# Where is AMHR going 10 years from now?



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 25, 2010)

You know there has been lots of discussion going concerning AMHR. The Journal, possibly changing our way of measuring our horses which is a very big deal, now facing mondern pony miniatures into the mix. Its all scary stuff to someone who wants to continue to breed AMHR miniature horses. I have received the Journal and after reading Mr. Larry Parnell's letter about how misleading information about our registry is getting spread around on chat rooms and how we our just hurting ourselves. You know what he is probably right. We don't know whats going on with our registry. I'm sure I'm also one of those people who don't know the right information and also talk about it on here. I'm sure we all don't mean to hurt the registry, I sure don't. I think we are all concerned at whats going on behind closed doors. Information isn't getting out to us members. When we don't hear whats going on, what our BOD is chosing its scary. Kind of like what our country is going thru right now. I just wish AMHR would be more open doored. Just something I wanted to say.

Now with that being said, I started out with these miniatures almost 10 years ago. Its amazing how much of a change the breed has gone thru. Personally probably for the better. The biggest change I have seen is the AMHR/ASPC ponies commanding in the show ring. So many people have changed to raise AMHR/ASPC ponies to their breeding program. All I can ask myself is whats going to happen to the AMHR only horse? Are people still buying them, and for big money? What is AMHR's goals when it comes to this breed? Are they going to want a certain type and will that be the AMHR/ASPC pony? I'm personally interested to know what AMHR sees itself in 10 years. Halter is of course a big deal, it will always be, but I think we will see more performance, possibly adding new classes. Proving just how athletic these miniatures can be. Heck just in a couple of years the WCPD and I think even the Roadster In-hand classes are going to be BIG. I think the WCPD is going to be very popular. Now Draft is a HOF class. I know I have heard talks of judges thinking it may possibly split from certain horses can do halter and certain can drive. Like the AQHA, some of those halter horses just cannot perform. I think and hope that geldings will gain in popularity. The more popular the performance classes are getting maybe more people will want a well trained gelding. I don't know what I'll see in the next decade, I just hope the miniature horses and AMHR will just get stronger with age.

What do you see? Now only nice words now. I just want this to be a positive post. No registry bashing.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 25, 2010)

Well in a couple short sentances.. if we do not change things pretty quick here.. I see AMHR horses disappearing and we will soon be a larger (in numbers) version of ASPC In ten years I think we will have one National show as there will be little difference between the ASPC and AMHR except perhaps the 32 and under horse.

I think this will have a direct effect on the dollars brought into AMHR which in turn of course effects the dollars ASPC has to spend as well.

Honestly not a popular idea but I wish we would close hardship to everyone including ASPC and AMHA or open it up to everyone. If it is about getting new blood and we are all originally ASPC ponies wouldnt logic state we would need to allow more other typs of horses in the gene pool?


----------



## minih (Jul 25, 2010)

Looking back thru some older Journals, if history repeats itself, I see even more beautiful horses in AMHR coming forward.


----------



## Minimor (Jul 25, 2010)

I don't see the single registered AMHR horses disappearing completely. I think that those who choose to continue breeding them will be more selective and breed better quality animals--and I think that 10 years from now there will be AMHR-only horses that are indistinguishable from many of the ASPC/AMHR horses.

More and more people will add ASPC ponies into their AMHR breeding herds. Some will pick quality animals, others will buy simply because the animal does have those ASPC papers. We see it now and I don't think that in the next 10 years we will see it stop--people (not saying all of them, but a good many of them!) choosing horses based on what registration papers they have, and paying out big money for an ASPC/AMHR horse even if it is poorer quality than a number of AMHR-only horses that they pass over. As long as a certain number of breeders cannot judge quality rather than buying/breeding papers, we are going to see a number of poor quality ASPC/AMHR minis on the market and in the show rings, and so the good AMHR-only horses are going to continue to be competitive in the ring. The market for those AMHR-only horses will always be there as long as there are buyers who can look through the registration papers and recognize quality.

I think there will be more people who are currently AMHR enthusiasts who will get into the single registered ASPC ponies--they will have their AMHR and AMHR/ASPC horses for the AMHR ring, and they will have some taller ASPC ponies for showing ASPC. I don't imagine there will be great numbers of these people, but I think there will be some. These are primarily AMHR exhibitors who will not be able to bring themselves to take a double registered pony out of the AMHR ring & show him ASPC, so they will have some taller ASPC ponies to show in the pony ring.

I think we will see overall quality of horses improve--more leggy, refined and well proportioned horses being shown in the AMHR halter classes, better quality horses showing in the driving classes....horses will have better necks and be able to set up better in the bridle, and they will be moving more freely--better extension, better knee & hock flexion (and that doesn't necessarily mean HIGHER action!)--overall more fluid movement instead of so much of the choppy moving, fling-the-front-feet-out-in-front Pomeranian type movement that is still so common in the Miniatures.

I hope that 10 years from now rules will have changed to allow for more emphasis to be placed on movement in the AMHR halter classes. I personally don't like the pomeranian action that is so commonly seen in the Mini driving classes--I don't like it in driving horses, and I don't like it in halter classes! So many judges still aren't interested in watching how the horses move, because under current rules movement really doesn't count for anything. I'd like to think that in the next 10 years that will change, and the majority of judges will be looking for halter horses that have lovely fluid movement....no more TIDDLING and no more pomeranians!!


----------



## iowa (Jul 25, 2010)

I think people who want to show miniatures and not Shetland/miniatures will switch over to AMHA. That is my opinion and the reason I am buying more AMHA horses. If I go to a miniature show, I want to compete with miniature standards not Shetland standards. Just my opinion


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 25, 2010)

iowa said:


> I think people who want to show miniatures and not Shetland/miniatures will switch over to AMHA. That is my opinion and the reason I am buying more AMHA horses. If I go to a miniature show, I want to compete with miniature standards not Shetland standards. Just my opinion


Can you explain what you mean by mini standards vs shetland standards, besides height.


----------



## MindyLee (Jul 25, 2010)

I've noticed lately the last few yrs, small minis dont win in the ring no more. Taller ones and shetlands do.


----------



## horsefeather (Jul 25, 2010)

If breeders continue breeding so much shetland (and hackney) blood into the miniatures, I agree the mini will go by the wayside. And if people continue breeding "to improve the breed" meaning more refinement, those who keep a nice miniature stallion will probably have some of those extra refined, more leggy mares seeking them out. I swear, if they get any more 'refined' or more 'leg' they just might blow over in a strong wind. I like a horse, or mini, with some body to it. As it is, Nationals (as someone else said) might as well be combined with Congress. What I hate to see the most is the gentle, sweet nature of the mini dissapearing. Of course, it's all been said before, about how 'gentle' the shetlands are. Sorry, I don't buy it. Sure, there are some sweet shetlands and some laid back ones, but most of the ones I have seen (and I have seen quite a few in the last 4 years) are flighty and unpredictable. The reason we got into minis in the first place was because of their gentle nature. So, where will AMHR be in 10 years? I'm afraid it will be smaller and ASPC will become the main focus, unfortunately. By the way, I also have shetlands and I couldn't honestly sell one to small kids or beginners, like I could a miniature.

And, JMS, I totally agree we need to know more of whats going on. If we knew, there wouldn't be so many half-truths going around!

Again, JMHO

Pam


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 25, 2010)

Wow! I own both miniatures and shetlands, although I do have Moderns and American Show Ponies that I would sell, but to experienced folks only, I have plenty of Classics and Modern Pleasures I would sell to beginners or even youth. And I have sweet shetlands. Even my Moderns and ASPR's are sweet - but they do get down to business when its time.

I have a couple miniatures that are the older type B's that I would have to say couldn't go to beginners or even youth, they also get down to business when its time and have some fire.

Although the topic of the thread is where are we going in 10 years, I have my concerns, but a lot of folks have a lot of nice shetlands and miniatures that beginners or youth can or could own.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 25, 2010)

iowa said:


> I think people who want to show miniatures and not Shetland/miniatures will switch over to AMHA. That is my opinion and the reason I am buying more AMHA horses. If I go to a miniature show, I want to compete with miniature standards not Shetland standards. Just my opinion


I think quite a few have done just that....

This is not about what I like it is more about the bigger picture. We as a registry are forgetting what draws people to the "miniature" horse to begin with. And we are forgetting plain and simple in dollars and cents.. we need all of those people who do not want ponies (be it for a reason we like or agree with or not) in our registry. They are the bread and butter.

I have said for over a year now we are pushing more people to AMHA-

by once again de-valuing the B horse (which was a huge reason many came to AMHR) I think we will suffer financially but of course I hope I am wrong.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 25, 2010)

Yes this post wasn't meant for any bashing mini vs. shetland, or A vs. R. This is a positive chat. However I do agree with lot has been said. I'm afraid its also going to get to extreme and those of us who want to continue to raising quality Miniature Horses may have a difficult decision to make. I love AMHR, and I want to stay in it, but if I feel like I am going to get pushed out I will take a different direction.

Also yes I do think that the shetlands are more hotter blooded but it can be toned down with just some proper training. I think they can make the best kids horse, just look at the classes kids can do with them. I think its awesome. I have even seen some miniatures that are just plain nasty and don't want to be around them. Its all about training. So both have there flaws.


----------



## Minimor (Jul 26, 2010)

Quite obviously a number of people have totally bought into the horse vs. pony hype...that Minis are horses because of what their registry was named and ponies are <shudder> ponies! It always makes me snort when someone tells me that they want a Miniature horse because they don't want any of those nasty ponies. VBG Sorry all, but the name doesn't make them any more of a horse and less of a pony--but judging by how many people get sucked in by that supposed difference it really was a great marketing ploy.

The complaints about the terrible dispositions and temperaments of the ponies gets to be a bit tiresome. Honestly I have some Miniatures...no ASPC registered ponies on their papers though of course there are some further back (Gold Melody Boy, Rowdy--and other "accepted" Miniature type ponies like them, not the dreaded Moderns that people are so down on) that I would never sell as children's horses. They are good natured, well mannered and quiet, but are simply too spirited to be safe for children. They would be inclined to take advantage of a person if they could, and they are smart enough to know if their handler is capable of managing them or not. I actually have more Minis like them than I do Minis that would make kids horses--just because that is the kind of temperament I like. Likewise, I have ponies that wouldn't be suitable for children, and I have ponies that would be excellent for children. There are a great many ponies that make excellent children's ponies.

I've yet to see any Mini that is too leggy and too fine bodied--I don't think I've seen any that were too slight for driving and certainly none that would be in danger of blowing over in a strong wind!! I have, I guess, seen some that were too thin--I presume the owners believe thin=refined and therefore won't feed them up, but at ideal weight those horses would be quite substantial. Some of the young ponies, yearlings especially, are more narrow than the average yearling Mini--and I know many Mini people don't care for that. Thing is, those narrow yearlings very often grow into very nice mature ponies, whereas the more bulky yearlings end up heavy as mature animals.


----------



## JWC sr. (Jul 26, 2010)

You know after giving this some thought before i posted to the thread, I had the following thoughts:

1. As long as AMHR continues to try to be inclusive as versus exclusive they will continue to grow and prosper. What I mean by that is continuing to try to make a place for everyone to be able to enjoy haltering, driving, jumping or whatever with the horses they love. By the large number of classes offered I think they are really trying to do just that and encouraging folks to attend the National show by having low requirements for qualification to the show.

2. Yes the horses of today are a far cry from the ones we saw even 5 or 6 years ago and in my opinion it is a change for the better. I hear and see folks trying to breed for conformation that can be used in all the different venues as we know them from halter to driving to jumping etc. Functionally sound and capable is the term I heard one judge use when explaining what they look for in a horse. The input of the classic/foundation shetland into the breed has done a lot of things for the breed, but the amhr mini also brings to the table a lot of things that are positive also. Both of these are good things in my mind.

3. Deposition is a great thing to have in your herd, we can't and won't tolerate a standoffish or mean horse in the herd. We have these guys for fun and the enjoyment of our grandkids and ourselves. Mean just does not cut it and we will not tolerate it at all. Yes they are horses and they need to be handled as such and taught what they need to know, but some are just plain ornery as in any breed.

4. After nearly 30 years in this industry, the market and the industry itself has really changed and that is a good thing in my feeble mind, prices have come down, quality has for the most part gone up and the small farms are just as capable of producing great horses as many of the big farms.

5. We all have the choice to either change with what is wanted and desired by the majority of people in the industry or just keep what we like and let it go with that. Neither approach is wrong in my mind, but one should not complain when we stand still and get passed by by the more progressive peers we may have to compete against. Quality always sells and wins, but what was quality 20 years ago can't stand the heat that the modern A or B size AMHR horses can bring into the show ring on a consistent basis in either performance or halter classes.

Bottom line I personally am excited to be a small part of this registry and enjoy every day the folks I have met in it. Hopefully God willing we will continue to produce quality horses and get to show them against all of our friends and peers for a few more years. The registry in 10 years will be fine as long as we all strive to learn, get along and enjoy this wonderful world of small equine.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 26, 2010)

JWC sr. said:


> You know after giving this some thought before i posted to the thread, I had the following thoughts:
> 
> 1. As long as AMHR continues to try to be inclusive as versus exclusive they will continue to grow and prosper. What I mean by that is continuing to try to make a place for everyone to be able to enjoy haltering, driving, jumping or whatever with the horses they love. By the large number of classes offered I think they are really trying to do just that and encouraging folks to attend the National show by having low requirements for qualification to the show.
> 
> ...


Well said.

And the term is "form to function" and that does have a lot to do with conformation. Too many times I hear or read where someone says their horse is "very correct", or "great conformation", but I am not sure if it is barn blindness or just lack of knowing how a horse should be put together. It does not matter the size, but you must have a horse with truly correct conformation. And better breeding to correct faults is becoming more evident.

Remember the Chevrolet ad that used the tagline "it's not your father's Chevrolet", well today's minis does not look like yesteryears minis that were taken straight out of the coal mines.

People will continue to breed and show what they like. People will continue to debate if this is a height registry or breed registry. People will continue to win and lose. And unfortunately there is going to be instances of "sour grapes", as I can tell you on a first hand experience.

The association will be here in 10 years, but it may be the same or it may not. It is each person's choice to continue with the association or not.


----------



## kdhminis (Jul 26, 2010)

I for one got into the mini's because I am getting older and wanted to keep enjoying horses - so if I'm going to continue in this it will be with the smaller mini's my preference. I like the "arabian look" but I also like the "stocky" look to. If it ends up that everything is going taller and taller - I will just keep what I have and enjoy them, quit showing, and I still have 5 AQHA horses if I want tall



I hope that somehow we can keep both the smaller under horse divisions; and the taller over horse divisions - I think it is important to AMHR. AMHA is fine with me also but they right now have no shows - or not many - in the Kansas/Missouri area - that's why I prefer AMHR right now. I will keep watching and keep learning along with everyone else.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 26, 2010)

I do have to say one thing was not going to but since it has been mentioned a couple times in this thread..

Ponies at least my 3 have wonderful dispositions. We have a Mod Pleasure and a classic and a undetermined division as of this moment. They are kind and sweet and the first ones to you to be loved on.

Even the yearling who has not been handled much at all. He can be goofy but guess what so can my yearling minis (when I had them) I have not seen much difference personality wise.Not in ease or lack of being able to train, work ethic or friendliness.

I love my ponies and if I were still going to breed that might be the direction I would go in but that does not change my position that I feel we are never going to change the minds of those who do not believe they can not have a R only horse and/or those who do not want to add pony blood. Those who will not every believe or feel that Shetland is the way to go for whatever reason. My concern is where do they go . We can say they will leave oh well - that is true however there is ALOT OF "THEM" and when they go so do their dollars.


----------



## hunterridgefarm (Jul 26, 2010)

JMS Miniatures said:


> Yes this post wasn't meant for any bashing mini vs. shetland, or A vs. R. This is a positive chat. However I do agree with lot has been said. I'm afraid its also going to get to extreme and those of us who want to continue to raising quality Miniature Horses may have a difficult decision to make. I love AMHR, and I want to stay in it, but if I feel like I am going to get pushed out I will take a different direction.
> 
> Also yes I do think that the shetlands are more hotter blooded but it can be toned down with just some proper training. I think they can make the best kids horse, just look at the classes kids can do with them. I think its awesome. I have even seen some miniatures that are just plain nasty and don't want to be around them. Its all about training. So both have there flaws.




Some can not keep things positive as I see it.


----------



## MountainMeadows (Jul 26, 2010)

Personally, I see the AMHR horses exploding - and not just the ASPC/AMHR. Look at all the beautiful ASPC/AMHR ponies that are being bred to some gorgeous AMHA stallions and what just look at what they are producing - those animals are for the most part "only AMHR" but they are DROP DEAD GORGEOUS ! ! I think the blending of the 2/3 associations is what is going to really put the miniature horse on the map as far as full size breeders truly appreciating our horses as a viable breed. The form to function will vastly improve -- and NOT at the risk of overdoing it on the smaller horses -- (this is a personal pet-peeve of mine - asking way too much of the under 34" horse these days - what are we all going to be living with in 10 years, all for the sake of a ribbon)

It has been rare in the past to see a horse that "has it all" - long slender leg, trim barrel, upright & hooky neck with a long clean throatlatch, short back, nice full hip with high tailset, straight legs, beautiful head -- AND movement that takes your breath away --- I strongly believe that the in the future we will see more and more of this type of animal - a truly scaled down miniature horse --- IMO humble it will take the blending of the breeds to create this animal - not going to happen with only ASPC/AMHR, nor only AMHR nor only AMHA - let's take the best of all breeding programs and really strive to create a miniature horse that truly is just that - a MINIATURE HORSE.

The cool thing about AMHR is that it leaves the door open for those striving for the Under 34" as well as those breeding for 34 - 38" -- this concentrating breeding of beautiful animals, who have come from taller stock will eventually reach the Under 34" horse in larger and larger numbers - for me, that is when I will believe that I have finally met my goal.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 26, 2010)

If shetlands have evolved this far since 1888, from those traditional shaggy Thewellian type to what is now called "The American Shetland Pony", can you imagine miniature horses in 100 years?

Great strides have taken place in a much shorter time frame. But are people scared that they will evolved into nothing more than a greyhound with a mane and tail? I seriously doubt it. But maybe the association can divide the miniature horse into different divisions such as a foundation mini, a classic mini and a "modern day" mini. And then perhaps all will be happy.

It is the "American Miniature Horse" isn't it? Well Americans are made up of many different ethnic groups, much like our little equines. Something to think about.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 26, 2010)

Crabtree Farm said:


> If shetlands have evolved this far since 1888, from those traditional shaggy Thewellian type to what is now called "The American Shetland Pony", can you imagine miniature horses in 100 years?


Yes they have by allowing other bloodlines into the Shetlands but they have put and end to that

Not aruging just pointing out that at a point and time even the ASPC decided enough was enough with the outcross breeding


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 26, 2010)

Stacy you have some beautiful horses and I value your opinion and I do hope you are right. I do like the look of the shetlands, paticulary there movement, I also think they have helped the breed in ways we don't understand. I think breeders out there with AMHA/AMHR or just AMHR stock have tried to improve there stock to be competitve with the shetlands. However those of us who breed and show AMHR only just doesn't want to be pushed out of the registry. Like it has been said before we don't want to see Nationals be changed into a mini congress. Thats why I would like to know what route AMHR is looking to take in the next 10 years, are they wanting to go more towards the ponies or what?

People have also mentioned we want them to be refiner. How much more refinement can you get. You may want the refinement for your halter horses but I don't think many of them can be competitive in performance. Especially in the under divison. Thats why I think we will see a division between halter and driving. Maybe not but obviously juges like the refiner horses.

I am also one that strongly believes in form to function. I do hope that we can breed horses that can do both halter and driving, but your not going to get that if we continue to breed for refiner horses.

Look this whole mini vs. shetland, shetland is a ugly word nonsense needs to stop. The shetlands were the first and they need to stay. They are the foundation of our registry. This will only stop if AMHR decides to make a actual standard of perfection, what are they looking for in a miniature. Are they wanting a shetland type in a smaller package? No they are just looking for a good horse, any good looking horse. I just feel like the shetlands have there place and the miniatures has there place as well. The way its trending right now is it looks like AMHR is wanting to combine both. If thats the case fine, people will change there breeding programs, they will either stick with AMHR and combine shetland blood into the mix, or people will change to A for there unders. Hopefully the B size miniature will still be in the running but for how long.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 26, 2010)

Crabtree Farm said:


> If shetlands have evolved this far since 1888, from those traditional shaggy Thewellian type to what is now called "The American Shetland Pony", can you imagine miniature horses in 100 years?
> 
> Great strides have taken place in a much shorter time frame. But are people scared that they will evolved into nothing more than a greyhound with a mane and tail? I seriously doubt it. But maybe the association can divide the miniature horse into different divisions such as a foundation mini, a classic mini and a "modern day" mini. And then perhaps all will be happy.
> 
> It is the "American Miniature Horse" isn't it? Well Americans are made up of many different ethnic groups, much like our little equines. Something to think about.


I have mentioned it on here several times where I would love to see a foundation miniature classes being set up. The shetlands can do it why can't we. Instead talks are wanting to set up a modern type division for the modern ponies that come and show in R. Why do we need a sepearte division for the modern ponies that come and show in R where the majority have stopped showing there miniatures because they don't want to compete with the ponies. That is where your foundation classes come in.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 26, 2010)

JMS Miniatures said:


> I have mentioned it on here several times where I would love to see a foundation miniature classes being set up. The shetlands can do it why can't we. Instead talks are wanting to set up a modern type division for the modern ponies that come and show in R. Why do we need a sepearte division for the modern ponies that come and show in R where the majority have stopped showing there miniatures because they don't want to compete with the ponies. That is where your foundation classes come in.


What would you consider to be a foundation mini? One with refinement, but still with some bone and substance? What I picture may be different than what you may picture, so could you give a definition that one might could see in a rulebook. Would it read no ASPC crosses allowed?

Also what would stop the finer minis from entering the division? I know shetlands have ponies that should be classic in foundation and sometimes modern pleasure in classic. Could you see that this might be a problem?

Off topic, but questions for a good conversation. A healthy conversation I'd say.


----------



## horsefeather (Jul 26, 2010)

Jamie,

I tend to agree with you. I remember years ago when we first got into the miniatures, some VERY WELL known breeders, trainers and judges would turn gastly white if you even mentioned the word 'shetland' might be somewhere on your horse's papers.




I could very well name some, but of course I won't. I remember the hulla ballu about minis and shetlands and these same people would be SO proud 'their' minis had no shetland blood in them. Now, again, those same people are proudly saying most of those famous horses in so many backgrounds were really shetlands! :arg! I don't know the exact moment it changed, but change it did. I personally am sick and tired of this whole tirad and I very seldom post on here. But, sometimes I guess I read stuff and have just had it up to here.



It's been going on for years. I really like SOME of the shetland blood that was introduced into the minis, because I prefer the 'B' size horses. What I don't like is several years ago you could take a nice looking mini and show him/her at halter, then turn around and show the same horse in all the working classes. I had one of those. In fact, we had several. They could do it all. Now, they couldn't. Very, very seldom do you see shetlands in an obstacle class. I don't hate shetlands, we have several ourselves and I have said over and over that there are 'some' shetlands that are great. We don't show halter anymore because truthfully we can't afford to purchase horses that show only halter. Then turn around and find others that will do well in performance but not halter. I firmly believe shetlands have their own place. I do know for a fact that in several years we will have more hackney blood in our minis. Will really hate to see that.

OK, off my soapbax. Will go out in the heat and work off my frustration.





Pam


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 26, 2010)

Crabtree Farm said:


> What would you consider to be a foundation mini? One with refinement, but still with some bone and substance? What I picture may be different than what you may picture, so could you give a definition that one might could see in a rulebook. Would it read no ASPC crosses allowed?
> 
> Also what would stop the finer minis from entering the division? I know shetlands have ponies that should be classic in foundation and sometimes modern pleasure in classic. Could you see that this might be a problem?
> 
> Off topic, but questions for a good conversation. A healthy conversation I'd say.


I think you would have to take the rules that the foundation shetlands put into place if we ever decide to set up a division for the miniatures. We would have to go back into the lines of the minis to a certain point and make sure they don't have any shetland papered horses in there pedigree. Like the foundation shetland look back and make sure there are no B papered horse in there pedigree. Foundations are more heavier boned and substance. Again we can put this into step with the miniatures. I guess more so these foundation minis appear to beable to do something, to perform. But these horses must have good conformation and must fit within the standard.

Like everything you can't stop horses or ponies for going into there division for which they should not be in. I have seen recently a certain foundation pony that has clearly won everything that IMO isn't the foundation type, which sucks. Its just educating these judges and put a stop to it. If a horse goes into a foundation class they cannot cross enter the other open classes. I would only start in halter first, then maybe in driving. But we shouldn't have to add so many classes for foundation. Its just an idea of mine, I'm defintelly open to anyone who would like to help. I have gotten alot more negatives saying we would just be going backwards, I just don't see that happening, instead I think we may bring more people back.

Pam like you I like the all-around horse. I prefer to go out and have fun and beable to show in everything.


----------



## MindyLee (Jul 26, 2010)

I'm not here to bash shetlends cause they are very nice BUT if judges are becoming sheltlend owners or trainers anymore...

*EXAMPLE:* _(like it or not this dose happen)_

*** If someone takes a 29" mini in a color class and someone else a 34" taller mini or shetlend cross is in there as well: both are silver dappled and you can clearly see that the 29" is nicer built, and stands still, and better groomed... The bigger mini places over the smaller one better or the smaller one not at all because bigger is the new trend and that's it. ***

NOW how is the smaller mini going to compeate at all no matter what class it is in cause the bigger mini is now what's in style? No matter if it is 32" and under class and the 32" mini or shetlend wins.

Folks say on here well AMHA... BUT AMHA is not in every state for shows to compeate in, and a lot of folks dont reg with "A" cause of high $ costs so that is why they stick with "R". And I also know that it's what the judge likes that day as well. BUT smaller minis just can't win and it makes owners feel like its a waste of time and $$$ to show in AMHR if they already see the patteren yr after yr.

I think the same for smaller mini breeders as well.

*In my opinion only:* BACK TO THE TITLE OF THIS TOPIC... I think the smallers minis are going to be placed on the back burner and cast aside with the future of AMHR.


----------



## JWC sr. (Jul 26, 2010)

You know this year for the first time in a long time there will be a web cast of Congress shown on line for all to watch, free of charge to everyone. It starts next Sunday by the way!

I strongly suggest that untill you have actually seen the movement in them that you reserve your opinion about shetlands not being able to do obstacles, driving and other performance classes.





Last year we attended our first Congress aa long time breeders of mini's. We were really not aware of what the shetlands were really about until a good friend talked us into going. We also really had no desire to own a shetland, even though I knew that (having done quite a bit of research on bloodlines) that the vast majority of the major ie:winning bloodlines in our miniatures originally came from Select Shetlands and other breeds many years ago.





I personally was amazed at the ability and conformation of these aniamls. Since that time I have bought a number of them and introduced some into our breeding program. But I also bought with the intention of keeping them pure a few foundation shetlands also.





With all that said, I too remember when it was a dirty word for somene to call your mini a pony, not sure why. But I think it more than likely had to do with marketing and also the fact that the little grumpy, short, stocky shetlands of yesteryear had earned a very bad reputation to say the least.





But to return to the question of this thread, with all the above said I still believe lke sme of the others posting here that AMHR is doing just fine. Do we have some problems, sure we do. But we have a strong base, a lot of folks have a vision for tomorrow and I see nothing but a very bright future for AMHR/ASPC/ASPR as a whole with no one registry being more important than the other.


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 26, 2010)

Congress starts Monday

I strongly urge everyone to watch!


----------



## JWC sr. (Jul 26, 2010)

Thanks Carin, I helped pay for it and didn't even know when it started. LOL Thats what I have friends for, to keep me out of trouble.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 26, 2010)

JMS Miniatures said:


> I think you would have to take the rules that the foundation shetlands put into place if we ever decide to set up a division for the miniatures. We would have to go back into the lines of the minis to a certain point and make sure they don't have any shetland papered horses in there pedigree. Like the foundation shetland look back and make sure there are no B papered horse in there pedigree. Foundations are more heavier boned and substance. Again we can put this into step with the miniatures. I guess more so these foundation minis appear to beable to do something, to perform. But these horses must have good conformation and must fit within the standard.
> 
> Like everything you can't stop horses or ponies for going into there division for which they should not be in. I have seen recently a certain foundation pony that has clearly won everything that IMO isn't the foundation type, which sucks. Its just educating these judges and put a stop to it. If a horse goes into a foundation class they cannot cross enter the other open classes. I would only start in halter first, then maybe in driving. But we shouldn't have to add so many classes for foundation. Its just an idea of mine, I'm defintelly open to anyone who would like to help. I have gotten alot more negatives saying we would just be going backwards, I just don't see that happening, instead I think we may bring more people back.
> 
> Pam like you I like the all-around horse. I prefer to go out and have fun and beable to show in everything.


Thanks John, very well put.


----------



## Marsha Cassada (Jul 26, 2010)

My new driving horse is registered both A and R. But he is a 3 year old and now measures 35 1/4" on hoof trim day. No A shows for him! I have always heard how much fun the R shows are. I am hoping to go to some shows next year, if my horse is ready.

I do not breed, so won't be worrying about which horse to cross with what horse. I just hope there will be a place for horses such as mine that grew over the A limit. His parents are both small, he just got dealt a different hand from the gene pool. (I actually perfer the taller horse for driving and am not sorry he outgrew A.) Thank goodness he has papers for both registries so I have an option with him.

There may be lots of horse owners like myself, who don't breed but want to experience showing. Hopefully there will be a place for us in 10 years!


----------



## MountainMeadows (Jul 26, 2010)

My stallion, Prince, is an example of shetland being blended with AMHA stock - of course the AMHA stock also ultimately goes back into pony, and due to the old thoughts about pony being "bad" Prince's dam & granddam had their pony heritage thrown in the trash - but that said, Prince is a pretty decent example of what can be accomplished with "blending". He is far from "finished" in my humble opinion - but I am not unhappy with how he has turned out and how he is producing - to be perfectly honest, my biggest frustration in the whole "evolution of breeding" game is the fact that the consistency is still questionable. For examply, Prince is spot on 34" - and his FULL brother is a whopping 29". It takes time, and generation after generation - but we will get there thanks to the many dedicated breeders who love this breed no matter what size or paperwork it carries


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 26, 2010)

MountainMeadows said:


> My stallion, Prince, is an example of shetland being blended with AMHA stock - of course the AMHA stock also ultimately goes back into pony, and due to the old thoughts about pony being "bad" Prince's dam & granddam had their pony heritage thrown in the trash - but that said, Prince is a pretty decent example of what can be accomplished with "blending". He is far from "finished" in my humble opinion - but I am not unhappy with how he has turned out and how he is producing - to be perfectly honest, my biggest frustration in the whole "evolution of breeding" game is the fact that the consistency is still questionable. For examply, Prince is spot on 34" - and his FULL brother is a whopping 29". It takes time, and generation after generation - but we will get there thanks to the many dedicated breeders who love this breed no matter what size or paperwork it carries


I guess the sperm carrying the dna gene for the 29" got knocked out of the way o the sperm carrying the 34" dna gene. All kidding aside, I dearly love Prince and all his offsprings are breathtaking.


----------



## JWC sr. (Jul 26, 2010)

Prince is a really nice horse and you should be proud of him, no matter his heritage which I find to be a plus. What with the problems of dwarfism etc.


----------



## Jacki Loomis (Jul 26, 2010)

What an interesting and healthy discussion. I do hope our ASPC/AMHR Leadership is considering this question and doing some strategic planning.

There is a reason(s) that more miniature horses are shown at the present time than shetland ponies. Smarter people than me will need to figure out all of the reasons but I think the method we use to show miniature horses is part of why miniatures have healthy entry numbers at shows.

The methods used to show miniature horses lend themselves well to less experienced showmen, beginner horsemen, youth, challenged and seniors. When I say method I'm talking about things like no shoes allowed, no need for tail sets or ribbons (other than park harness), no need for tailers or carrying whips in halter classes. In my opinion it is easy for a miniature exhibitor to train and show their own horses which translates to increased entries at miniature shows. I hope in 10 years these things are still true of the method we use to show our miniature horses.

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]


----------



## JWC sr. (Jul 26, 2010)

I think you are exactly right Jacki, we come from a cutting horse background. But the grandkids and ourselves also still needed the equine fix. So where did we go, mini's. But with that said I also have gotten into the Foundation and Classic shetlands. Why we enjoy all small equine that we can still handle and let the grandkids work with.





I have even thought about getting into Morgan's or POA's, but have passed in favor of more mini's and shetlands. Bottom line there is a big old world out there and it is made of variety which is a good thing I think!!


----------



## Reble (Jul 26, 2010)

I can see in 10 years or a few years down the road !

DNA comes into effect





Size will always make a difference to most, everything goes in circles.

thank goodness...We are all different & can give our opinion


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 26, 2010)

The methods used to show miniature horses lend themselves well to less experienced showmen, beginner horsemen, youth, challenged and seniors. When I say method I'm talking about things like no shoes allowed, no need for tail sets or ribbons (other than park harness), no need for tailers or carrying whips in halter classes. In my opinion it is easy for a miniature exhibitor to train and show their own horses which translates to increased entries at miniature shows. I hope in 10 years these things are still true of the method we use to show our miniature horses.

Jacki - I have a healthy respect for the things you have posted on. I agree the miniatures are a bit 'easier' in some terms to train. I started out with miniatures and trained my own miniatures to drive.

I will say my farm is a predominantly Classic, Modern Pleasure and American Show Pony farm. I still have a few miniatures that I dearly love, but they are waiting to come out of retirement.

I have only used a trainer twice. My first year I had too nice of a classic filly to not. And this year I needed to send two boys out, otherwise they would have sat in the barn, wasting away.

Otherwise, I feed, muck stalls, fit, train and show my own ponies. And consider myself to be still 'new' at this.

I also want to note, I do use a catch handler when I get into sticky situations where I have two going in to the same Championship class because I cannot handle both.

I find the shetlands to be just as easy and just as willing as the miniatures to train.

I do recognize that not everyone wants a pony, but I don't want anyone to not give them a try either - I find it very rewarding to run down the rail with an ASPR pony that I have trained, learned to groom and added in the bells and whistles of tails and ribbons.

I wish more people would try it - as a matter of fact - John is right - for the first time Congress will be broadcast live via webcast the whole week. I hope everyone takes a peek. Monday is futurity day, Tuesday is Stallion Day, Wednesday is Mare day. Evenings are driving most of the time.

Hope to see your eyes there!


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 26, 2010)

Jacki Loomis said:


> What an interesting and healthy discussion. I do hope our ASPC/AMHR Leadership is considering this question and doing some strategic planning.
> 
> There is a reason(s) that more miniature horses are shown at the present time than shetland ponies. Smarter people than me will need to figure out all of the reasons but I think the method we use to show miniature horses is part of why miniatures have healthy entry numbers at shows.
> 
> ...


Thank you Jacki with your post. The miniatures are defintelly a family hobby and the shows are friendly enough to where just about anyone can show. I do think AMHR does support fully in the youth, amateur and pmc programs. All can get stronger but I think AMHR does a good job.

By the sound of it this years Convention is going to have alot of possibly new changes if everyone votes on them, big changes. But like I have said before, perhaps AMHR needs to look at where is this registry going with the miniatures before any big changes take place. With the discussion with the measuring at the withers proposal I thought it was a great idea, but now I have to ask myself what is the reason for the new change, everyone wants to be the same as the rest of the horse world, but whats best for the miniatures.

Everyone has to admit it whether we like it or not we are just a height registry. Until something changes that we will always be a height registry. If you are under 38" you are a miniature horse, and that does include the shetlands. I get tired of the argument mini vs. shetland. I just want to go out and enjoy what I love to do. I wish AMHR would come on here and hear what they have to say, where do they see themselves 10 years from now.


----------



## Minimor (Jul 26, 2010)

Goodness, where does anyone get the idea that Shetlands cannot drive? Personally I have yet to see a Shetland, even in pictures, that I considered too refined or too spindly to drive—doesn’t matter if it is the bigger ponies or the smaller ones. You (the general form of you, not anyone in particular) may like the heavier horses, and you may prefer to have a stocky built horse for driving. That doesn’t mean that the finer built horse is too slight to drive—it is simply your opinion that the finer built horses are too slight to drive. Sure, there are Shetlands that don’t drive, just because their owners don’t drive….there are plenty of Minis that don’t drive either, usually for the same reason. People—your prejudices are showing! Just because you consider a pony to be all wrong for driving doesn’t mean it actually *is* unsuitable for driving!

Foundation type—those wanting a Foundation Mini division are going to be very disappointed if it comes to pass! Why? Because I think you’ll be surprised at some of the horses that will get their Foundation certification. What you’re picturing as being exactly the right type may be much heavier than what someone else is picturing as the exact type….and there will surely be Foundation Minis that you consider to be much too refined. Look at the Shetlands. There are Modern ponies that have their Foundation seal. Their offspring automatically qualify for Foundation, assuming the other parent is also Foundation sealed. Some of those offspring may very well show & win in Foundation. At our show here just over a week ago there was one horse that I took to be a Shetland or at least half Shetland. The horse was being handled by an exhibitor I hadn't previously met, so I didn't know her horses at all. I went to ask her about the horse, and no, he was not Shetland--his pedigree most certainly would qualify him for Foundation Mini division if there were one--and I can just imagine the complaining if there was such a division and he was showing in it, and if he won in it--and given his conformation, conditioning and overall QUALITY I suggest he would have a very good chance of winning in ANY competition, and any division.

I don’t think it is possible to have enough divisions so that every horse can be a winner. No matter what divisions we have, there will always be someone—multiple people—will be displeased and are likely to complain that it’s unfair that they keep getting beat by the wrong sort of horse.

I'm sorry—I’m still shaking my head over the sentiment that Shetlands are too refined to drive. That thought just made this thread lose its credibility for me!

Mindy—in your mind (and no doubt in the minds of others as well) it may be clear that the 29” horse is the better conformed, but in some other people’s minds it’s quite possible that the 34” horse was the better conformed. One judge likes a horse with a good long hip and good muscling; another judge doesn’t like a solid hip and doesn’t care if it’s got good length, she wants to see a scrawny rear end because that looks more refined. Which one is right? Well, I know which one I would side with, but I also know that not everyone would make that same choice.

Minis are easier for more people to show in that there is very little running involved when you're showing in halter. I know many people say they cannot run well enough to do rail work with ponies. for my part that is one thing I really enjoy with the ponies. It's great fun to go out on the rail & trot up & down, showing off what marvelous movers my ponies are. I'm no spring chicken, but I can still run!! I do find it unfortunate that the method of showing Minis doesn't allow the good moving ones to show off the fact that they are good moving. I know I'm repeating myself when I say that I personally find the tiddly little trot so many people do with their Minis in the halter ring to be a little dull--I do think there needs to be more emphasis on movement in the Mini halter classes.

Otherwise, in terms of showing ponies--you do NOT need to have whips, and you do not need to shoe your ponies--especially not if you are showing Classics and Foundations, and not even for Modern Pleasure if you don't want to. (For MP you will need to braid). I showed 6 ponies at the last show, all Classics and Foundations, and I did not carry a whip for any of them, not even the yearling filly that hasn't been here very long and hasn't had much in the way of show training or even practice at leading! She showed very nicely for me and led up well, and trotted out really nicely--no whip, no tailer required.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 26, 2010)

I don't think anyone is saying shetlands can't drive, I think what we are saying is everyone wants to breed for more refinement. Again how much more refiner can you get. I sure hope todays shetland can drive. That is what they are bred to do, they are working ponies. I do know the shetlands can do performance. Like I have said eariler they should be awesome kids horses with all the riding classes Congress has to offer.

If having a foundation class isn't a good idea then fine. Then can someone tell me what is the point in having foundation classes with the shetlands? Just asking a question cause it can work the same way. Yes sure foundation classes are also in predictment due to the AMHR/ASPC horses going into it cause they can't compete against the bigger shetlands cause they are too small, but yet they are not of foundation type. They say taller is better with the minis, but switch it around vice versa people are complaining that the same AMHR/ASPC horses are going into foundation and are yelling non-type.


----------



## LaVern (Jul 26, 2010)

You asked where we think the AMHR will be in ten years. I feel very strongly that it will be here and all over the world, much stronger than it is now, if we can hang together and make sound financial decisions both at home and in our office.

I also feel that the Shetland influence is here to stay and our B horses are going to take on a little different look. But, I think it is going to be the crosses of the two that are going to come out on top. I have seen some spectacular results and I feel that is were we will head. And once they are crossed they are just Straight old AMHR horses.

There is something else that I feel is going to happen. I think that all people will care about is the influence and the look, not two sets of papers.

I have purchase a few Shetland- Mini papered small mares, to try with my Straight stallions. I don't care a bit about the Shetland papers. When we start crossing the best of both- all they will be- is AMHR but some might be very good, and smaller, maybe.

All these years I have worried about my beloved old B horses and now I am worried about the fate of the Shetlands. It seems that all some of us want them for is to make better AMHR horses.

So I think that AMHR is here to stay.


----------



## Jacki Loomis (Jul 26, 2010)

I love this discussion, we can all throw out our own diverse opinions among this very thoughtful group of forum members. Hearing the comments from those who agree or not helps us all to form better opinions. Thank you for taking part in this thread that I am so enjoying!!

Where I hope we are in 10 years: I hope we have implemented a DNA program that is mandatory for all Miniature Horses and Ponies used in breeding, if they show up on a stallion report they must have DNA on file.

This is why I think now is the time to begin phasing in DNA for breeding animals:

1) A registry has a responsibility to it's members to use the best available practices to insure the integrity of the stud book.

2) We are in an economic correction, it is not to our benefit to encourage over breeding. A DNA policy on the horizon would encourage thoughtful and careful breeding practices.

How I think it should be implemented:

1) A carefully drafted policy should be suggested with an implementation date at least 4 years from when the policy goes into effect. Maybe a committee could write a White Paper to get us started.

2) A means of soliciting member comments should be implemented, again take our time with this also so we can find some points the majority can agree to.

3) Some association support should be made available, perphaps reduced or free DNA for every stallion on a stallion report during the first 1-2 years of the policy. Yes, I know this would be an expense but I believe our association's resources should be used to support directives that will serve the membership.

4) DNA would only be required for horses used in breeding, geldings are excluded as our stallions and mares who do not show up on breeding reports.

Thats all I've thought of so far, can't wait to hear what others think about DNA.

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]


----------



## MountainMeadows (Jul 26, 2010)

Jacki

I have always thought that DNA/PQ'ing is a positive for any registry. It would probably be a lot more popular if the DNA that has been done to the AMHA horses would be recognized by AMHR - I find it irritating that they are not reciprocal, and there is no good reason for it not to be except that the registry loses money by being reciprocal. That seems like a low blow

Stac


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 26, 2010)

MountainMeadows said:


> Jacki
> 
> I have always thought that DNA/PQ'ing is a positive for any registry. It would probably be a lot more popular if the DNA that has been done to the AMHA horses would be recognized by AMHR - I find it irritating that they are not reciprocal, and there is no good reason for it not to be except that the registry loses money by being reciprocal. That seems like a low blow
> 
> Stac


I know when I hardshipped in a stallion into R using his A papers he was DNAd and it was typed onto his AMHR papers that he was DNAd. So maybe they would. I know DNA is costly to any breeder, but it is necessary IMO.


----------



## Jacki Loomis (Jul 26, 2010)

JMS Miniatures said:


> I know when I hardshipped in a stallion into R using his A papers he was DNAd and it was typed onto his AMHR papers that he was DNAd. So maybe they would. I know DNA is costly to any breeder, but it is necessary IMO.


It would seem logical to me that AMHR could recognize DNA previously used with another registry if it came from a recognized lab. That would seem like an easy fix, I'm all for anything that would make it more economical for our members.

There we go, one obstacle overcome!

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]


----------



## Minimor (Jul 27, 2010)

I can't say for sure why ASPC added a Foundation division--it was already in place when I first joined ASPC/AMHR. I believe it was to preserve the foundations of the breed--the old style ponies--but I don't believe that AMHR should add a Foundation division just because ASPC has it. It's not quite the same--the smaller, less refined pony was the basis of the ASPC registry. What is the foundation of the Miniatures? Small Shetlands! It seems to me that people want the Mini Foundation division in order to have a division where the Shetlands aren't allowed, which to me is kind of pointless when the Shetlands ARE the foundation of the Minis!!

Even in ASPC there are complaints about off type horses showing Foundation. For that matter off type ponies show in Classic too, but off type in Foundation seems to hurt worse. However, the pony people don't seem to complain as much as the Mini people do--if a foundation division was created for Minis, I foresee A LOT of discontent and complaining once people see what horses are able to compete in that division.



> Yes sure foundation classes are also in predictment due to the AMHR/ASPC horses going into it cause they can't compete against the bigger shetlands cause they are too small, but yet they are not of foundation type. They say taller is better with the minis, but switch it around vice versa people are complaining that the same AMHR/ASPC horses are going into foundation and are yelling non-type.


I'm not quite following you on that one. Many pony people say the same thing as the Mini people do--tall is better when it comes to showing. I haven't heard anyone complain about AMHR/ASPC ponies showing in Foundation & being off type--From what people have told me, many of the AMHR/ASPC horses do not qualify for the Foundation division--they cannot get their seal and so cannot show Foundation. If they are going to show as Shetlands, they have to show in Classic--and that is where the complaints come in. Owners of these smaller ponies often say their ponies are too small to be competitive with the bigger ponies in Classic. In Classic, unless the classes are divided over/under, they are competing against 46" and under. In Foundation it would be only 42" and under. That is why there are people that say if they cannot show AMHR (for instance if the proposed measurement change eliminated their ponies from AMHR) that ASPC needs to add a new division for Classic ponies that are 40" & under. Even some that have their Foundation seal may not fit the type of Foundation, and so are not competitive in that division--or simply do not even show in that division. Of course there are people who do show their small ponies very successfully in the Classic division--many of them are competitive against the bigger ponies, it depends on the pony.


----------



## JWC sr. (Jul 27, 2010)

Just wanted to chime In that AMHR/ASPC by laws committee has a web site set up for all of us to voice opinions and vote in polls about potential by law changes that would affect all of us. It has been pretty sparsely used so far, everyone might want to take the time to take a look at it.


----------



## kaykay (Jul 27, 2010)

I do hope that mandatory DNA testing is implemented in both AMHR and ASPC. It should be done in conjunction with Parent Qualifying. I do think it needs to be phased in slowly so as not to over burden breeders all at once, but it needs to be done.

I am trying to gradually DNA on my own as I do think it legitimizes a breeding program. Its not fool proof (nothing ever is) but it will add respect and make it harder for people to cheat.


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 27, 2010)

kaykay said:


> I do hope that mandatory DNA testing is implemented in both AMHR and ASPC. It should be done in conjunction with Parent Qualifying. I do think it needs to be phased in slowly so as not to over burden breeders all at once, but it needs to be done.
> 
> I am trying to gradually DNA on my own as I do think it legitimizes a breeding program. Its not fool proof (nothing ever is) but it will add respect and make it harder for people to cheat.



The sweepstakes programs are a step in this direction. And DNAing is fool proof if the individual pulling the hairs is honest.



However, the more ponies and horses that are DNA'd and the more foals that are checked against that DNA, then yes, it will make those dishonest people work a little harder to be dishonest and win.


----------



## Sue_C. (Jul 27, 2010)

> I can't say for sure why ASPC added a Foundation division--it was already in place when I first joined ASPC/AMHR. I believe it was to preserve the foundations of the breed--the old style ponies--but I don't believe that AMHR should add a Foundation division just because ASPC has it. It's not quite the same--the smaller, less refined pony was the basis of the ASPC registry. What is the foundation of the Miniatures? Small Shetlands! It seems to me that people want the Mini Foundation division in order to have a division where the Shetlands aren't allowed, which to me is kind of pointless when the Shetlands ARE the foundation of the Minis!!


Of course we would need a "foundation" division. As to "What is the foundation of the Miniatures?"...why MINIATURES of course... You say "Small Shetlands", but in many cases, there have been SEVERAL generations past since any Shetland blood weas added. Let's give the MINIATURE HORSE BREEDERS some credit for producing this fine breed. Good grief...a Shetland 30 years back in a horse`s pedigree isn`t what makes it what it is TODAY. Add to that, it would give the miniature breeders who DO NOT WANT to add any hackney to their horses, a chance to breed for what they want. It isn`t ALL about Shetlands.



> I do hope that mandatory DNA testing is implemented in both AMHR and ASPC. It should be done in conjunction with Parent Qualifying. I do think it needs to be phased in slowly so as not to over burden breeders all at once, but it needs to be done.


Yes, it would be smart of the Registry to accept lab test from another REPUTABLE lab, so the AMHA horses that have been hardshipped in, can just have their paperwork sent in and accepted. Absolutely. as for it bering phased in slowly, yes, by all means...do it exactly as AMHA did it. it wasn`t that long ago that the AMHA implimented this as well. I am not sure of the exact date it was required, but some of my older stock didn`t have to be DNA`s as thier birthdates fell behind the obligatory "DNA start date", so to speak.


----------



## LaVern (Jul 27, 2010)

I think the Sweepstakes horses were able to use Cal Davis DNA markers. But I don't think that AMHA will acknowledge Kentucky.

I am all for implementing DNA and eventually more important parent qualification.

I have always thought that any pony or horse hard shipped into AMHR should have to be parent qualified. It only seems right. Most of the AMHA horses coming probably have both parents DNA'd already.

Also for those of us that have started to do it. I hope that it can be put on our AMHR papers automatically.


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 27, 2010)

I can't comment on the AMHR sweepstakes but the Classic uses Kentucky. The issue with DNA is that you need to use the same lab as there hasn't been a database set up for equine DNA for parentage that all labs have access too. Had this issue crop up this year for the Classic sweepstakes. If I send the foal's DNA to UK and the dam's was sent somewhere else, UK doesn't have any data to compare it to. As far as I know, AMHR/ASPC only has a contract with UK.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 27, 2010)

at the risk of repeating myself.. the Shetlands allowed in some Hackney blood for a while to help give them the look they felt they wanted however even the ASPC decided enough was enough and changed the rules.

This debate can go back and forth for hours and days but...

The truth is miniature owners are the majority- those that show are well what 1700 approx to Nationals yearly so lets say a guesstimate of 3000 minis a year in the breed show ring compared to the thousands that are registered.

Use the power you have in numbers to speak for what you want. If the majority does not want additional Shetland blood then vote to close the hardshipping period.

I think we all need to remember that those that show are not the majority and for all those who own and love Shetlands and of course love the market this has created for them.. there are just as many who feel perhaps other breeds would give us the improvement looked for and that ASPC might not be the only way to go

The reality that seems to be missing here is that there is a reason the ASPC papers were tossed in the trash can- logical or not- like it or not- agree with it or not miniatures are the money makers and the majority of mini owners/breeders (again the bread and butter of this registry) do not want ASPC . Again you might not agree- might not see the reasoning but the facts are the facts if all those mini owners wanted ASPC then perhaps there would have been no need to "create" a new breed in the first place and everyone could have been able to market their small Shetlands.

This is not a debate about are Shetlands good or not- to refined or not- can drive or not- are crazy or not. That debate will go on forever no different then any other breed myths like Arabs and T/B deal with.

I can show 100 mini owners how nice my ponies are to be around and well over 75 percent will not change their minds that is ok. We all love what we have and what we breed even if the facts do not always match. Hearing the ASPC is one of the purest breeds out there is not fact but those that love them will love them no matter what - those that love QH will defend them that is not what this should be about. It is about keeping the registry flourishing during a tough economy. Keeping the majority here and registering horses.

What people choose to do when it comes to type in their own programs is not necessarily what will keep the registry financially sound.

This is about a registry that began flourished for whatever reason once the word Shetland was taken away from and off of the little horses. They might in fact be Shetland bred but again.. the market needed that word that title taken away to grow as it has and bring in the revenue. Why would we want to bring something back in that did not help the financial aspect of this registry.

I think looking at things as a business and looking at things as a breeder and what you personally want are two different things.

Look how many wanted draft type minis- or vanner type minis- of course the Shetland people will want Shetland type minis and those who come from drafts will prefer that.

It comes down to who and what the the majority want. The majority after all is what brings in the dollars.


----------



## Jacki Loomis (Jul 27, 2010)

txminipinto said:


> I can't comment on the AMHR sweepstakes but the Classic uses Kentucky. The issue with DNA is that you need to use the same lab as there hasn't been a database set up for equine DNA for parentage that all labs have access too. Had this issue crop up this year for the Classic sweepstakes. If I send the foal's DNA to UK and the dam's was sent somewhere else, UK doesn't have any data to compare it to. As far as I know, AMHR/ASPC only has a contract with UK.



Carin,

Thanks for adding to our DNA discussion with this first had knowledge of the lab situation. Seems an approach our leadership could take would be discussions with AMHA to coordinate the lab of choice for both associations. Although it may seem unlikely that they would do it, jointly they would have higher volume which often times translates into lower prices. For the sake of this discussion I'll assume cooperation between them is not impossible and then by the time we actually have a DNA policy it could be true!

I'm glad you brought up the programs that already use DNA within our association. Is there also is a rule on registering older shetlands that requires DNA as well? Maybe this is all just a part of the evolution and in the future we'll have a full fledged DNA policy.

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 27, 2010)

Yes, Jacki, older shetlands who are not registered by a certain age have to go through the DNA process as well.


----------



## Sue_C. (Jul 27, 2010)

> at the risk of repeating myself.. the Shetlands allowed in some Hackney blood for a while to help give them the look they felt they wanted however even the ASPC decided enough was enough and changed the rules.


And yet, just here lately on LB there was someone saying they have a Shetland mare by a registered Hackney stallion...who is ALSO, a registered Shetland pony.

Now I will repeat MY-self...I don't know why it is so difficult for some of you to understand. Some of us just want to keep our miniature horses as they are...with no outcrossing. What would it hurt to make that happen...seriously? For those who WANT to outcross, by all means, "fill your boots", but DON'T take what WE prefer away from us in doing it. Why on earth is it so difficult to consider making divisions...you say you think we NEED outcrossing, fine...I say we don't, but with the different divisions..._just like the breed you want to outcross with_, ALREADY HAS...we can all be happy.


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 27, 2010)

Sue_C. said:


> And yet, just here lately on LB there was someone saying they have a Shetland mare by a registered Hackney stallion...who is ALSO, a registered Shetland pony.
> 
> Now I will repeat MY-self...I don't know why it is so difficult for some of you to understand. Some of us just want to keep our miniature horses as they are...with no outcrossing. What would it hurt to make that happen...seriously? For those who WANT to outcross, by all means, "fill your boots", but DON'T take what WE prefer away from us in doing it. Why on earth is it so difficult to consider making divisions...you say you think we NEED outcrossing, fine...I say we don't, but with the different divisions..._just like the breed you want to outcross with_, ALREADY HAS...we can all be happy.


The soul of the issue is that AMHR is a height registry just like Pinto is a color registry. Both accept horses with certain outcross papers that meet their requirements. As long as this is the case, horses will continue to be hardshipped. If you don't like the look of the AMHR/ASPC horse, then that's fine. No one is forcing you to start breeding that particular animal. We should all buy and breed what we like because we are the ones spending the money. But.........don't stomp your feet and cry when an AMHR/ASPC horse beats an AMHR horse. Each and every year there are more AMHR/ASPC horses and they are taking most of the top national titles. This is where AMHR is heading. Its a fact. You can deny the history of the miniature horse (first association EVER was AMHR, which was created by ASPC) all you want. But they have all derived from shetland, grade, and flabella crosses. I see anyone wanting to be competitive with AMHR and eventually AMHA, as several as those trainers and breeders ARE competing at Nationals AND Congress in the last few years), you will have to bring in some shetland blood to your current stock. Its what I'm seeing in the local and National ring and it's what I'm advising my clients (which does not benefit me as a shetland breeder because I breed for the over ponies). The bottom line of staying competitive is keeping up with the trends and watching what others are doing.

Case in point, I have not liked some of the horses that were pinned Grand in the Foundation and Classic divisions. I felt they were too extreme. I stomped my feet for awhile until they got sore. Then I decided that if I wanted to stay competitive I would have to alter my breeding program a bit. And I have. I swore I would never have a B papered Shetland in my herd. I currently have two. I could have stayed with my Foundations but staying on that path would not make me competitive in the future. So I had to alter some things to secure my programs future. And I'm very pleased with the ponies I have and the ones I've produced in the last couple years.


----------



## kaykay (Jul 27, 2010)

> Now I will repeat MY-self...I don't know why it is so difficult for some of you to understand. Some of us just want to keep our miniature horses as they are...with no outcrossing. What would it hurt to make that happen...seriously? For those who WANT to outcross, by all means, "fill your boots", but DON'T take what WE prefer away from us in doing it. Why on earth is it so difficult to consider making divisions...you say you think we NEED outcrossing, fine...I say we don't, but with the different divisions...just like the breed you want to outcross with, ALREADY HAS...we can all be happy.


The beauty of our Association is that there is a horse for EVERYONE. If you dont like ASPC/AMHR horses then dont breed them. Dont like B division? Breed A divsion! No one has to outcross. Breed what you like because you are the one feeding them and looking at them out the window





Kay


----------



## Sue_C. (Jul 27, 2010)

> The bottom line of staying competitive is keeping up with the trends and watching what others are doing.


Ahhh, but therein lies the problem, as I see it. "Staying competative, and following trends", in other breeds, usually means how you dress, show, or otherwise fit your horse/pony..._not a change in the breed persay_. This is not comparable to that at all. Heck, "trends" change with the wind...we are talking about possibly changing an entire breed.

Like I asked before...why IS IT so hard for some of you to even consider divisions? Why do you who want the Shetland influence, so determined to not consider this? Heck, I love the "B" horses, and yet, don't feel the need to add Shetland blood to them to produce good horses.


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 27, 2010)

Sue_C. said:


> Ahhh, but therein lies the problem, as I see it. "Staying competative, and following trends", in other breeds, usually means how you dress, show, or otherwise fit your horse/pony..._not a change in the breed persay_. This is not comparable to that at all. Heck, "trends" change with the wind...we are talking about possibly changing an entire breed.
> 
> Like I asked before...why IS IT so hard for some of you to even consider divisions? Why do you who want the Shetland influence, so determined to not consider this? Heck, I love the "B" horses, and yet, don't feel the need to add Shetland blood to them to produce good horses.



That's just the thing you don't understand. They ALREADY have the shetland blood in them! We don't need any more divisions. The shows are long enough. In fact, the shows are so long at this point that if we add any more classes, so everyone has a chance to win, then NO ONE will be able to show because of work and family issues. When I have to be at a local show for half as many days as I would be at National show, that's a problem. We're already spread too thin.

Look at AQHA. They don't have "extra" divisions. You either have a halter horse, or you don't. You either have a performance horse, or you don't. There are very few GOOD All Around horses in the stock world. There are very few GOOD all around horses in the mini world. A super model is not an athlete. An athlete is rarely a super model. Sure, there are horses in the halter class that don't stand a chance. But you don't see those winning halter horses going into performace.

Even the performance horses change as time goes on. You can't stop it. There's ALWAYS someone better, more successful and others will alter their styles to follow suit to be the next one that's always better. Its a ripple effect. You either catch the next wave and try to pass someone up, or just float there and be shark bait.

In reality, it has nothing to do with what people like. It has to do with wanting to win. And if you are fortunate to like what you have in your barn and be able to win with it then you are already ahead of the game.


----------



## midnight star stables (Jul 27, 2010)

I just don't understand what the huge issue is, but I may be mistaken.

When I see an AMHR/ASPC pony, I see just that. I do not see something magically superior before me. Some AMHR/ASPC ponies are stunning. Just the same as some AMHR and AMHA horses are stunning. Papers are just paper, to a certain extent. There are also some pretty darn ugly horses out there in ASPC, AMHR and AMHA. I almost see an AMHR pony having ASPC papers, like a safety blanket to that of an AMHA pony having AMHR papers - If our height bred horse "goes over"it still has some where to go! I do not see an AMHR/ASPC horse as being "better" for any reason.

At this time, I personally do not own any AMHR/ASPC horses but rather 2(Was 3) AMHR _only_ B ponies(of the five I own). I do not breed, but have sent mares out in an attempt to have them bred. One was an A AMHR/AMHA pony bred to an A AMHR only pony. The other is a B AMHR only bred to an AMHR/ASPC pony. Both foals would have been AMHR *only*. To me, that is just fine.






I have been looking for the past few years for my "perfect dream" pony. I have looked at AMHR only ponies, AMHR/AMHA ponies and AMHR/ASPC ponies. I seen many I liked, and I turned down many beautiful ponies because I was look for Mr./Mrs. Right. Papers held little importance to me past AMHR, as that is the only circuit I show.

To some people the words "Shetland miniature" can strike strong emotions. To me, it's just another pony. A good pony is a good pony. Period. I have seen stunning minis do great things in the ring!

As for me, I plan to keep showing and enjoying my AMHR ponies - No matter what other papers they hold!

I hope to see bigger, stronger shows for AMHR. I want to see driving horses with even more movement and grace. I am very excited to see where we are heading! I also feel the the Sweepstakes is a neat idea. Some of the foals in it are AMAZING!!!



I would also like to see AMHR being more open with it members!...

Great post... Thanks!


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 27, 2010)

Until anyone decides that there needs to be a change or decides where this registry is going its going to be a height registry, it has always been a height registry, anyone under 38" can be a miniature horse. Now they made it to where you have to be AMHA, ASPC, or Fabella registered to be hardshipped in, but if you have a grade pony and are under 38" then you have a grade miniature horse. Until we want to focous on becoming a breed, we will always be a height registry. I may get flammed for this but honestly we are in the same league as the color registries. We just have alot more horses registered and shown.

I have seen some organizations where they have added a performance divison in halter for the big ones, can't remeber which ones now, but thats another halter division. Maybe instead of adding a whole new divison perhaps we should take more emphisis on versatility, make it extra special, not just another class.


----------



## midnight star stables (Jul 27, 2010)

JMS Miniatures said:


> Until anyone decides that there needs to be a change or decides where this registry is going its going to be a height registry, it has always been a height registry, anyone under 38" can be a miniature horse. Now they made it to where you have to be AMHA, ASPC, or Fabella registered to be hardshipped in, but if you have a grade pony and are under 38" then you have a grade miniature horse. Until we want to focous on becoming a breed, we will always be a height registry. I may get flammed for this but honestly we are in the same league as the color registries. We just have alot more horses registered and shown.
> 
> I have seen some organizations where they have added a performance divison in halter for the big ones, can't remeber which ones now, but thats another halter division. Maybe instead of adding a whole new divison perhaps we should take more emphisis on versatility, make it extra special, not just another class.


I agree with both statements!



I'd love to see AMHR a "breed" and more emphasis on versatility.






I showed in Versatility this year, and loved it!


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 27, 2010)

Sue_C. said:


> And yet, just here lately on LB there was someone saying they have a Shetland mare by a registered Hackney stallion...who is ALSO, a registered Shetland pony.
> 
> Now I will repeat MY-self...I don't know why it is so difficult for some of you to understand. Some of us just want to keep our miniature horses as they are...with no outcrossing. What would it hurt to make that happen...seriously? For those who WANT to outcross, by all means, "fill your boots", but DON'T take what WE prefer away from us in doing it. Why on earth is it so difficult to consider making divisions...you say you think we NEED outcrossing, fine...I say we don't, but with the different divisions..._just like the breed you want to outcross with_, ALREADY HAS...we can all be happy.


I just got off the phone with Edd Purdue and he told me how the hackney ponies became part of the shetland association. In the mid to late 1960's there was a registry known as "The Americana" which was a cross between a shetland and a hackney pony. This was a very booming registry with shows holding Americana divisions.

Roughly 8 to 10 years later the registry ended. I did not get the reason why, he simply said it ended, but these registered ponies were absorbed into the ASPC registry. So there was no funny business in slipping in the hackney/Americana horses into the registry, they were opening welcomed. So the influx of pure hackney ponies were about 40 years ago. And my mare is 17 years old. I do plan on breeding her which would create a 1/4 hackney baby.

So before anyone says that the hackney blood was slipped into the association, they were welcomed.


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 27, 2010)

Tina is correct. I had forgotten about the Americana. In fact, I may have some horses with Americanas in their pedigree as I remember seeing them in research.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 27, 2010)

Crabtree Farm said:


> I just got off the phone with Edd Purdue and he told me how the hackney ponies became part of the shetland association. In the mid to late 1960's there was a registry known as "The Americana" which was a cross between a shetland and a hackney pony. This was a very booming registry with shows holding Americana divisions.
> 
> Roughly 8 to 10 years later the registry ended. I did not get the reason why, he simply said it ended, but these registered ponies were absorbed into the ASPC registry. So there was no funny business in slipping in the hackney/Americana horses into the registry, they were openly welcomed. So the influx of pure hackney ponies were about 40 years ago. And my mare is 17 years old. I do plan on breeding her which would create a 1/4 hackney baby.
> 
> So before anyone says that the hackney blood was slipped into the association, they were welcomed.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 27, 2010)

txminipinto said:


> Tina is correct. I had forgotten about the Americana. In fact, I may have some horses with Americanas in their pedigree as I remember seeing them in research.


So I will also be looking at a Modern Futurity/Sweepstakes baby for 2012. Don't worry I won't slip it in the Classic division,


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 27, 2010)

Crabtree Farm said:


> So I will also be looking at a Modern Futurity/Sweepstakes baby for 2012. Don't worry I won't slip it in the Classic division,


Well, Tina, that would be hard to do! Sweepstakes babies have to be sired by sweepstakes nominated stallions in each division!



But we do have some stallions that do produce both ways nominated in the Classic sweepstakes so it's possible.


----------



## kaykay (Jul 27, 2010)

I have watched these threads for years and honestly they are getting worse and more frequent. Heck I have a blog post on here from at least a year ago addressing this.

When are we all going to learn to come together and stop dividing ourselves? Mini people, pony people, minipony, amha people ughh it goes on and on.

We all love small equine. They all have a place. I love to show and be competitive but is that really all its about? What happened to the joy of being owned by these small guys?

I really hope someday this division ends and we all come together for the good of ASPC/AMHR.

Kay


----------



## Lewella (Jul 27, 2010)

Crabtree Farm said:


> I just got off the phone with Edd Purdue and he told me how the hackney ponies became part of the shetland association. In the mid to late 1960's there was a registry known as "The Americana" which was a cross between a shetland and a hackney pony. This was a very booming registry with shows holding Americana divisions.
> 
> Roughly 8 to 10 years later the registry ended. I did not get the reason why, he simply said it ended, but these registered ponies were absorbed into the ASPC registry. So there was no funny business in slipping in the hackney/Americana horses into the registry, they were opening welcomed. So the influx of pure hackney ponies were about 40 years ago. And my mare is 17 years old. I do plan on breeding her which would create a 1/4 hackney baby.
> 
> So before anyone says that the hackney blood was slipped into the association, they were welcomed.


The Americana's were allowed to breed with registered Shetlands for the "B" pedigree designation starting in the mid 70's and going thru the mid 90's. The ASPC owned Harness Show Pony registry (popular in the 50's and 60's until the pony market crashed - another Hackney/Shetland registry very similar to today's ASPR) was also an accepted "B" outcross as were Hackney and Welsh ponies.

Frankly, at that time the ASPC gene pool needed the influx of new genetics. The pony market crash in the 1960's resulted in the bulk of ASPC bloodlines disappearing from the registry. The registry was recertified around 1970 in order to determine how many ponies were still out there - papers had to be sent back in and a fee paid in order for the pony to remain an ASPC registered Shetland. Many farms did not choose to recertify because their ponies were not worth anything.

Fast forward a couple of years and some of the owners of herds that had not been recertified had the brilliant idea to start a new registry for these no longer registered Shetland ponies, call them Miniature Horses, and measure them in a manner that made them seem shorter. They approached ASPC with the idea and the AMHR was born....


----------



## ohmt (Jul 27, 2010)

Reading back through some of the posts where people say they want AMHR (and AMHA) to become breed registries, I really hope that doesn't happen. I think it's a shame that AMHR closed their books to hardshipping, especially since it is still supposed to be a height registry. If it becomes a breed registry than all horses with AMHR registered parents will have to be eligible to be registered, no matter what size. I think there will be a lot more people breeding for the leggier B sized minis which would inevitably give us more horses going over 38" that will be registered. There will be little to separate the miniatures from shetlands and other pony breeds.

Anyway, I love that there is so much diversity in the miniatures. It shouldn't matter what type of horses are coming into the registries as long as they're not bringing defects and are bringing in some qualities that some breeders like and of course that they are under 38". Yes, SOME breeders. Not everyone has to like the same type-the miniatures are diverse! If you don't like hackney, then don't buy or breed miniatures that have hackney influence. It's simple.

I can't wait to see the miniatures in 10 years!


----------



## horsefeather (Jul 27, 2010)

I must agree with Sue_C...Several years ago there were AMHR shows. Then the shetland folks wanted to add classes for their horses...we added classes. (added classes to show bill) Then we had to divide them up. Foundation, Classic. (added more classes to show bill) Next came the Modern and Modern Pleasure horses. We had to add even MORE classes. Then the National Ponies wanted in. (more classes added to show bill) An AMHR show used to last 1 day. Now our shows, AMHR/ASPC/etc. are lasting 2 or

2 1/2 days, sometimes 3 days. Yep, we added ALL those 'pony' classes for pony people, (even at most shows there are only 1 to 3 ponies in them) but when the suggestion for adding a foundation class for miniatures is proposed.....



that will cause shows to go longer. Hey, here's an idea. Let's have AMHR shows and the ponies can have their own shows



Oops, that won't work, has been tried and not enough ponies made it profitable. The minis (even with their shetland blood) are carrying the ponies. At many shows lots of the miniature classes have been cut out so the pony classes can be added, then you are lucky if 1 pony shows up. I wish I was wise and had the answer, but alas, I'm not. I do know I joined AMHR because I LOVED the B miniature.....just the way it was. And, before anyone passes out at the thought, please believe me when I said earlier I like the foundation and some of the classic shetlands...in fact, have some, so this is NOT meant to be about mini's vs. shetlands!


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 27, 2010)

Crabtree Farm said:


> I just got off the phone with Edd Purdue and he told me how the hackney ponies became part of the shetland association. In the mid to late 1960's there was a registry known as "The Americana" which was a cross between a shetland and a hackney pony. This was a very booming registry with shows holding Americana divisions.
> 
> Roughly 8 to 10 years later the registry ended. I did not get the reason why, he simply said it ended, but these registered ponies were absorbed into the ASPC registry. So there was no funny business in slipping in the hackney/Americana horses into the registry, they were opening welcomed. So the influx of pure hackney ponies were about 40 years ago. And my mare is 17 years old. I do plan on breeding her which would create a 1/4 hackney baby.
> 
> So before anyone says that the hackney blood was slipped into the association, they were welcomed.


Tina you are correct about the Americanna but I advise you to do some more homework.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 27, 2010)

txminipinto said:


> Well, Tina, that would be hard to do! Sweepstakes babies have to be sired by sweepstakes nominated stallions in each division!
> 
> 
> 
> But we do have some stallions that do produce both ways nominated in the Classic sweepstakes so it's possible.


I plan on bidding on both a classic and a modern to have two babies (of course one in each division).


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 27, 2010)

muffntuf said:


> Tina you are correct about the Americanna but I advise you to do some more homework.


I know their paperwork is no longer accepted to become a shetland, but the offspring who has current shetland papers are still good.


----------



## Minimor (Jul 27, 2010)

Lewella--thank you for that post! I'd heard something about a recertification, and that some ponies didn't get put back in at that time, but I didn't know exactly what that meant. Thank you for the explanation!

For those that want a Foundation Mini division (Sue C. for one)-- It’s not that some of us don’t understand where you’re coming from when you say that Minis need to have different divisions—we’re simply saying that we don’t agree, and explaining why not. I’m also pointing out the reason why I think that if the Minis were divided up into various “type” divisions, people still wouldn’t be happy. I get the impression from what some are saying that the biggest reason they want a Foundation type added is to allow them to be competitive with the horses they have. They want to show, and they want to win, and they want to win with the type of horses they have now, they don't want to change to horses that are more the type that is so popular just now....namely "pony type", regardless of whether those horses are truly pony, or just Minis that have the qualities of the ponies. Can't win in the existing classes? Then add a division, that will fix everything. What happens when those people are getting beat in the Foundation Mini division by horses they feel are off type?? Then what division do you come up with next??? I could suggest one, but the name I have for it wouldn't go over well. <VBG>


----------



## Sue_C. (Jul 27, 2010)

I could care less about breed shows, or winning in that form...did my time showing halter horses, and standing on the end of a lead line to me, is only fun until the horse is old enough to ride or drive. I show open, compete with regular ponies etc...and am interested in combined driving, so that has absolutely nothing to do with this at all.

I just think it only fair to retain some of the miniature horses that attracted me to the breed in the first place. Surely I am not the only one who wants a miniature horse, not JUST a smaller shetland/hackney? WHY, just because the "trend setters" want to change their miniatures, should we ALL have to? Why they don't just show their little shetlands, as what they are...I cannot imagine...but show them as minis if you must...just don't expect us to all be happy about it.


----------



## fastrack (Jul 27, 2010)

10 years from now....

>A new show class breed for Shetlands. This one called Miniature Shetlands, carrying all the classes the over 38" Shetlands enter.

>A new size class added. Overs 34-38", Unders30"-34" AND Under 30" called "?". This size class would have their own class for Grands awarded.

>Judges can only be licensed to judge only one registry of horse. Either ASPC, or AMHR, or AMHA. And they must take educational classes, tested annually and be apprenticed for that particular registry's standards before judging. It may not take the politics out of the show ring, but it should take the confusion out of judging. I think its very hard for a judge that judges the multiple ASPC classes to stop looking for huge animated movement in a miniature class. "Hackney-type action would be DQ".

>AMHR Board will consist of equal representation from AMHR only owners, Shetland only owners, and AMHR/Shetland owners.


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 27, 2010)

>AMHR Board will consist of equal representation from AMHR only owners, Shetland only owners, and AMHR/Shetland owners.

There are two other divisions in our Registry - if we want to call for equal representation, the please make sure ASPR and NSPR has equal representation as well.


----------



## Jacki Loomis (Jul 27, 2010)

What is obvious to me from this and other discussions is that some among us are displeased with the current evolution in type of the Miniature Horse and some have suggested a new division "Foundation" as a part of the remedy. We have an example of this in the Shetlands that we can look to and evaluate. We should ask ourselves if the addition of Foundation Shetland classes has increased member's satisfaction with the show experience and if it has translated to increased entries and/or increased value of these ponies?

I don't know the answer to this and I don't show Shetlands so I have no opinion but I would be interested to hear from those who have participated in this class or have experience from the show management side.

We also show pigeons and poultry, the Standard of Perfection for these breeds is very important with most exhibitors being able to recite them word for word and rattle off each point deduction. We have a saying in this type of breeding and showing..."Beyond the Standard" or "Better than the Standard". I know that sounds like a contradiction if we are trying to perfectly match the standard but it does illustrate that evolution is present in all animal showing. Some see this evolution as a good thing and some don't. In pigeon breeding "Beyond the Standard" is most often used as a compliment.

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]


----------



## Minimor (Jul 28, 2010)

> I just think it only fair to retain some of the miniature horses that attracted me to the breed in the first place. Surely I am not the only one who wants a miniature horse, not JUST a smaller shetland/hackney? WHY, just because the "trend setters" want to change their miniatures, should we ALL have to? Why they don't just show their little shetlands, as what they are...I cannot imagine...but show them as minis if you must...just don't expect us to all be happy about it.


Well, regardless of whether or not there is a Foundation division for Miniatures, you and anyone else that wants them can still have the type of Minis you prefer. There are still plenty of them around, and I for one believe there will always be plenty of them around--quite obviously there are people who prefer that sort of a horse, and they will surely continue to breed that kind of a horse, since there will be a demand for them from all those who don't want the Shetland cross ones.

In any breed, no matter what is winning in the show ring, there are always the non-show horses that are available. These may be of the type that is winning in the ring, and they may be a different type--just depends what each breeder prefers. I believe Miniatures will be the same--even if the show ring is full of the long legged, slim bodied, elegant Shetland types, there will be breeders that have the heavier boned, more stocky built Minis. *No one is forcing anyone else to have any particular type of horse. The "old type" Minis won't be denied registration. They won't be denied access to the show ring. Judges won't be prohibited from using them if they choose--and some judges probably will use them, because some judges don't like the slim bodied Minis, they too like the more stocky built ones. *


----------



## Sue_C. (Jul 28, 2010)

Alright then, as the way I have been trying to get my point across isn't working...lets discuss "THE" Standard of Perfection. We do have _one_ in the miniature breed...might not be perfect, but it is there. Now, while you who want to "improve" the breed are busy doing so...just WHICH Standard of Perfection do you suggest be adopted?

You are talking about changing the breed, but the change will not be made with the same TYPE of pony every time...so how can you SAY we don't need divisions, each with it's own standard.







GAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!


----------



## Minimor (Jul 28, 2010)

The current standard of perfection describes a well conformed horse and IMO serves the purpose as well as anything.

More specific standards of perfection serve the purpose so well anyway. Look at the Morgans. They have a written standard, AND they have a woodcut of Justin Morgan--a woodcut that is held out to be the ideal Morgan. There are people that will hold up a Lippitt as an exact replica of that woodcut. Other people will hold up a show type Morgan as exactly matching that woodcut. Then there are the Lamberts.....and the working western bred horses....all of which get touted as being the perfect match for the woodcut. They are 4 very different types--often none of which actually match the woodcut. One standard, different types.


----------



## kaykay (Jul 28, 2010)

> I could care less about breed shows, or winning in that form...did my time showing halter horses, and standing on the end of a lead line to me, is only fun until the horse is old enough to ride or drive. I show open, compete with regular ponies etc...and am interested in combined driving, so that has absolutely nothing to do with this at all.
> I just think it only fair to retain some of the miniature horses that attracted me to the breed in the first place. Surely I am not the only one who wants a miniature horse, not JUST a smaller shetland/hackney? WHY, just because the "trend setters" want to change their miniatures, should we ALL have to? Why they don't just show their little shetlands, as what they are...I cannot imagine...but show them as minis if you must...just don't expect us to all be happy about it.


Sue your post makes no sense. If you dont show in AMHR shows then why would you want to add a division? What would be the point? Regardless of weather there is a mini foundation division (and I am for adding one) If you dont show it wont matter. No one is forcing anyone to breed Shetland back into their miniatures.

Jackie

I do breed and show foundation ponies. I will tell you the foundation pony division is having some issues with off types. So a foundation division is not the end all answer unfortunately





There has been talk of an under under division for classics. Not sure how real it is could just be talk.



> >AMHR Board will consist of equal representation from AMHR only owners, Shetland only owners, and AMHR/Shetland owners.


What people dont realize is much of the board owns both AMHR and ASPC. People also fail to realize how much money those ASPC/AMHR horses bring in. Every time I register a foal I have to pay double fees for the two sets of papers, with all of it going to ASPC/AMHR.

Shows could never afford to hire different sets of judges for each show. That would be a financial disaster to say a show has to have seperate judges for AMHR and ASPC etc. Its hard enough for them to make a profit now.


----------



## Sue_C. (Jul 28, 2010)

> Sue your post makes no sense. If you dont show in AMHR shows then why would you want to add a division? What would be the point? Regardless of weather there is a mini foundation division (and I am for adding one) If you dont show it wont matter. No one is forcing anyone to breed Shetland back into their miniatures.


It MATTERS to me, because I am a miniature horse OWNER...it should not matter at ALL whether I show breed shows or not...it is still the breed of choice for me. This is what irks me to no end...in a lot of posts here. If you don't show this or that, have National titles, etc...etc...then you shouldn't breed, cannot POSSIBLY have good horses...and your opinion just doesn't count. I am willing to bet that the MAJORITY of the miniature horse owners don't show breed shows either, if at all, but our opinions should certainly count as much as those of any other member. A member is one vote...no matter how many horses they own/breed/show, or what shows they choose to frequent.

The division I want...is to keep the breed as it is now, having had no other influence other than the good breeders who have culled and bred the best they could to produce the best we have...and to allow us/them, to continue in THAT vein.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 28, 2010)

There is no set standard for the miniature horses. All it is is that you have to have a good conformed 38" and under horse. Thats it. What can we go by that? Too me with what the judges are picking its leaning more towards the standard of the classic shetlands. If that is what AMHR wants, then pick that as the standard, everyone can get on with there lives, they will choose AMHA or more people will get into AMHR/ASPC. Done, no more guessing, perhaps no more arguments, no more mini vs. shetland. Before making drastic decisions like changing the way we measure our horses, perhaps they should look closer to the standard and decide what route AMHR wants to take.


----------



## Ellen (Jul 28, 2010)

I truly believe that AMHR will continue to grow and change repetedly over the course of the next 10 years. As have the Shetlands and quite frankly all light Horse breeds.

My personal belief is that it may better suit the miniatures to have some type classifications as we do in the ponies. But that JMHO.

I don't see everyone leaving AMHR and going to AMHA, simply because AMHA is not accessable to everyone, certainly not in my area. And I believe that AMHR should leave the books open to keep that from happening.

But I must agree that all of the mini vs pony argument needs to stop. I have raised both, loved both. But prefer the look of the pony. I made the choice to switch in order to saty compettive and I am certain in a few more years I will have other descisions to make. As will we all.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 28, 2010)

Jacki Loomis said:


> What is obvious to me from this and other discussions is that some among us are displeased with the current evolution in type of the Miniature Horse and some have suggested a new division "Foundation" as a part of the remedy.
> 
> Jacki Loomis
> 
> [email protected]


Actually there is another remedy. If the majority chose to do so and a proposal was sent in

*Hardshipping could be closed to ASPC and AMHA *leaving the bloodlines added to improve the breed as many have said is needed and leaving the B only miniatures a place to go and be included in the registry

If a foundation division was added and I am not sure I think that is the answer the result would be simple more people and shows would opt to hold AMHR shows only to ensure things did not run to long. Frankly I would think it would be a better financial decision in most areas but only time would tell.

divisions are added and added often in ASPC why would you punish AMHR saying no new divisions should be added simply cause you already have more horses that show up to a show? That does not seem to make much sense to me but again I am not sure I am for adding a division. I think I would prefer an end to hardshipping over that.

Again even ASPC said enough is enough when it came to adding new and different blood (Hackneys) well other then giving them their own divison but I feel AMHR has the right and ability to also say enough is enough.

Hmm just thinking outload here but since ASPC added ASPR for the Hackney bred ponies to still have a place to go..why is it such a bad thing for AMHR to add a divison for the ASPC/AMHR horses to go?

Maybe that would be the answer and it could be a small divison at first to see how it goes no different then ASPR whenit comes to what is needed for a show to be rated. If there is a huge draw and big classes for all divisions they can then go about adding more splits. That is exactly what ASPC does for their shows and divisions and surely there would be more horses already in AMHR that would qualify for a division split. Maybe the key is not a foundation division but instead a ASPC/R division?


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 28, 2010)

JMS Miniatures said:


> There is no set standard for the miniature horses.


I have to respectfully disagree I used to think the same thing but after attending SEVERAL judging clinics the person running them (teaching the judges) always says there is a standard in minis(as vaugue as it is) and that it is more then size and must be followed.

Kay you are correct about the board so seeing as that is the case I guess it would be no problem at all to ensure there are 8 Shetland seats and 8 mini seats desginated then


----------



## kaykay (Jul 28, 2010)

> It MATTERS to me, because I am a miniature horse OWNER...it should not matter at ALL whether I show breed shows or not...it is still the breed of choice for me. This is what irks me to no end...in a lot of posts here. If you don't show this or that, have National titles, etc...etc...then you shouldn't breed, cannot POSSIBLY have good horses...and your opinion just doesn't count. I am willing to bet that the MAJORITY of the miniature horse owners don't show breed shows either, if at all, but our opinions should certainly count as much as those of any other member. A member is one vote...no matter how many horses they own/breed/show, or what shows they choose to frequent.


Sue that is not at all what I said! Everyones opinion is important weather they show or not or breed or not. As long as you own an AMHR or ASPC horse your opinion matters. I know tons of great horses that are not National Champions. You are confusing two separate issues.

The only reason to add a miniature foundation division would be to add classes to a show. What other reason would there be? Heck you can advertise on your site now that you breed "foundation" miniatures you dont need to add a division to do that. I just dont understand what good adding another division will make if you dont plan on showing in it?


----------



## Lisa Strass (Jul 28, 2010)

Had a nice reply typed up with quotes and stuff, but it disappeared in cyberspace. Grr. Anyway, I think Minimor and Carin have made some very good points in this topic.

I have seen several questions about the Foundation Division in the Shetland division and thought I would add my opinion of this "solution". Obviously, there are two different opinions amongst Shetland owners, but my personal opinion is that the Foundation Division isn't that meaningful. I understand what was trying to be accomplished... but evolution is one of those things that happens. To qualify for the Foundation Division, the horse must be the result of 4 generations of A papered breeding. Thus, as the B papered horses are bred out (since no more outside Hackney breeding is allowed), all future generations of Shetlands will eventually meet the A papered status.

My other problem with the Foundation Division is that while it has a defined type, horses that meet that type, but do not have Foundation Sealed papers are not allowed to show in it. The Foundation Division is now the only division that has restrictions on what the pedigree shows for the show ring... This doesn't always work so well either as last year a Foundation *Congress* Champion was named (and later the title was taken away) that didn't meet the Foundation requirements. (The point here is that it is hard to police this, so expect horses to show in the division that may not qualify.)

Personally, I think we have too many Shetland Divisions, but again, that is just my opinion.


----------



## LaVern (Jul 28, 2010)

I wonder what would happen to the pony club if the old straight miniature cash cow did dry up? We have milked her so hard and neglected to feed and care for her for so long, but maybe we can get a few more drops if we squeeze harder and can come up with new ideas to use her. Or perhaps we can just get us a new cow. That seems to be what we have done in the past.


----------



## sdmini (Jul 28, 2010)

I hate posting to these threads as I am not anti-ASPC. I would absolutely jump on a Rhapsody horse that was the height I like, and of course could afford.



I do however understand the AMHR breeder who wants to keep raising and being competitive with their quality non-ASPC, AMHR horse.



txminipinto said:


> Look at AQHA.


Carin AQHA is NOT a good example to use. Many of the regular Joe's got tired of where the bloated halter horses and the peanut rolling WP was heading and QUIT the show circuit. Here in SD, where we raise some of the best QH in the Nation, AQHA shows are tiny. AQHA is alive and well because of the diversity of the breed and huge number of other non-AQHA events they can do with their horses. Where will the miniature horse go if it's own association denies them recognition?

The ASPC horse that meets the AMHR height requirements should be allowed to be registered and show under the current rules. That is not to say that is what our (AMHR) National Champions should have to look like.

The next ten years, I foresee the ASPC push being the best marketing ploy AMHA has ever had.


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 28, 2010)

sdmini said:


> I hate posting to these threads as I am not anti-ASPC. I would absolutely jump on a Rhapsody horse that was the height I like, and of course could afford.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Marlee,

AQHA is the BEST example of what I'm trying to explain. There are HALTER horses and there are PERFORMANCE horses. Within PERFORMANCE horses with the AQHA (for example), there are WP, EP, Hunt seat, H/J, Ropin', Barrel racing, do I need to continue? Very few HALTER horses can do what the PERFORMANCE horses can do. Very few PERFORMANCE horses can do all the events or more that I listed.

No one is denying the "straight AMHR" horse recognition. What I'm saying is the "breed" is changing, just like every single other breed out there in America. The issue is not that the AMHR only horse can no longer show. The issue is its increasingly becoming non-competitive in the halter arena. And that is due to *re-adding *the CURRENT shetland influence (it's been there all along anyway). I have horses in my barn that fall into this problem area. So I teach them something to do other than put their ears up.

This becomes an issue when people are unwilling to bend and grow with the industry. I, myself, have faced this same problem with my own breeding stock. If you want your straight AMHR minis, FINE! No one is saying you can't. What I'm saying, and what others are saying, is if you want to stay competitive then you have to bend a little.

I have Journals back from the early 90's and even some before the time there was even such a thing as a "mini". The shetlands don't look like anything from the 1960's any more. And the minis from the 90's look nothing like the ones from 2000, 2005, or 2010. You can watch them evolve just by flipping through the pages. This isn't new. It's been happening for decades.


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 28, 2010)

To answer a question on the Foundation Division as I see it. I think it has a place in the ASPC. But I think it needs to come out from underneath the Classic Division supervision and be its own true division.

I think it is a hard division to judge for the reason we see so many foundation sealed Classics showing in the foundation division that it has skewed the foundation division's meaning. I did have one of the clinicians point out to me at Congress last year what a Foundation should look like and now I know. And what I see winning is not IMHO a foundation pony. So I am disappointed. But then I see Modern Pleasures floating down into the Classics and Moderns floating down into the Modern Pleasure classes more and more. To me this is a judge needing to not use those ponies.

Here are my thoughts on a foundation division of AMHR - I think its a good thing. But it can't run like ASPC Foundation for the simple fact that we are talking about body type confirmation more in my opinion. With ASPC Foundation you have a height limit that makes quite a few ineligible to show. You wouldn't have that capability in AMHR.

I take this from my own pasture - I have a lovely 9 year old miniature mare - she used to win in the halter classes when she was two. Now she can't because her body type is that of a quarter horse, not the fine boned tea cups that are winning now. So I don't even try with her anymore. Its not worth my money to put her in a halter class. But if there was a class for halter that fit her body type, I would not hesitate to take her as she is still lovely. But how do you police this - keeping the finer boned tea cups out of the more substance type miniature division that you would create?

I have heard arguments from two sides on the adding more classes - frankly I don't know what to say to our registry members. I am not opposed to adding more classes and being flexible. If a class takes off then great, if it doesn't and no one enters, the show moves on still. Yet we have AMHR Nationals that already runs 2 weeks long. ASPC Congress is 5 days - and IMHO needs to expand to 6 days.

I also think that some classes are more popular in some regions than in others, so you have a regional difference of offerings for classes. My answer to that is what the past 5 years of classes for a show were successful and what the past 5 years of classes people want added to a show. Then make tough decisions.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 28, 2010)

Then Lisa can you please explain to me what is the standard of a miniature horse according to R? What should we try to breed for besides whatever the heck we want besides good conformation?

Also I can see them closing the hardshipping for AMHA and Fabella, but I cannot see that happen for ASPC. Heck there are some breeders who believe they should not have to hardship in there ASPC ponies if they fit in height. If they chose to close the hardshipping to ASPC there would be a uprising and I don't see them allowing it.


----------



## JWC sr. (Jul 28, 2010)

To get back to the question at hand, if folks feel strongly and it is evident that some do then there need to be changes in the structure of the mini's divisions and/or make up of the board etc etc the one way and only one way that something like that happens is to make a proposal, submit it to the registry and then it is voted on by the attending membership at the annual meeting. Unless it is deemed something requiring immediate action where the BOD steps in and makes the decision.





While I personally enjoy seeing everyones ideas and thought on subjects such as this, until enough steam is built behind any particular subject to move it from just rhetoric to a rule or by-law changing proposal things remain the same.





I find it discouraging that some have seen fit to make disparaging remarks about the registry (AMHR and/or ASPC) and its members in general. I am sure we will never all agree on everything right down the line, but that does not make my opinion anymore valuable than someone else's.





This shetland versus mini war that has been going on for several years is very divisive and I sure wish there was someway to respect each others wants and desires known without being offensive to each other. Facts is that we all love small equine, be that shetlands, miniature shetlands or mini's. Breed what you want, show if you want to and remember that this is supposed to be fun for everyone!!





Just my thoughts on the subject and I choose to believe that the vast majority of the members of both registries feel the same way I do. Vaya Con Dios my friends!!!


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 28, 2010)

LaVern I have said that several times in this thread. It is not about what I want or what type I like as frankly I prefer the Shetlands.. but it is about the bottom line dollar the cash cow.. I realize many seem to think the ASPC/AMHR horses are that new cash cow however I am afraid they will see they were wrong and it will be to late. THere is a reason that the minis became as popular as they did once you took Shetland out of the name.. logical reason.. no I do not think so- good reason- no I do not think so but again it doesnt matter the fact is the proof is in the pudding ...or the $$ I guess



> eck there are some breeders who believe they should not have to hardship in there ASPC ponies if they fit in height. If they chose to close the hardshipping to ASPC there would be a uprising and I don't see them allowing it.


Perhaps their would be however remember it is what the MAJORITY votes for and we must remember *if those involved on the mini side chose to truly get involved in the process they would realize how much power they truly have*

* *

* *


----------



## LaVern (Jul 28, 2010)

Lisa I agree with you. I too have nothing against the ponies. It is the way our Straights have been treated and the Straight breeders money has been used to promote our competition. Were you there in Reno when it was flat out said, "We need to take all this miniature money and start using it to promote the ponies."? Well they did.

I also don't think the double thing will be our new cash cow, because I feel that there will be too many like me that will take a little from them, but won't give anything back as far as double registering.

But I fear that we will stray so far from what some love that we will alienate so many and they will leave. But, we can't tell people how to breed.


----------



## Sue_C. (Jul 28, 2010)

> I have Journals back from the early 90's and even some before the time there was even such a thing as a "mini". The shetlands don't look like anything from the 1960's any more. And the minis from the 90's look nothing like the ones from 2000, 2005, or 2010. _You can watch them evolve just by flipping through the pages. This isn't new. It's been happening for decades._


Yeah, funny that...the ASPC needed the Hackney influence to "improve", yet the Miniatures did it ALL ON THEIR OWN... (Granted a VERY FEW shetland and other hardshipped horses, most from AMHA, I'm willing to bet, but not enough to change the breed.)

By the way, in case someone says this is one of the anit-pony posts...I am not against ponies, nope...love them...just don't see the need for an influx of them into the miniature breed. I get so tired of hearing that same old line..."minis are just shetlands, they were the foundation"...get over it...that was like, how MANY YEARS AGO?




Like I said before, try taking a fast running grade mare to the AQHA, and tell them you want it registered because it can do a fast 1/4 mile. Good luck with that...

While on the AQHA line...it has been mentioned favourably, how their two types have "evolved" into two distinct types. That was a bad choice...that breed has almost destroyed itself with all the in-breeding it took to produce those types. I consider the AQHA to have DE-volved...


----------



## ohmt (Jul 28, 2010)

SueC, quarter horses are a breed registry, miniatures are a height registry. Very different. Also, if the shetland influence was so many years ago, then your whole argument on this thread about the shetlands influencing the minis now is also invalid right?

The minis have not changed all on their own. Not at all. It hasn't been that long since amhr closed their books and amha still alows hardshipping-til 2012 I believe. I have hardshipped quite a few horses myself and I know others have hardshipped many many horses. The minis get a lot of new blood coming in.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 28, 2010)

Another thing that bothers me about this thread is adding another divison makes it where every horse can win a ribbion at Nationals, make it fair for everybody. This post hasn't been meant to be onesided on showing. It has also been about breeding, and everyones breeding programs. Some have said its simple, if you want to be competitive in the ring then buy and go along with the competition. That might be all in good when it comes to showing. But what about the breeding programs? What happens to those unwanted miniatures cause they don't fit the bill anymore when it comes to showing cause they don't have the shetland look or papers.

Yes there will be people wanting the miniatures, but how much of a $ figure. As cheap as you can get? Many people out there cannot afford to change there breeding programs. We also cannot throw out our miniature horses. Yes I agree that we should always improve the breed, but yet can we not do that without the shetland influence? I believe we can.


----------



## midnight star stables (Jul 28, 2010)

sdmini said:


> The ASPC horse that meets the AMHR height requirements should be allowed to be registered and show under the current rules. That is not to say that is what our (AMHR) National Champions should have to look like.
> 
> The next ten years, *I foresee the ASPC push being the best marketing ploy AMHA has ever had*.


I see it the exact opposite.



I see the mini A size ASPC ponies being VERY popular, both in and out of the AMHA ring. I'm going to list some horses that are currently(or soon to be) AMHR/AMHA/ASPC and this is only a handful of what is out there!

Rhapsodys Latin Tango

D&S Peeping Tom

D&S The Die is Cast

D&S Fast Break

Graham's Ragtime

Grahams Moonlit Tango

Graham's Hula Girl At Heart

Kewpie's Paposa of Arenosa

Buckeye WCF Paposo Mirror Image

Buckeye WCF Classical Jalapeno

Sundance LB Assured

Sundance LB Lexus

Sundance LB Que-Tee

SMO Bolero de Suerte

SMO Adriana de Suerte

AE Destiny's Darling

THR's A Promise Kept

Ten Ls Tigers Legacy

McCarthys Miss Kitty





Michigan's Silver Streak

Michigan's Kiss of Hershey

Michigan’s Blue Plate Special(A size AMHR/ASPC)

Michigan's Little Sharp Image(A size AMHR/ASPC)

Michigan's Struttin' Stuff(A size AMHR/ASPC)

Filipowicz Miss Jo Co(A size AMHR/ASPC)

Filipowicz Folk Lore*I'm sure I spelled that one wrong*(A size AMHR/ASPC)

There are far more AMHA shetlands then AMHR Hackenys out there, from what I can tell. And I really don't get the "Hackney" issue.



"Hackney" bred anything(Shetlands, minis, road ponies, etc.) are made for DRIVING. And in the AMHR world they will show and WIN in only really three or four classes - Open Pleasure, Park Harness, Roadster and Liberty. So what? Moderns are usually pretty ugly, and would likely not do well in halter. I don't understand how a handful of horses in the Over division in four main classes is going to KILL our breed. Please, someone how this can be so bad? There will still be Country driving and Western.

I see it as evolution of the breed. Some of the A size miniatures are HUGE movers, and drooled over by many. Why is having a HUGE moving B miniature so bad? And I feel if you cross one of those "high stepping Hackneys" to a normal gaited miniature, the cross will allow for a foal with beautiful movement, that is both long and floating in stride but also has some lift. Just like technology, horses change with the times.

As far as I can see, in _any_ breed, there are "two _types_": *The show horse and the pet*. Both have a HUGE market. Why can't it be left at that?

My family owns both. We have a back yard, grade QH and a wonderful, quiet Canadian warmblood that we have for riding for our enjoyment. My mother also has a very well bred, expensive Dutch warmblood, which is her Show horse. The Dutch horse is much "more" in all ways, and so he should be - he's bred to be that way!





We can take our Pet horses to local club and open shows and do very well. Would they place as well against the "big boys"? Well no, that why we have a Show horse. LOL To me it is kind of that simple.

By the way, I don't mean to offend anyone with the word "pet"... It was the only would I could think of.

MountainMeadows - Stacy, I have drooled over Prince for years. IMO, he should be the standard of perfection as his conformation is flawless to me. He has a stunning trot and I adore him. That said, you continue to amaze me, not only as a breeder but as a figure head of our breed. To take a horse like Prince and to find areas to improve is wonderful.



To not be barn blind, especially with such a great horse, is a valued quality.



I only wish there were more breeders with such values. Prince is one of my very favorite A size miniatures



But you already know that. I also agree with you with the AMHR x AMHR/ASPC crosses... There are some stunning horses coming from this!

JMS Miniatures, reading your post is sad, as I can see where you are coming from. My reply to you is mixed. I do not believe in tossing someone aside. Yes there are still some driving and performance classes you can always enter, but the halter classes do have a strong classic shetland look to them right now. I like a good horse, no matter the papers(other then AMHR) and as one who wants to cross both AMHR only horses to AMHR/ASPC ones, I am hopeful that the R only B miniature will always have a home. There are some stunning horses out there, not all of them have ASPC papers, and I think that is important to remember.

So just my two cents. Personlally I don'tmind having pet and show horses... I love them all


----------



## Sue_C. (Jul 28, 2010)

> SueC, quarter horses are a breed registry, miniatures are a height registry. Very different. Also, if the shetland influence was so many years ago, then your whole argument on this thread about the shetlands influencing the minis now is also invalid right?


Re: AQHA, I was responding to another poster who used it as an example. But really, what KIND of Registry makes no difference...it was only used as an idea...a comparison.

As for the shetland "influence", you are exactly where I am there. I keep hearing about it...but it WAS so long ago it is, at least IMO, completely moot.



> The minis have not changed all on their own. Not at all. It hasn't been that long since amhr closed their books and amha still alows hardshipping-til 2012 I believe. I have hardshipped quite a few horses myself and I know others have hardshipped many many horses. The minis get a lot of new blood coming in.


There have of course been a bit of new blood brought in, but even most of that, I am sure, has been from AMHA, not so much ASPC...which has been fairly recent, as not a lot of ponies in the past fit under the height requirements. That is one of my points, we have MANAGED to bring in new blood now and then...we have MANAGED to breed mostly from within the breed, we have MANAGED quite WELL in fact...to improve upon what the breed began with for the most part. I do not see the NEED to turn them into what will basically become just another faction of the Shetland breed now that they are so popular.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 28, 2010)

Instead of going after people who breed ASPC/AMHR. The problem people that need to be gone after are the people who breed (as Sara Blue says "everything this side of a jackass") and producing sub quality animals. These are breeders who are not part of the ASPC/AMHR, but have little horses pawning them off as miniatures. They sell to the public who are unaware of what a miniature horses it. Selling with outdated, expired, fake or no papers at all.

This is the problem that needs to be addressed. Look in the bulletins, the newspaper, watch the local saturday night swap meet. Granted some nice stock can be found and does go through for various reasons, there is a lot of small equines that people run through to make a few bucks. But there are a lot of sad little animals that do exist out there.

At least you can be confident that if a breeder is breeding, selling or showing ASPC or AMHR or ASPC/AMHR they at least care about the quality of the animals they raise. The negativity should be channeled towards those making a mockery of the association.


----------



## midnight star stables (Jul 28, 2010)

Sue_C. said:


> There have of course been a bit of new blood brought in, but even most of that, I am sure, has been from AMHA, not so much ASPC...which has been fairly recent, as not a lot of ponies in the past fit under the height requirements. That is one of my points, we have MANAGED to bring in new blood now and then...we have MANAGED to breed mostly from within the breed, we have MANAGED quite WELL in fact...to improve upon what the breed began with for the most part. I do not see the NEED to turn them into what will basically become just another faction of the Shetland breed now that they are so popular.






No flaming.

If you read what was said about "the Americana", the Shetlands did not add Hackneys because they wanted to change Shetlands; but rather took Shetlands and bred them to Hackneys create a new "breed" called the Americana. These Americanas got added to the ASPC when the Americana registry died/ended. So the adding of the Hackney blood was not intended to change the Shetland, hence when they were added, A and B pony papers were created. Does that make more scene?

Also, how old was that Shetland mare on LB? And how big? In order to get a Hackney small enough to be a mini, it has to be bred down a lot. I doubt there will ever be a mini with a sire/dam that is full hackney, or even 1/2. Just thinking out loud here.





And as far a hardshipping in AMHR before it closed; there were many many many grade horses added. Almost every farm I know has a least one hardshipped horse. There are hundreds and hundreds of them out there. I have a friends that hardshipped an A section welsh mare that is making nice babies for her!





And Just wanted to mention Jenga here for a second. AMHR 2008 National Grand Champion Over Stallion who is both AMHR and ASPC. He also won this award 10 years earlier! AMHR 1998 National Grand Champion Over Stallion.



To me, that's a neat mini! There are a number of other AMHR/ASPC horses that have shown in AMHR for many many years. It's not new(And not going back 30 years either), just very very popular now.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 28, 2010)

midnight star stables said:


> No flaming.
> 
> If you read what was said about "the Americana", the Shetlands did not add Hackneys because they wanted to change Shetlands; but rather took Shetlands and bred them to Hackneys create a new "breed" called the Americana. These Americanas got added to the ASPC when the Americana registry died/ended. So the adding of the Hackney blood was not intended to change the Shetland, hence when they were added, A and B pony papers were created. Does that make more scene?
> 
> ...


I own the shetland mare whose sire is 100 percent hackney and shetland papered. She is a full 17 years young. And does not look a day over 7. I will go back and see what the DOB is for her sire.

I believe she is 44/45 with a heel.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 28, 2010)

Crabtree there is a lot of sad little animals out there many small equine and sadly carrying ASPC papers or AMHR papers does not mean they are any better.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 28, 2010)

~Lisa~ said:


> Well that is just not factual..there are several- many- numerous infact ASPC ponies out there who are either full 100 percent hackney or at least 50 percent being sire and/or dam is Hackney - The Americana line I do believe was far from the only line of Shetlands being used and the only reason for using them
> 
> Crabtree there is a lot of sad little animals out there many small equine and sadly carrying ASPC papers or AMHR papers does not mean they are any better.


True, but I won't won't point fingers and tell people what to breed or not breed.


----------



## midnight star stables (Jul 28, 2010)

Hi everyone. Regarding my modern pony history, I will not deny my ignorance on the topic. I was just saying what I understood from this post, sorry if I was mistaken.



I think the moderns are beautiful and I would love to know more...



How is that Hackneys are still used so close in the breeding pool?

And I didn't deny that a Shetland couldn't have full Hackney parents(did not know that is was still possible, but I wasn't denying it.



) I still do believe that it would be hard to get a miniature horse that has a sire/dam that is full hackney, or even 1/2, simply because of the size difference.


----------



## Minimor (Jul 28, 2010)

> Yes I agree that we should always improve the breed, but yet can we not do that without the shetland influence? I believe we can.


Then do it without the shetland influence! I think you can do it without the shetland influence too, and that’s what is lovely about AMHR—there is nothing to stop anyone from doing it that way! Maybe some of those non-shetland influenced programs will produce horses that are superior to the Shetland influenced ones. After all, some of the Shetlands being used in some AMHR breeding programs now are NOT superior individuals, in fact, just the opposite—the sad truth is people are buying and breeding them simply because they do have that 2nd set of papers, and they pay no heed to the actual quality of the pony. So, in some cases the shetland influence may be a very negative thing, and IMO it’s quite possible to have some non-shetlands that are superior to some shetlands.

It is really great that there are some AMHR horses that can hold their own in the “open division” where they are competing against Shetlands—IMO there is far more glory in that than in winning in a new Foundation division where there are restrictions on who can compete against you.

Now—for anyone that believes shetland isn’t required to improve the breed….why then do you want to see a new division that ensures you (or rather the horses you have or the ones that you breed and sell) will have limited competition in the show ring???

Also going back further in this thread, someone, horsefeathers I think, was complaining about Shetland classes being added to shows, and then no ponies, or rather 1 pony, shows up for that show, and the show now runs 2 days because of the ponies. How on earth can a bunch of empty pony classes make a show run longer? We added a whole bunch of pony classes to our shows here, and they are still one day shows. We know we aren’t going to get a big bunch of pony entries, so there is no need to add a day to the show—we make our schedule for a one day show, and those empty pony classes are just class names in the show book—they don’t take up any time at all. If you’ve got two full days of showing and only one pony is entered then I would have to think that it is the Mini classes that are taking up all the time.

The predictions that ASPC/AMHR will die if it gets so there is too much Shetland influence and a lot of Mini people leave. You never know—if the Mini people succeed in booting the ponies out of the registry, perhaps there will be a big bunch of ASPC/AMHR owners/breeders/exhibitors that will throw in the towel on AMHR and turn to ASPC. The pony industry could become much stronger….wouldn’t that be a shocker!

I’m amused by the idea that because back when the pony papers became worthless, and no one wanted to admit that their Miniature Horses were actually Shetlands hiding behind a new name, pony papers should still be worthless now. In all things….fashions, hair styles, whatever, it often seems that old circles around and becomes new again. In that vein, pony papers were once thrown away, now they are starting to be valued again. That seems to be very worrisome for a number of people? Minis have dropped considerably in value, local shows that once were huge are now small or gone completely (thinking of a couple North Dakota shows as a good example of that—Fargo & Valley City once had very big shows, now they don’t exist at all)—perhaps Minis are on a down cycle now just as the ponies once were. I suggest that you cannot even blame ponies for that—the drop in prices was starting about the time I got into Miniatures, and at that time the ASPC/AMHR horses were just barely starting to take off. From what I saw back then, Miniature prices dropped before ASPC/AMHR became the rage. Many, though, would apparently like to make the Shetlands the scapegoat for the drop in value on Miniatures.

Sorry for the long post, I've been at work all day & am just now getting to read all the new posts & catch up on everything!


----------



## Minimor (Jul 28, 2010)

> I get so tired of hearing that same old line..."minis are just shetlands, they were the foundation"...get over it...that was like, how MANY YEARS AGO?


 um, yes, very much like Justin Morgan. Everyone in Morgans is so proud of that one little horse that all their Morgans go back to--the foundation of the Morgan breed--but that was what, 100 or 200 years ago now--wow, that's so far back that he no longer counts as the foundation of the breed, so I guess everyone can scrap that wonderful story? If Shetlands are non-entities in the foundation of the Miniatures, which just started as Miniatures 50 or so years ago there sure isn't anything remarkable any more about any of the horses in the history of the other breeds. Interesting.


----------



## midnight star stables (Jul 28, 2010)

Minimor said:


> Then do it without the shetland influence! I think you can do it without the shetland influence too, and that’s what is lovely about AMHR—there is nothing to stop anyone from doing it that way! Maybe some of those non-shetland influenced programs will produce horses that are superior to the Shetland influenced ones. After all, some of the Shetlands being used in some AMHR breeding programs now are NOT superior individuals, in fact, just the opposite—_*the sad truth is people are buying and breeding them simply because they do have that 2nd set of papers, and they pay no heed to the actual quality of the pony.*_ So, in some cases the shetland influence may be a very negative thing, and IMO it’s quite possible to have some non-shetlands that are superior to some shetlands.


Heh, isn't that similar to some very small AMHA/AMHR horses years ago? AMHR only horses, especial A size ones, were selling for half the price. Sometimes huge prices were paid just because of the two sets of papers. Things do go in cycles.


----------



## Sue_C. (Jul 28, 2010)

> Everyone in Morgans is so proud of that one little horse that all their Morgans go back to--the foundation of the Morgan breed--but that was what, 100 or 200 years ago now--wow, that's so far back that he no longer counts as the foundation of the breed, so I guess everyone can scrap that wonderful story?


The Morgan breed did allow outcrossing...I beleive it was to Saddlebreds? You would be very hard pressed to find a Morgan today that would resemble little Figure...in size, or in type. Too bad, as that was the type I favoured back when I had some.



> I suggest that you cannot even blame ponies for that—the drop in prices was starting about the time I got into Miniatures, and at that time the ASPC/AMHR horses were just barely starting to take off. From what I saw back then, Miniature prices dropped before ASPC/AMHR became the rage. _Many, though, would apparently like to make the Shetlands the scapegoat for the drop in value on Miniatures_.


That's the first I heard of that line of thinking...I think everything has it's ups and downs, just the way of things.


----------



## Getitia (Jul 29, 2010)

What tremendous progress/change has been made over the past 10 years.

I agree with Jackie – the time has come for AMHR to implement DNA and parent qualifying via a long term phased in approach that will minimize economic hardship on its members. The inserting of photos on the registrations has been a huge positive improvement and a progressive step forward – it is now time to take it to the next level in a thoughtful implementation process.

We have a friend who is a poodle fancier – She breeds and shows all three sizes of poodles and is passionate about the breed – The poodle comes in three varieties – the standard, the miniature and the toy. The poodle breed standard for all varieties is the same except for the size. From a progressive viewpoint, when considering the miniature horse – perhaps some thought should be given to considering the possibility of three overall height divisions (with each having the same 2 inch show subgroup that we have now) - small (30 and under), medium (30 to 34), large (34 to 38) or A-B-C whatever the label - may help better serve the needs of all who love the breed – this may also help from a marketing perspective because at the end of the day – each owner, exhibitor, breeder, loves the particular size and type of miniature that they own – which to me is what makes a miniature horse so unique and helps with its wide appeal. Trying to argue which size/type is the best is like trying to argue which religion is the best religion.

So if you want a miniature quarter horse type; check – do you want a miniature Arabian type; check, - how about a miniature appaloosa – check – miniature Belgium – check again and so forth and so on. No one type or size should ever be thrown to the curb by this club or by other club members.

Our farm is located on a main highway and we have many drop in visitors – some with a full size horse background – others with no equine experience – I can share that compared to a 16/17 hand horse – a 36 or 37 inch well balanced miniature horse – LOOKS like a miniature horse to John Q Public. Also consider – people are getting bigger and many full figured people do not want to “drive” a 32 inch miniature - I’ve heard more than one full figured person say they are “more comfortable” driving or even working with a larger miniature – some have shared they want to take their child/grandchildren in the cart too. Researching the reasons behind the increase in the B division ownership popularity may be a great project for the clubs marketing director. The results may be interesting.

I’ve seen every type and size of miniature mentioned above do very well at the Nationals over the past 15 years – but as others have mentioned not all horses can be winning halter horses – nor should the expectation be as such - but they have their special skills and talents that have allowed many to excel in other areas and win National Titles – Driving, showmanship, jumping, liberty, color, obstacle, versatility, to name a few. As the competition continues to increase at the National level (and it will) in each of the divisions – the bar will continue to raise in the fitting, conditioning, presentation and training that will be required to win that blue neck sash. This is a sure bet for the next ten years.

I have many videos of the classes we have competed in at the Nationals over the years – which I consider the best show to attend and observe the best of the best and to benchmark your breeding program – Even looking back just 5 years, I am amazed at the progress made to breed a big horse look in a small equine package in all sizes – Heads are smaller and better balanced to the body, necks are set on higher with more length and thinner throatlatches, better croups and length of hip, a more narrow girth, better movement, bone that balances the horse (not too light nor too heavy) better movement and overall substance ( in all types!). Yes, responsible breeders understand the importance of breeding for the correct disposition as well. Registration paper combinations have nothing whatsoever to do with the above description – amhr – or amha – or amha/amhr – aspc/amhr - there are exceptional animals in each registration category and in each size division – there are also very poor examples.

During the next ten years I hope the club’s leaders practice inclusion for all of the breeds and “sizes” represented by the club, encourage progressive thought, practice critical analysis/review of any and all proposals – both long term, short term and financial, conduct a formal written and/or online survey (fact based) to determine the desires of the majority of the membership and adjust the current processes and programs as needed accordingly to meet both the short term and long term goals that are in the best interest of all represented. I for one am excited about the future.


----------



## allaboutminis (Jul 29, 2010)

I see the AMHR going places in the next 10 years. More beautiful horse coming into the AMHR and ASPC. The more you cross these to the more gorgeous they will be..

I also see a lot of the ones that cause trouble for the registry that will be band. Which is a good thing. We dont need them as the cause problems for everone not only the people that show but the staff too. We all can name, names but I will not do that. We are so quick to point fingers and then turn it around. stuff like this needs to stop. I see weeding the ones out that do cause trouble would be a good thing. I dont think it should matter who you are.

I see alot of clubs coming and more shows which would be a good thing.

No one will agree on everything but we will all have to come together at some point to make things work and keep members in good standing. IF not We will not see these things happen.

this is just my thoughts.


----------



## MountainMeadows (Jul 29, 2010)

Well said Getitia - it is the "blending" that is going to really make the standout horses - by those breeders who are not too blind to see where their horses need improvement - so far, the perfect miniature horse does not exist - some are pretty close but getting CONSISTENCY in that special look is still elusive for most of us - you really need to have a passion for breeding - it is not a fine science - it is being the ultimate critic of your own herd, taking a chance, and then taking another chance, tweeking here, tweeking there - all in the goal of trying to create a horse that fits your dream - for me, it doesn't stop at the foal age - they must continue to be able to bloom thru adulthood and still have that captivating look - in other words: not fall apart, or "grow down" or get thick as they reach maturity -- tough goal, but I feel like we are getting there.

Thankfully with AMHR there is room for all of us to breed whatever size we want - under 30, under 34, over 34 but unter 36, up to 38 - whatever ! ! And there will always be those people who are "hip people", or "neck people" or "head people" or "leg people" - and those people are working on perfecting their particular "hot spot" - for someone like me, who is trying really hard to breed a mini who is under 36 but still looks and moves just like a full size Arab/Morgan it is a difficult goal - scale is scale - and breeding true to scale is really, really hard!

And let's not forget temperament - not going to drag that into this thread - but boy I can tell you that temperament is going to be one of the key reasons that one horse outshines another as we go into the future!

Desiree - thank you for your glowing comments about Prince - he is a pretty cool horse, easy on the eyes, but yes, he can be tweeked also!





Great thread - fun to see where different folks are comming from -- and like Getitia - I am really excited about the future of AMHR - it has the potential to produce some of the most beutiful equines - and in several different sizes!


----------



## gvpalominominis (Jul 29, 2010)

Very well put Getitia! Here here!

I have only been in Miniature Horses for a little over 10 years, but it didn't take me that long to see what I needed to do to breed and produce the type of HORSE "I" wanted to show. It won't happen over night for me, and Stacy and I have had many talks about "blending" and also about having respect for those who wish to continue perfecting horses that are smaller or even 30" and under... if that is what the want to do. We say go for it! We're behind ya! It's just too bad that that feeling isn't always recipricol.

This is my first year of a "blended" foal crop with some of my AMHA/AMHR mares bred to my AMHR/ASPC stallions and I am very pleased so far. My goal height range is 33" - 36" so the horses will range between the under and over categories. But if one of them grows taller than that... I'm okay with that too! A good horse is a good horse...no matter how tall or small they are!

I enjoy showing horses very much and like having a choice of going to either AMHA or AMHR shows - under or over divisions or even showing in ASPC if I have a youngster that shot up quickly in height. I also like the idea that if I have a foal that continues to grow... that given the current registry structures, they still have a registry to belong to...I figure they'll fit somewhere. And yes, by doing so... some of these foals will be AMHR only.... during this transition. = ) I believe AMHA's closing year is 2013 not 2012.

As Getitia said, she's looking forward to the future and so am I. I truly believe that if AMHR follows the words of this wise woman



in 10 years, they could become the largest and strongest registry for small equine! Wouldn't that be great to be a part of?!

I also believe however that first and foremost, AMHR needs to make the measuring location a part of the structure of the horse and continue to educate those who measure and the judges that judge them.


----------



## midnight star stables (Jul 30, 2010)

Beautiful post Getitia!





I just wanted to share some AMHA minis that I feel are comparable to their "Hackney" B miniatures. Just some food for thought.



There are some STUNNING horses here - I mean WOW!











http://www.rogershsr.com/Stallions.htm - Ironically also the owner of RFP 6/8 Time - A mordern mini.





http://www.clokestables.com/

http://mtcminiaturehorses.com/

http://www.srfminis.com/

Also, I find these farms have _extremely_ refined horses, far more then the most of the AMHR/ASPC I've seen. And gosh they are beautiful!

http://www.erlminiatures.com/ourhorses/?c=3

http://allianceminis.com/stallion.htm

There is one other farm.. but I can't find their website...


----------

