have to play by these rules no matter how much we howl. After all those who voted aren't listening to the general membership


----------



## Cathy_H (Feb 24, 2008)

> NON OF THIS WOULD EVEN HAVE HAPPENED IF THERE WERE NOT SO MANY CHEATERS OUT THERE


........... Actually NONE of this would happen IF the people measuring would not accomodate the cheaters, which brings us back to the SAME old problem -



the people measuring letting the cheaters through. OH! ....



......... Down the road this most likely will have to be changed again so this wishy washy back & forth will continue to deteroriate the registry's reputation even further.............................................................


> WHY did the club not change the rule to Allow all members the opportunity to vote..


............ Because as stated on here many many times in the past those of us that do not go to the meetings & hear the pro's & cons



do NOT have the intelligence or capability to make an informed decision!


----------



## Jill (Feb 24, 2008)

I'm wondering how much money will we all be able to save on feed? ...

Now that our AMHA horses have shrunk by an inch or so.


----------



## targetsmom (Feb 24, 2008)

I know I should stay out of this, but...

If they were going to change the point of measurement and didn't want to penalize the current 34" mini, why not change the point of measurement to the top of the withers (as everyone else does) and then SUBTRACT the length of the hoof (i.e. measure from the top of the coronet band to the top of withers)? This would at least make 2 easily found measuring points, one of them standard, and might even help with the cheating issue. Makes at least as much sense to me as what they came up with and would probably help some mini's feet in the process. Or maybe that wouldn't have accomplished the real aim - getting those 35" and over minis into the registry?

I am sure someone would come up with a stick that could do the subtraction - maybe AMHA could sell the sticks for extra $$$$.

Actually, it pains me to think that "they" is really "us" for those of us who are AMHA members.


----------



## k9mini2 (Feb 24, 2008)

............ Because as stated on here many many times in the past those of us that do not go to the meetings & hear the pro's & cons



do NOT have the intelligence or capability to make an informed decision!







DANG!!!! I HAVE TO PASS AND IQ TEST TO VOTE IN AMHA!





Just kidding... I understand the point...but look at this website and the news letter AMHA sends out and the fact others mention being able to listen to the AMHA procedings on line...come on... This is something the membership that cares to can get informed on.

Enough said, on this I know its off tract from the other argument going on here I hope everyone doesn't end up causing a lot of hate and battle scars over this, but this looks like its going over very badly


----------



## Boinky (Feb 24, 2008)

Well i checked all my mini's today and their "base of the withers" is quite a bit different than even their last hair of the mane. I didn't actually take the stick to them but it was AT LEAST 1/2" shorter than the last mane hair and we aren't talking skinny mini's.. they are all pretty rolly polly right now. the base of the withers is indeed the lowest spot on all my horses.


----------



## midnight star stables (Feb 24, 2008)

> Well i checked all my mini's today and their "base of the withers" is quite a bit different than even their last hair of the mane. I didn't actually take the stick to them but it was AT LEAST 1/2" shorter than the last mane hair and we aren't talking skinny mini's.. they are all pretty rolly polly right now. the base of the withers is indeed the lowest spot on all my horses.


Hmm.. Now I wonder if I can hardship in my 35" stallion and 35.50" gelding in to AMHA this year..









OH!


----------



## Boinky (Feb 24, 2008)

lol i think i read back a million posts ago it goes into effect Jan 09' so next year you could


----------



## sfmini (Feb 24, 2008)

There was no decision made or procedure defined for any 'grandfathering' of horses under the new measurement system.


----------



## sedeh (Feb 24, 2008)

> You have to think about the people who have paid a lot of money for their horse that measures 33 1/2" tall right now. They would technically now be oversized with the top of the withers measuring. Yes, they may be grandfathered in, but they would have to worry about the offspring that would not be grandfathered in. Then there is the show ring with the grandfathered horses competing unfairly against the horses that would not qualify for being grandfathered in.
> NON OF THIS WOULD EVEN HAVE HAPPENED IF THERE WERE NOT SO MANY CHEATERS OUT THERE IN BOTH AMHA AND AMHR TRYING TO GET AN OVERSIZED HORSE IN INTO A SMALLER CLASS, iINTO THE A LEVEL OF AMHR OR INTO AMHA. It is because of what has happened this year that so many people are in an uproar.
> 
> I also have one more question, since you only show AMHR why should you care what AMHA is doing?
> ...


I wasn't going to chime in here but the new measurement system affects other registries besides AMHA. I personally wish they would change it to the top of the withers as that is standard in big horses and overseas. I show Pinto so I'm not bashing AMHA. I triple register my horses so they're more marketable and people have a choice as to what venue they want to show in(if they want to show). I also like the 32-34 inch horses because I like horses that are good in performance classes and I just think that height range suites me best. So I'm in that group that would worry about their horses not being AMHA eligible if they changed the measurement to top of withers. I think the best solution would be to make 2 changes......top of withers and increase the height to 35". Most minis don't have "high" withers like some other breeds do and I think if they researched it they'd find that all they'd have to give is an inch. Mostly I don't think we need another measurement spot! How do I market my horses? They'd be different heights in different registries! When I measure at Pinto shows it depends on who measures and what their beliefs are. Most do the last hair measurement but some say "don't give me that bull.....I'm measuring at the top of withers!".....now we'd have another group trying to find the end of the withers? Help! OH!


----------



## skanzler (Feb 24, 2008)

Well it took me at least 30 minutes to read all of these posts, some I read twice. And since I am an AMHA/AMHR member I need to also put in my opinion.

There are many on here that I totally agree with. If we have now moved the measurement point down to the base of the withers, several of my ASPC/AMHR horses will be able to register in AMHA. They are strictly pony blood lines.....So what AMHA has done is allow those pony lines they have tried so hard to keep OUT of AMHA into the registry. The offspring may or may not go over, but they will definitely be right up there at 34.5 or 35 inches, but will certainly be able to measure in at the base of the withers. But the reality of this is that they are OVER the 34 inch requirement.....

As stated before AMHA's sole purpose was to have the smallest most correct horse. In doing this they are going against everything they stand for. They are offering those that have continually snubbed their nose at the rules of measurement the opportunity to come up with even more creative ways to measure their horses. And most of these new and creative ideas will be at the epense of the horse. Trimming too short, sensitizing the back.

Measuring at the top of the withers would make much more sense if the true idea is to stop the cheating. It is virtually impossible to cause the top of the wither to sink. And yes some of those iffy horses will have to be grandfathered in and yes their offspring may or may not make it in, but at this point many breeders that choose to breed for the so called 34 inches horses take that chance year afther year. And I am sure that many of them have a pasture full of over 34 inch horses. Lets really be honest with ourselves.....

I agree with measuring top of withers to ground then measure the heel and subtract that measurement. This would give the true height of the horse, no question. No matter how much stretching and push the back down etc will make this measurement untrue. It has to do with bone structure.

Having three different places to measure our horses is rediculous and really from an outside person looking in we look like idiots.......One more reason for the other breeds to laugh at us. We can't even come up with a legitimate way to measure our horses. We that call ourselves a height breed.....

I have been asked by a full size horse owner "Why do you measure at the last mane hair?" Answer: I have no idea.........

I do have one question....Who was the founding father of AMHA that came up with the 34 inch max height on a miniature horses.

As for closing the registry, this will not make us a breed. It will just limit our opportunity to continue to work for a more correct beautiful miniature horse. And hopefully eventually eliminate the dwarf gene from this breed. We are embracing those older bloodlines that brought about this gene. Many of the old lines carry it. Why would we want to close the books and keep this gene going? Why not pull some pure blood into the registry. Yes, I know people are afraid of those horses that are grade horses.....Some of the cleanest blood out there are those unknown horses. In any breed you will come across those horses that will offer the breed nothing. But I have to say there are several within our association that do this on a consistant basis. Until we come up with a culling system to eliminate those horses that are sub standard and offer them only papers as performance horses, not to breed, there will be no step toward becoming a true breed. We will forever remain a height registry.

Just my opinion.....


----------



## HGFarm (Feb 26, 2008)

How is measuring at the base of the withers going to change things? Is this going to stop people from stretching their horses, spreading their feet out, or doing other things to drop their back to measure in??!! This is putting a Bandaid on an arterial wound!

All this is doing is allowing the ones who previously measured over by a bit, like the 35" ones, to measure in at 34"!!

I personally think this change is worthless in regards to making people be honest about measuring in horses 34 and under!!

My asbestos suit is on... flame away.


----------



## Jill (Feb 26, 2008)

I fully agree with you, Laurie.

It's really ironic in a way. These horses will now "officially" measure shorter and they do and look so good that now they have made it so they can officially "be" short enough to measure under 34".

AMHA's got it bad for those little B's, huh?


----------



## bingo (Feb 26, 2008)

I have read this entire thread PHEW that took some time!

It is a very interesting turn of events. AMHA will never be the same that is for sure. On every horse I and friends have measured they came in shorter some over an inch- someone quarter of a inch. Either way the entire concept of AMHA and the 34 inch and under horse has now been thrown out the window.

Now that said I think personally it was only a matter of time until that concept had to change since the breed itself has changed so much over the years


----------



## HGFarm (Feb 26, 2008)

Change can be good, but I dont know why they just didnt raise the size limit to 35 or 36 either. And I agree with the measuring in all these different places.. that is a lot for stewards, judges etc.. to keep track of.

And I agree with the overseas market... what measures 34 over here could certainly be 36 there!

I have not read through this whole thing yet, but does anyone know what the 'pro' and 'con' arguements were for this change and to measure at the bottom of the withers?!


----------



## Margo_C-T (Feb 26, 2008)

May we presume that the full discussion of this issue will appear in the minutes of the Convention general meetings? I would love to hear with whom this idea originated, and what the argument in favor of it consisted of....

I will save further comment for another time, if ever.

Margo


----------



## bingo (Feb 26, 2008)

HGFarm said:


> I have not read through this whole thing yet, but does anyone know what the 'pro' and 'con' arguements were for this change and to measure at the bottom of the withers?!




I am sure some will choose to take offense at this however it seems to be simply a matter of money.

If many are afraid to compete after the fiasco at the World Show last year and instead choose to show elsewhere at a National level show taking the trainers, horses and dollars with them then it will surely have an effect on the income and status of the World Show.

This way the worry is taken away from the exhibitors about those horses that are 35+ inches and being able to measure in as well as allowing those 34 inch or 33 inch horses into the smaller height classes thus eliminating the need to "punish" anyone be it a big dog or a small one. At least that is sure how it looks to many at this point.


----------



## Vertical Limit (Feb 26, 2008)

Margo_C-T said:


> May we presume that the full discussion of this issue will appear in the minutes of the Convention general meetings? I would love to hear with whom this idea originated, and what the argument in favor of it consisted of....
> 
> I will save further comment for another time, if ever.
> 
> Margo



Good point Margo. Were you ALL in the dark about this? Has there been NO mention of this happening and was this just sprung on the majority of miniature horse owners? I cannot imagine this happening in other breeds without a good majority of the members at least discussing this. Blows my mind.

I guess that would be my biggest question.........*How did this happen without all of you knowing about it?*

I don't get it........something not right with the whole picture.

And looking at a poll here it is quite obvious that the great majority think these horses should be measured like horses. Want to talk credibility with the rest of the equine World?


----------



## Becky (Feb 26, 2008)

> How did this happen without all of you knowing about it?


All of the By Law and Show Rule Amendments to be voted on at the 2008 Annual Meeting and Convention were published at the very least in the December 2007 Miniature Horse World so all AMHA members had access to the information.


----------



## Vertical Limit (Feb 26, 2008)

Thank you Becky. That sure answers a multitude of questions for me.


----------



## Mona (Feb 26, 2008)

Becky said:


> > How did this happen without all of you knowing about it?
> 
> 
> All of the By Law and Show Rule Amendments to be voted on at the 2008 Annual Meeting and Convention were published at the very least in the December 2007 Miniature Horse World so all AMHA members had access to the information.


Yes, BUT, (since I no longer have my magazine I cannot look back to it) I am assuming that what would have been printed in the magazine was that they were bringing before the board, the attempt to change the measuring to the top of the wither? BUT, since that was shot down, then how could they have possibly decided on going to the base of the wither, without any prior announcemnt to the general membership? I feel if that one was shot down, THAT is where it should have ended??


----------



## bingo (Feb 26, 2008)

Not to belabor the point here but there is a serious problem when less then 100 people can vote on things that can and have changed the entire future of the breed. This is happening in both registries and it really is an issue that needs to be not only addressed but dealt with.


----------



## Mona (Feb 26, 2008)

bingo said:


> Not to belabor the point here but there is a serious problem when less then 100 people can vote on things that can and have changed the entire future of the breed. This is happening in both registries and it really is an issue that needs to be not only addressed but dealt with.
















EXACTLY!!


----------



## Becky (Feb 26, 2008)

Mona, both proposals (one to measure to the top of the withers - one to measure at the base of the withers) were published in the MHW. Both were voted upon by the general membership at the meeting.


----------



## targetsmom (Feb 26, 2008)

And how many AMHA members, reading the two proposals in the MHW, would have considered that the measurement to the top of the withers would have been shot down and the one to the base of the withers would have been the one adopted?


----------



## Relic (Feb 26, 2008)

Actually my daughter said it would be shot down because she had measured most of the close to 34" ones and half of them would not have measured in some not even under 35" top of withers


----------



## Margo_C-T (Feb 26, 2008)

I might just point out that a Lifetime AMHA membership does not include the MHW, and I no longer choose to spend that extra money,as a retiree on a limited income. Even though a Lifetime membership is no longer available(it was a money-losing proposition, apparently...), the list, as periodically published in the MHW, of Lifetime members is actually pretty long, so there IS the potential for quite a fair number of members to not be receiving the MHW due to not having paid what is for them, the 'extra', to receive it.

Margo


----------



## Vertical Limit (Feb 26, 2008)

Relic said:


> Actually my daughter said it would be shot down because she had measured most of the close to 34" ones and half of them would not have measured in some not even under 35" top of withers


As pointed out before the acceptable height would have to be changed to 35" or 36". So what. Same horse.

And what is the difference as it stands now. The taller horses are now going to measure in anyway.

Mane hairs, divots, RIDICULOUS.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 26, 2008)

I for one, am glad to see AMHA is taking steps to make Miniature Horses a breed by closing the registry. No, I'm not anti-AMHR or anti-Shetland or anti-SuperDuper backyard find - I am anti - any horse not being DNA/PQ tested and it's pedigree being Unknown!

AMHA is giving plenty of time to get horses hardshipped - heck if you think the mare/stallion you currently own or plan to buy, might produce something you want in AMHA after 2013 - register that horse now! No problems then. As for all the backyard unregisterd gems out there - how many truly are there? Yes, horses can lose paperwork over time and ownership changes and that is sad but it's just that sad. If I bought an unregistered German Shepard do you think AKC or any reputable dog breed registry is going to give .02 for the fact that it 'looks like' a perfect example of a German Shepard? They'd laugh! No paperwork no registration.

Registration papers, DNA/PQ testing, show records, etc., matter to those that seriously show and or breed period! The average owner doesn't care if that Mini's sole purpose is as a pet or a fun time at local shows or occassional driving or CDE competitor, service animal or companion - papers might be nice but they're not that important. If people want to argue that - check the studbooks of either registry if you're a breeder and look how many minis you still own that you've sold over the years - people didn't and don't bother to get paperwork put in their names it's not important to them.

As for the measurment - that makes no sense. Unless AMHA (and AMHR) are going to join the rest of the equine world and measure at the top of the withers whats the point? Last mane hair, a divot in the spine, the middle of the sway back, top of the poll - they're all laughable and totally unnecessary. A withers measurement could be instituted beginning with (for example) six years in the future the measurement will increase to 35 or whatever magic number people agree on - anything permanently registered prior to that is grandfathered in at the current measuring system. That way breeding's can be planned and implemented with FULL knowledge of what is at risk regarding getting horses permanently registered.

Kudos AMHA for taking a small step towards becoming a breed! Hopefully by 2020 we'll have it down and be a breed not a height registry!!!!!


----------



## Erica (Feb 26, 2008)

> I for one, am glad to see AMHA is taking steps to make Miniature Horses a breed by closing the registry. No, I'm not anti-AMHR or anti-Shetland or anti-SuperDuper backyard find - I am anti - any horse not being DNA/PQ tested and it's pedigree being Unknown!


As I think already stated on this post somewhere, without digging through 20 pages........if AMHA is doing this to become a "BREED" then that is fine and dandy.........but then it should be ANY horse out of two AMHA registered parents should have papers, even if they are 38" at maturity (and we know it "can" happen, even with two 32" horses, but especially with two 34/35" horses)

As if we are closing the book to become a breed, but still horses over 34" have to turn in papers aren't we still a "HEIGHT" registry?


----------



## CyndiD (Feb 26, 2008)

Everyone is entitled to an opinion...mine is that I am GLAD to see the AMHA moving toward making this a BREED...and not a height registry.





Then all this discussion on where and how to measure will be moot.


----------



## Mona (Feb 26, 2008)

CyndiD said:


> Everyone is entitled to an opinion...mine is that I am GLAD to see the AMHA moving toward making this a BREED...and not a height registry.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


IF it ever gets to that!


----------



## sfmini (Feb 26, 2008)

Those of you who do not get the World could have seen the proposed changes on the AMHA website well before the annual meeting.

I was one of the FEW who voted no, it was an overhwelming majority in favor.

As for the minutes, they are not a word for word document, only a summary level so no discussions will appear in any kind of detail if at all.

For the record, I as an AMHA director was NOT contacted by ANYBODY expressing any kind of opinion on the voting issues, or anything else for that matter. If you want to have any kind of a say, and you can't attend the meetings, then by all means contact your directors, and even all directors and let them know how you feel, otherwise we will vote as we see would be the best for the organization.


----------



## HGFarm (Feb 26, 2008)

I agree.... if AMHA wants to consider itself a 'breed', then they will have to throw the measuring stick away. POA does not yank papers on the horses that go over, as someone previously stated earlier in this discussion. They are breeding stock only, and cannot show.

What a joke- this would be a 'breed'?? By what standards? QH are allowed to have a LOT of Thoroughbred outcrossing. Appies allow other breeds in. QH's have 'cropouts' with Paint coloring- do you all know how the very first QH's were chosen to be registered? Ever see a picture of the QH 'Old Fred' and some others? He was a pinto! I understand Joker B's roan mother was a registered QH until oops, she produced an Appaloosa colt! Where did Thoroughbreds come from?

All these many 'breeds' that profess to be 'purebreds'... ridiculous.

I only see this as a smoke screen to cover up the fact that there are MANY oversized horses out there, still walking around with AMHA papers. According to the AMHA rule book itself "As defined by AMHA, any horse that exceeds 34" in height is NOT a Miniature Horse and is not eligible for registration." Why do these oversized horses still have papers?

If they are going to be grandfathered, they have already broken the registries own rules by allowing them to all keep papers that they should not have to begin with. This is turning a blind eye to the fact that all these horses are knowingly out there with invalid papers, since these are NOT Miniature Horses- so just change the rules to avoid making people be accountable.

This will not stop the cheating and give me a break.... HOW MANY competitors out there are dying the hair or sewing in hair to make more mane to get into a show out of the percentage of people that show?!

It says what I stated in one of my first posts before I read most of this- a few bad apples ruin the whole thing and without some form of punishment, will just keep doing the same old thing and find another way to cheat. It's all about money and winning. And that's behind who changed the rules so all these already oversized horses can keep on showing.

Ridiculous.


----------



## R3 (Feb 26, 2008)

For a little more insight, please read the topic I started. "Personal Insight on New Hardship and Measuring Place"

I was at the meeting and I was on the By-Laws committee. I was the one who proposed the rule change to measure at the heighest point of the withers. I stood up to speak against this 'base of the withers'.

The rule change proposal for the 'base of the withers' was in with all the other rule changes, but honestly, I thought it was 'silly' and totally without merit. I honestly thought that it was put in by someone who didn't understand about horses (I don't know who actually proposed it, so I apologize if I hurt someones feelings). I had absolutely NO idea that the proposal would be seriously considered, let alone pass by such a large margin. Prior to the meeting, I didn't hear any 'talk' about the proposal. I was floored with the way that the vote went.

I hadn't expected the top of the withers to pass, but I at least wanted to start the dialogue to get people thinking about the top of the withers as an option, if not for then, maybe in the future.

For what its worth, I have already been contacted by miniature owners in Europe asking if there is anything they can do to help get this rule changed. They are very concerned about this new measuring method.

Anyway, I will bump my previous post back up so you can see my views.


----------



## Mona (Feb 26, 2008)

R3 said:


> For what its worth, I have already been contacted by miniature owners in Europe asking if there is anything they can do to help get this rule changed. They are very concerned about this new measuring method.


So IS there anything that can be done to get this rule changed??


----------



## Devon (Feb 26, 2008)

Erica said:


> > I for one, am glad to see AMHA is taking steps to make Miniature Horses a breed by closing the registry. No, I'm not anti-AMHR or anti-Shetland or anti-SuperDuper backyard find - I am anti - any horse not being DNA/PQ tested and it's pedigree being Unknown!
> 
> 
> As I think already stated on this post somewhere, without digging through 20 pages........if AMHA is doing this to become a "BREED" then that is fine and dandy.........but then it should be ANY horse out of two AMHA registered parents should have papers, even if they are 38" at maturity (and we know it "can" happen, even with two 32" horses, but especially with two 34/35" horses)
> ...


Exactly


----------



## Warpony (Feb 27, 2008)

kenna said:


> Why not change to the highest point of the withers and change the maximum height along with it? If you measure at the withers and change the max height to "36 inches," it's not like the horse's height is actually changing. The only reason I can think of for not doing this is to continue the "fraud" I guess of saying that these are 34" horses to the rest of the horse world, which they're not.
> 
> Measuring at a bone won't help much IMO, people can still stretch, push down (yes, the bone does go down if the back goes down!), trim feet down, etc...
> 
> OH!



I agree completely. The change in the breed from 34" being the height limit to 36" being the limit would basically be a change ON PAPER ONLY. I wish both registries would change to top of withers and add an inch or two to the limit. I do not understand why they won't do that aside from the fact that it makes the horses "sound" taller on paper. And of course we can't have that.


----------



## sdmini (Feb 27, 2008)

I was gone when this first came up and refrained from commenting as it was already on the second page but I'll add my 2 cents now.

I find both measures not well thought out and rather self serving for the "few" rather than the whole.

On the closing of the books if AMHA is so flush financially why not kick that hardship money into a gelding incentive program. Over fifty thousand a year would be a good push for making geldings worth more, especially if you set up the program like the QH gelding incentive where EVERYBODY who shows a gelding gets a piece of the pie.

Honestly I wouldn't care if the books were closed IF, like others said, there was also a plan on the books excepting the over 34" horse but right now all we are, is an association who cut off it's nose to spite it's face.

As far as the measuring I'll admit I'm baffled on how many people swallowed this line. Relying on the word of a few that the measurements are the same. Plus the logic of it is more accurate as it's bone is completely fairytale material. Yes it's bone but when experienced horsepeople need to attend a school to find it; it is not a "better" plan. I have no idea who brought up measuring at the base of the withers but the very cynical part of me doesn't believe that they did not know how much smaller their horses would measure in the new system. There has been a lot of talk in the last couple of years about trying to get the taller horses in and this seems like a cloaked way of doing it.

How hard would it have been to issue the AMHA shows new forms with a blank spot to record the new way of measuring as well as the last mane hair height. Wow, unbiased data to make a decision on.....what a concept.


----------



## Erica (Feb 27, 2008)

> On the closing of the books if AMHA is so flush financially why not kick that hardship money into a gelding incentive program. Over fifty thousand a year would be a good push for making geldings worth more, especially if you set up the program like the QH gelding incentive where EVERYBODY who shows a gelding gets a piece of the pie.


Now that's a good thought


----------



## skanzler (Feb 27, 2008)

Well here in the NW we had a meeting in February, prior to Convention. Our directors never once mentioned this rule proposal to the members. They did talk about closing he books. All of us were in agreement to not close the books. So that is what our directors were asked to take to Convention.

There was no discussion on measurement.

I think many of us did not know about this proposal. I am a member, but choose not to recieve the MHW. Some of us do not go the the website on a regular basis others don't have internet access, but we still pay for the privilage to be kept informed.

Our small local club sends out a newsletter and club member emails to inform members of important issues going on. Why can't AMHA do something like this prior to Convention. They had to know that this was going to be a HUGE issue for many.

The comment about no one talking much about the measurement proposal prior to the voting has me thinking that there was alot of behind the scene stuff going on and that it was a well thought out strategy to get it passed......HMMMMM


----------



## ClickMini (Feb 27, 2008)

I have already stated my opinions on the rules in earlier posts, however I wanted to add this.

There is a woman who is half leasing one of my big horses and she comes out to ride several times per week. She is not a "mini person," and is not familiar with the breed whatsoever. I told her about the new rulings on measuring, and the first thing out of her mouth was, "that is ridiculous! You can teach them to sink down!" She reached over and pinched my mini's back and sure enough that supposedly fixed bony reference point dropped.

I am extremely interested to see how the conversation goes at the AMHA sponsored measuring clinic this weekend. I am really glad I signed up.


----------



## sfmini (Feb 27, 2008)

AMHA uses the MHW to communicate with the members, there is also a newsletter you can choose to receive as well. Go to the website and request to be added to the mailing list.

EVERYONE knows the dates of the annual meeting and COULD make a point to check the website prior to that meeting, so I don't know how much more communication could happen.

You know that saying about leading a horse to water........





There was nothing secretive, it was all available just like all the other proposals and went through the 2 year process as defined in the flow chart in the rule book.

As for teaching a horse to shrink, you can do that with horses measured at the top of the withers. Trust me, I used to have an open jumper pony on lease that had been trained to shrink down to 14.2 as she was a hair over that.


----------



## skanzler (Feb 27, 2008)

Amy,

I agree, Nikki and I went out and played around with different scenerios of measuring the horses in the barn. And this method is absolutely rediculous if the sole reason for the change is to keep the "cheaters" honest....Boy is that a conundrum....... OH!

Number one the divot, spot, dent, dip whatever is ver subjective... Diferent on each horse depending on their overall bone structure. Some divot's are more apparent. When I press down or stretch the horse it definitely made a difference in the height.

When we did the measurement at the top of the withers the point was very easy to find and much more consistant. Also when we pressed down on the back and stretched the horse it did not change othe overall height of the horse.





Just what we found.

I am very interested to find out how our measuring clinic goes this weekend also. I am glad I signed up to be certified.....

What I can see happening at the shows is alot of time spent at the measuring table discussing where someone "thinks" the "sweet spot" on thier horse is.





I really feel sorry for the certified measuring person......Ohhhhh that will be me.....


----------



## sfmini (Feb 27, 2008)

Ah, but that certification will be for last hair of mane, not the new one since the new rule does not go into effect until 2009.


----------



## skanzler (Feb 27, 2008)

So are you telling me that we are paying money to be certified to measure incorrectly?????

So does this mean that we will have to pay to be recertified when the new rule goes into affect?????

Now does that make sense to anyone else?????

If they are going to offer certification, then the certification official should be allowed to teach the new method of measuring to those being offered this clinc.


----------



## sfmini (Feb 27, 2008)

I am sure that the new method will be discussed, but I have no idea what the person doing the clinic is planning. You will have to ask that person.


----------



## skanzler (Feb 27, 2008)

Well she is being sent by AMHA to certify us as official measurer's. I would assume that she would be teaching what AMHA has designated her to do.

She must follow the rules set forth by the Association. I guess I will go to the source and find out what AMHA is going to recommend.


----------



## Katiean (Feb 27, 2008)

As I think already stated on this post somewhere, without digging through 20 pages........if AMHA is doing this to become a "BREED" then that is fine and dandy.........but then it should be ANY horse out of two AMHA registered parents should have papers, even if they are 38" at maturity (and we know it "can" happen, even with two 32" horses, but especially with two 34/35" horses)

As if we are closing the book to become a breed, but still horses over 34" have to turn in papers aren't we still a "HEIGHT" registry?

Other kinds of animals have size/weight (would be the same as height) requirements and are a breed (mini rex rabbits). The only thing being over size does to them is makes them not able to show or be registered in ARBA. I have never bred over sized animals because if you breed over size you will most likely get over sized young. I think it all goes back to Breed the best to the best. We took 32 BOB, BOSB, BOV and BOSV at our last show. I am sure this would all translate into the Miniature Horses. I have a colt that is going to be near to 34" and in my opinion he is too big to breed to my 32"mares. I think AMHA should look at what other breeds of animals do. Even in Dogs a miniature poodle that is over size still does not give up it's papers. I would not breed it. That might be another's choice to breed. I would not because you need to breed within your breed standards. I hope this is as clear as mud. It is the best I can do in explaining you can have a size requirement in a breed registery.


----------



## Kim (Feb 27, 2008)

Hi Jody (and all Directors reading),

I am a lifetime member, and have allowed my subscription to MHW to lapse (have got to get around to renewing it!), so I rely on the website for my AMHA news. I would appreciate it if someone could help me to understand why this new measuring rule change was allowed to be passed, and where on the website this new proposal was announced to members, as I cannot find it.

In an attempt to catch up on AMHA developments I may have missed, I did actually peruse the website in great detail prior to the 2008 Annual Meeting, as my region, for the first time in many, many years, now has a Director. And I did contact him prior to the Annual Meeting asking him to bring forth my concerns. Certainly, had I known that this new rule proposal was te be voted on at the 2008 Annual Meeting, I would have given him my input on that as well.

Prior to the meeting I found only the following places on the website that were relevant:

1. AMHA NEWS page where there are links to the following 'AMHA Mini News' newsletters, none of which say anything relating to proposed measuring changes. (I do also get these by email):

May 1, 2007

April 3, 2007

March 14, 2007

February 7, 2007

January 2, 2007

December 21, 2007

2. THE ASSOCIATION page where there is a (hard to find) link at the top for the following 2007 Board Meeting Minutes in addition to the archived 2006 minutes:

February - Annual Meeting

March - Board Teleconference Meeting

June - Board of Director's Meeting

October - Board Teleconference Meeting

NEW! December - Board Teleconference Meeting

I read ALL of these minutes prior to the 2008 Annual Meeting. The minutes of the June (2007) BOD meeting DO indicate that the Show Rules Committee discussed many proposed rule changes, including both the top of the wither and the base of the withers proposed changes. The following is a quote from the minutes:

"The Board voted unanimously to pass all Show Rules below which were passed by the Show

Rules Committee. These rules will be voted on during the 2008 Annual Meeting. The Show

Rules which failed go no further than this meeting."

The June 2007 minutes go on to indicate that the Show Rules Committee FAILED both the top of withers and base of withers amendments. So WHY, then, with no further notice to AMHA members, did these go to the 2008 Annual Meeting to be voted upon by members in attendance? And WHY was the base of the withers proposal allowed to be passed, since last notice to members it was failed by the Show Rules committee? I thought that the process was that if a proposed rule was voted down by the Show Rules Committee that was the end of the road for that proposed rule? Am I wrong in this?

Thanks in advance for any input.



sfmini said:


> AMHA uses the MHW to communicate with the members, there is also a newsletter you can choose to receive as well. Go to the website and request to be added to the mailing list.
> 
> EVERYONE knows the dates of the annual meeting and COULD make a point to check the website prior to that meeting, so I don't know how much more communication could happen.
> 
> ...


----------



## skanzler (Feb 27, 2008)

Thank you Kim, I too went back through all of my newsletters and website, MHW and found the same......I am also wondering how this happened?

As I stated, our directors did not mention this proposal and I know they would have discussed it at our meeting prior to them heading off to Convention. They would have known that it would be of concern.....

I would love to hear the answer to this question.


----------



## sfmini (Feb 27, 2008)

That part is gone now, but it was titled Show Rule and Bylaw changes to be voted on at the annual meeting.

The show rule didn't get out of committee, but ALL by law proposals MUST go forward to the membership to vote and the membership voted it in.

I don't have my book with me, I am at work but when I am home I will look to see if the withers proposal was in the bylaw proposals. I don't recall that being there.

As for the measurer, she is certified by AMHA and if it is who I think it is, she has measured at the World show. She is NOT provided or sent by AMHA and is working independently in this capacity, so there is a good chance she doesn't know about the new rule change.

I will email the IT person now and ask for a copy of what was posted on the website.


----------



## Relic (Feb 27, 2008)

Kim l read and put 2 and 2 together from the Dec issue...go to page 174/5 and read #775 then 780.


----------



## skanzler (Feb 27, 2008)

Ok, if she is not backed by the Association, how can she give official certification to those attending????

How can we be official measurers? What is the point of offering this if it means nothing the AMHA. My understanding is this was to offer those that want to become "official measurer's" the opportunity to become certified and that AMHA would only be using "certified Measurer's" at the shows.

Was this misinformation????

Again, have a call into AMHA, guess what no one is at thier desk today???


----------



## sfmini (Feb 27, 2008)

She is certified by, not employed by. Nothing bad happening as far as her qualifications. It is just like a trainer giving a clinic for god's sake.


----------



## skanzler (Feb 27, 2008)

Jody,

Not sure what your idea is on me asking these questions, and as a director the "for god's sake" comment was not needed, nor the head banging. I hope you don't come across that way with your area

members.....

I am asking these questions as a concerned member that is interested in the continued success of the Association and as a person that is interested in becoming a certified measurer. It was my understanding that AMHA is going to be using Certified measurers in the future for all shows. I know that this is not official at this time, that is why I am talking with the home office. I do know that Diane is a Certified measurer and is used the Worlds. The cards she will be issuing will be recognized by AMHA. So yes she is in the capacity of representing AMHA.....


----------



## bingo (Feb 27, 2008)

sfmini said:


> She is certified by, not employed by. Nothing bad happening as far as her qualifications. It is just like a trainer giving a clinic for god's sake.



OUCH!

I can see everyone's frustration. I can see the confusion in allowing over 34 inch horses into AMHA legally a long time proponent of 34 inch and under horses being the only true miniatures. I can see the anger at the system when less then 100 members make decisions that change the future and rock the very core of the registries.

This is an issue both registries will need to address and something I personally think will be changed in the not so far future. That would solve alot of the anger and frustration. Things may not always go the way one wants but at least everyone will feel their voice was heard and counted.


----------



## sfmini (Feb 27, 2008)

ok, i will unsubscribe from this now.

if you have any questions about amha business that I can help you with, feel free to contact me.


----------



## faithfarm (Feb 27, 2008)

The way I see it, the new way of measuring has more *consistency* than measuring at the last mane hair. No longer will the measurer have to guess where the real mane stops and *fake* mane starts. I personally don't care if a horse that is 1/2 inch over gets measured into a class, as long as the 1 1/2 inch taller horses don't.

Many have tried to make this an AMHA vs AMHR issue; it is an accuracy issue. Whether we measure at the base of the withers or the top of the withers makes no difference as long as we are measuring on a bone. And, yes, I agree that overheight AMHA horses should be allowed to keep their papers and used for breeding but not allowed to show.

By the way, if you're selling a horse overseas, measure at the top of the withers and let the buyer know the height, but put the official height on the transfer papers.


----------



## wpsellwood (Feb 27, 2008)

Im just wondering if any of you would of attended the meeting had you known about the measuring change? Or is it just giving you something to complain and argue about? Whats the difference last hair (which is the dumbest thing I had ever heard about coming from large equine) or base of the withers. Talk about beating a dead horse, thats what this topic is.


----------



## Boinky (Feb 27, 2008)

I"m not sure how many people would have ended up going.. but i think there should be a push to include ALL of the membership in voting not just the priviledged few that can afford to take the time off or the traveling expenses to go. the MEMBERSHIP should be decided on a whole how THEIR club runs not just the very small minority. Almost every other horse (or even dog club) club i've ever been a member of sends out ballots via mail and every member has the right to vote. It's rediculous that it's run the way it is in my own personal opinion and i think you'll see it's going to end up losing members because they are just not satisfied with how it's being run, managed and that they DONT' truly have a say in what is going on in their club because of a foolish rule that you only have a say if you have enough time and money to travel to make a vote.

Quite frankly i think the membership needs to push for proxy voting and or perhaps push this issue legally. IT IS NOT YOUR CLUB anymore when your not allowed to vote (which in effect is how this works).


----------



## bingo (Feb 27, 2008)

wpsellwood said:


> Whats the difference last hair (which is the dumbest thing I had ever heard about coming from large equine) or base of the withers.


In my experience and those I have spoken with the difference is simple up to and over 1 inch.


----------



## wpsellwood (Feb 27, 2008)

Base of withers or last mane is still not the top of the withers, still subjective so between the two choices I see no difference and cant figure out whats the fuss. I went to the barn and only one of my horses will be smaller. Thats because he has high withers with very little mane running down his neck maybe an 1/2 inch but if I leave of trail of fake mane and hairspray magic marker etc hes probably the same. So arguing about it to me I find funny because they are both stupid places to measure. Supposedly end of mane or base of withers. So now the A measures at one stupid place and the R measures at another stupid place.


----------



## McBunz (Feb 27, 2008)

I am not fond of either of the AMHA rule changes.. My suggestion would be to send out a ballot with proposed changes to all members along with their renewal of membership each yr. This way we would all have a voice in what comes down.


----------



## Mona (Feb 27, 2008)

McBunz said:


> I am not fond of either of the AMHA rule changes.. My suggestion would be to send out a ballot with proposed changes to all members along with their renewal of membership each yr. This way we would all have a voice in what comes down.


YES! THAT would be the only FAIR way to ensure EVERYONE gets to vote on what they believe in!!


----------



## Sandee (Feb 27, 2008)

wpsellwood said:


> .................... So now the A measures at one stupid place and the R measures at another stupid place.


They never "measured" the same before! As I have stated here I have a filly that "grew" an inch in one month going from an A to an R show because the requirements are that she had to be under 32" at A for her age and under 33" at R. So according to the stewards at those shows she was under 32 at the A show and a month later just under 33 for the R show! It's all going to rely on who's doing the measuring and the pressure that's put on them!


----------



## kaykay (Feb 27, 2008)

I just want to applaud Jodi for her thankless job of always trying to answer AMHA questions when these threads come up!!! Not many people step up to the plate like Jodi does in trying her best to answer peoples questions on LB.





Thanks jodi!

Kay


----------



## CyndiD (Feb 27, 2008)

> kaykay Posted Today, 08:08 PM I just want to applaud Jodi for her thankless job of always trying to answer AMHA questions when these threads come up!!! Not many people step up to the plate like Jodi does in trying her best to answer peoples questions on LB.


Kay, you took the words right out of my mouth...she does a great job at everything she does!!


----------



## Belinda (Feb 27, 2008)

Sandee said:


> wpsellwood said:
> 
> 
> > .................... So now the A measures at one stupid place and the R measures at another stupid place.
> ...


I* will have to correct your statement , as AMHR did and still does measure at the "" OTHER STUPID PLACE"" THE LAST HAIR OF THE MANE.*

AND also the Yearling under class is 32" & under --- and the over Yearling class is 32 -36" Now it is not uncommon for people to measure at the last hair of the mane and have big difference , and I think but NOT sure






that the big differences everyone was gettting when going from one show to the next, and not just A to R , was why they were trying to come up with a something else..

It was my understanding that the orginal proposal was to Measure at the """ drum roll "" you got it .

"TOP OF THE WITHER " But they ones there did not want that because of the reasons mentioned many times already



Whatever we do Don't really admit your horse is 36" instead of 34".. .. ""sorry could not help myself.. " OH! OH!

Ok I must stop , sorry I just seem to start typing on this subject and just can not stop..





AND I agree Thank You Jodi,






as I first hand know how thankless Your Job can be at times .





As I sit here and prepare for our Spring Board Meeting for AMHR/ASPC..


----------



## horsehug (Feb 27, 2008)

I would also like to thank Jody for being the "Forum director" so to speak, whenever we had questions!

Susan O.


----------



## StarRidgeAcres (Feb 27, 2008)

kaykay said:


> I just want to applaud Jodi for her thankless job of always trying to answer AMHA questions when these threads come up!!! Not many people step up to the plate like Jodi does in trying her best to answer peoples questions on LB.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed! Thanks Jodi!


----------



## lilfolks (Feb 27, 2008)

Yes, I would like to see a photo also showing the groove we are supposed to be looking for.

Joyce


----------



## Laura (Feb 28, 2008)

tagalong said:


> The notion of AMHA being afraid that the AMHR horses will beat them is ridiculous. We have had the same horses do well - Championships etc. in AMHA - and then do equally as well in AMHR Under... Championships again. HORRORS! OH!


Yes, but what about those horses who win *AMHA* Championships and then go on to win AMHR *OVER * Championships? That doesn't make sense to me, but it happens.


----------



## Field-of-Dreams (Feb 28, 2008)

Laura said:


> tagalong said:
> 
> 
> > The notion of AMHA being afraid that the AMHR horses will beat them is ridiculous. We have had the same horses do well - Championships etc. in AMHA - and then do equally as well in AMHR Under... Championships again. HORRORS! OH!
> ...



Looks like it's gonna happen a LOT more frequently now!














Lucy


----------



## wpsellwood (Feb 28, 2008)

> I will have to correct your statement , as AMHR did and still does measure at the "" OTHER STUPID PLACE"" THE LAST HAIR OF THE MANE.


I dont get what you are correcting???


----------



## HGFarm (Feb 28, 2008)

I too would like to thank Jodi for always coming forward to answer questions...

However, like I said before, this is nothing more than a 'smoke screen' to allow already oversized horses keep their papers and continue showing, when in fact, they should not have been in the first place! Yes, feet can still be spread out, horses stretched and backs 'shrunk' to still fit into measuring. This just means that even bigger ones can now be shrunk in to fit..

Being 'grandfathered in' is only showing that folks are choosing to ignore the illegally registered horses out there and are making excuses to allow them to keep their papers that they should not have!

The top of the withers is much less able to be dropped than the rest of the back, and a much more consistant measuring spot, and less flexible with less 'shrinkage'. The official size could have been changed to 35" to accomidate the change.

I personally would have liked to have seen the current rules ENFORCED CORRECTLY, not changed to create another fiasco.

I also would like a picture to show where this measurement is supposed to take place.. so future horses going permanent can be measured in correctly.

A will now measure in one place, R another, and Europe another-

In regards to many of us not attending the meetings/conventions, etc.. sorry but many of us would love to, however cannot get the time off work, nor have the finances to do so- it is not that we dont want to!! I think that major rule changes like this should be by mailed ballot to the entire membership, not the decision of the few that consistantly run things to suit themselves.

I dont see how this is for the 'betterment' of anything except to create even more strife and hard feelings among those within the organization.


----------



## sfmini (Feb 28, 2008)

I know I unsubscribed from this thread, but I do need to correct one thing that I had said. I had said the rule proposals were published on the website and this is not the case. I apologize for that, they were only published in the Miniature Horse World.

Ok, re-unsubscribing....


----------



## Kim (Feb 28, 2008)

Thanks for the clarification, Jody. That explains why I did not know about them - I must remember to renew my MHW subscription!


----------



## lilfolks (Mar 24, 2008)

Don't fret Mary, I haven't found the new measuring spot either. I wish someone would post a pix with the spot circled so we'd know. I sure wish they had left it alone. People will find a way to cheat the new way too, just give them a little time.I would think closing the registery will bring prices back up. What does everyone else think?

Joyce


----------



## bingo (Mar 24, 2008)

I don't think closing the registry will have any effect on current prices. With the economy and the surplus of low quality horses being bred all in hopes of having those one or 2 high quality foals I just don't see the market going back up over something as simple as closing the registry but that is JMO


----------



## Champagne Valley Farm (Mar 25, 2008)

Why don't they hold inspections, much like the warmblood world. That way there can be AMHA registered horses but only those that have passed inspection can be allowed into the association. That way they won't close the gene pool and it would allow fresh blood into the world of A minis w/o sacrificing quality.






There is always more then one way out.....you just have to be creative. I think they should have put their creative hats on for this one. JMO.

I agree however with the height rule! FINALLY. Let me tell you I've had to deal with some of the "pros" on this and they put kids to shame with their temper tantrums. You don't know how many arguements we got in with handlers trying to get a horse smaller then what they really were. It was great fun to measure the horse at the end of the mane hair and have them whine and cry that the last mane hair was farther down the back.....Riiiiiiiiiiiight. There's a difference between mane hair and body hair. Nice try.





I think it's LONG overdue with that change. But the closing of books is not the wisest of choices. There are other options.


----------

