# ASPC AMHR transfers



## Minimor (Mar 17, 2015)

Just a heads up...if anyone has signed transfers that they have not yet sent in to the office, you may want to get that done before the end of this year. Reason? Effective January 2016 there will be a change in transfer fees.

This word comes from the spring BOD meeting.

New transfer fees will be $15 within 30 days, $25 for the second month, then an additional $50 per month for each month after that. That means $275 for a 6 month transfer, $575 for 12 months, and almost $1200 if the transfer is 2 years old. After two years if the horse isn't transferred papers are revoked.


----------



## amysue (Mar 17, 2015)

Wow! Thank you for the heads up. Perhaps the spike in fees will motivate people to complete their paperwork in a timely manner and fill it out in its entirety before selling a horse. This means buyers must become more educated about the requirements and be more cautious when purchasing a horse. Many times I have purchased a papered horse, was told horse comes with papers, go to pick up horse....no papers, was promised papers and had to wait months for the seller to first send them into the registry for processing. Very frustrating! Glad to know about the new policy so that I can reiterate to my buyers the importance of sending papers in on time. Thank you.


----------



## chandab (Mar 17, 2015)

Wow, that's a bit over the top, I can understand the first 2 fees, but after that it seems a bit extreme.


----------



## Minimor (Mar 17, 2015)

Just a bit, eh?

I believe this is one of the most ridiculous rule changes ever.


----------



## amysue (Mar 17, 2015)

I do not like it either. I hope that it motivates people to do their papers on time, but I fear a lot of papers will end up revoked as a result of individuals not being able to afford the astronomical fee. In many cases, the fee will far surpass the value of the horse!


----------



## tagalong (Mar 18, 2015)

After a LOT of uproar on Facebook and elsewhere about this, the BoD is going to reexamine this topic...


----------



## Minimor (Mar 19, 2015)

For some reason the BOD apparently did not expect so much outrage from the members! Good job fellow members--hopefully the BOD will reverse their decision and come up with something different to achieve their goal.


----------



## amysue (Mar 19, 2015)

Seriously? They didn't expect members to react to $1200 transfers? *hint of sarcasm* If a member cannot scrape up the cash to transfer a horse now, what makes them think raising the price is a good idea?

I recognize that it may not necessarily be a financial issue for some but rather a lack of motivation (that's the pc way to call people lazy right?) And some people really are just too busy farming to get right on top of paperwork. I just do not see how this spike in fees would help bolster revenue for the registry. I understand what they were thinking... higher fees= more money. However many breeders are selling foals with signed registration applications because they can't (or dont want to) pay to register them. I fear that the spike in fees will just deter individuals from purchasing horses or from becoming members with the registry. I may not be the sharpest crayon in the box, but it seems pretty obvious that deterring membership and registrations means a drop in revenue and that is the opposite of what they want.

Many people buy horses and do not transfer them because they are not breeding or showing. So when they sell them and it has been over two years since the papers were transferred, two transfers are taking place. I just for see lots of horses papers being revoked and I fail to see how that would benefit the registry or the breed. As someone who does not show much anymore, I see it as a bias decision. I realize that people who show make the registry more money, however I am willing to bet that there are more people raising them as pets or only showing locally who still buy memberships and register horses. I think alienating them is a bad idea and I feel that is what this proposal does. Hopefully the negative reaction by members convinces the BOD to reconsider the decision.


----------



## Minimor (Mar 19, 2015)

It was never about the money. The BOD members admit that. It was not done to increase revenue.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Mar 19, 2015)

Yep one came out and publicly said it had nothing to do about money, but yet no one will say why this decision was made in the first place.


----------



## Minimor (Mar 19, 2015)

Funny thing, that --no one will give the reason behind it (yet they want the membership to give them constructive ideas for fixing the issue...how can anyone have an idea to fix something when none of us know what the problem is to begin with???) no one will say who presented the idea to begin with, and at least one claims to not remember who presented it.

Many have a theory as to what the reason for it; in fact a member who called one Director did, it seems, have that theory confirmed, but I doubt anyone on the BOD will ever say it publicly! Some of them likely wont say it at all.

Seems to me that if it looks like a rotten fish, and if it smells like a rotten fish_chances are pretty good that it actually IS a rotten fish!!


----------



## amysue (Mar 19, 2015)

I'm not trying to start a war or anything. Im pretty insignificant in the greater scheme of things since I only register 10 or less foals a year and mainly show locally. But it is very difficult for me to believe it is not about money. If it is solely to get individuals to transfer horses on time, that is one thing. Revoking papers for lapsed transfers is another. In my opinion, the registry exists to promote, protect and perpetuate the breed, but it is a business and cannot operate as such without collecting revenue. I just do not understand how implementing a policy that deters membership and registration AND possibly revokes horses' papers does any good at all. I get that well-to-do horse people look down on little guys, referring to them as "backyard" and they do not all welcome those types at shows with open arms...but if keeping riffraff out is what was intended, then membership will decline.


----------



## Minimor (Mar 19, 2015)

Trust me--it is NOT about money. Not. At. All.

I don't believe that it has anything to do with keeping riff raff out.

This rule had one purpose and one purpose only. I truly believe that.


----------



## JWC sr. (Mar 20, 2015)

It doesn't effect me one way or another as we try to transfer as quickly as possible. But I can say it is very aggravating to have horses still on my list of owned horses that were sold in years past.

I can also see where it would be a problem if someone was trying to run for the Shetland seats on the BOD and could not qualify because of past sales that were never transferred.

Also Amysue I completely agree that if any rule or regulation that is proposed to "Keep the Riff Raff out" as you put it, it should and I believe would be fought against very hard by all concerned. Inclusion of everyone large, small or in between is what has made AMHR/ASPC so successful when compared to so many other registries. I personally believe we need to keep it that way!


----------



## Minimor (Mar 20, 2015)

So--what do people think of a transfer firm in triplicate. Seller fills it out and gives one to buyer, keeps one and sends third one in tithe office. Office then notifies buyer monthly that the transfer has not been registered and the current penalty is $xxx ?

After two years buyer is suspended. Horse's papers are inactivated.

If horse is sold on, it seems second buyer can transfer for $15? (if done promptly if course)


----------



## amysue (Mar 20, 2015)

I think that is a much better solution, as it does not punish the seller (as long as transfers are completed properly) and it does not render the horse un registerable by someone else.


----------



## JWC sr. (Mar 20, 2015)

I like that option, then one of the copies can be filed with the office and be there if and when people try to come back later and pick up the papers. It also would serve to keep horses from running around without papers when they out there laying around maybe.


----------



## 7fluffyfriends (Mar 21, 2015)

The perception of an organization can often hinge on one or two points and this type of policy, if it came to be, would drive many people away. I agree with JWC in that registries inclusivity and family based approaches would be important to actively promote and maintain in order to attract and keep members.There are many backyard people (myself being one) involved with the small equine in everything from family enjoyment to driving clubs and community involvement (parades/visits/etc) that contribute to keeping the breed healthy and the registry going, albeit in small steps.

I sympathize with the aggravation and confusion that can result from paperwork either late, improperly submitted, or never submitted, but adding excessively punitive financial fees to the process is not healthy. As it is, there are actually very few opportunities in my part of the world for 'formal' small horse events so instead of giving me (and others) further reason to just drop the whole business, give us a reason to stay involved. Maybe there could be a small incentive for updating and turning in paperwork on time?

In addition, transparency in any organization is vital. How many of us are not charmed by the current political activity, or lack thereof, and the contradictory swirl of stories that surround certain offices/people? Whatever reason precipitated this potential step should be stated clearly by the organization. Membership at large should be treated with honesty and respect by the Registry - even if it isn't always reciprocated.

And for what it is worth, I think the phrase 'riff raff' should be eliminated, but I appreciate the support shown in the above posts for the average/smaller horse owner.


----------



## amysue (Mar 21, 2015)

I apologize if I offended anyone, as that was not my intention at all. I myself am a small-time breeder as I do not compete at rated shows any longer. As 7fluffyfriends said above, a policy such as this proposed one could drive people away. I wish we had the "like" button back. I said what I said because on more than one occasion I have been criticized by some large scale breeders in my area when discussing matters such as this one, because I do not show. One of them said to me recently "if you cannot afford the fees to register a horse, you shouldn't own one!" I was a bit taken aback and could not help but wonder if that is what some people think. I wondered if that was the intention behind the proposed hike in fees. I was not insinuating that I think small scale breeders are "riff raff" (I am one of those small scale people). I am very relieved to hear that there are well respected breeders out there that appreciate us small scale equine enthusiasts.


----------



## JWC sr. (Mar 22, 2015)

I consider our farm as a small breeder, at one time we had a herd that was pretty good size (about 190 horses all in all) and it just was not fun. Now days we are somewhere around 35 - 50 including the babies each year. We do not do this for a living and get our enjoyment from the breeding of horses we like and that win for ourselves/others each year for the main part. Many times we have gone to shows just to see what the horses we have sold others have turned out to be, Nationals three years ago was a perfect example, No personal horses in the show, but 6 that we had bred therefore we went. It was a blast and a lot of fun for Cindy and I. To us it is all about the fun, if it ever gets to the point again that it isn't, I would seriously quit.





I say all of that, to say this: AMHR/ASPC has been successful as it is, because of the inclusion theory as a guiding principle. That is to find a place where folks can be involved at whatever level they are comfortable with. Be that one horse in the "backyard" for a pet or a 500 horse farm. Anything that causes that premise not to be adhered to is in my opinion a major mistake. I was told that by our area 5 BOD member many years ago, facts is it is a true premise.





Any owner should be happy and be able to take pride in being able to say something along the lines or "yes that is so and so, it is a registered ASPC/AMHR Miniature or Shetland". The worth of a registered mini or shetland merely being registered has to stand alone and add value to the horse for this entire deal to work for everyone.

At the same time anything that causes problems in maintaining the integrity of the stud book, with all its ramification has to be looked at also. Additionally from a business standpoint anything that costs the registry out of the ordinary expense must be controlled and monitored to keep us a viable entity.





So bottom line, I wish that the BOD would reveal the reasons behind this decision, so the rest of us could completely understand the nuances behind the decision. Till then I will I guess trust that the powers that be have considered these matters and come to the best option available. Lord knows I do not want their thankless, unpaid jobs. LOL


----------

